SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Journal of Forest Engineering / 2016 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

A Computational Software for PCM Snow Avalanche Model

Abdurrahim AYDİN
Remzi EKER
Pages
11–21
Publication Date
2016-09-09
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that run-out distance decreased when the other parameters were constant with increasing of friction value.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Some numerical methods were applied to PCM snow avalanche model for calculation of avalanche dynamics and the software named NUM-PCM 1.0 was developed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The implemented numerical methods included Euler (1st and 2nd order Taylor Polynomial), Midpoint, Modified Euler, and Runge-Kutta Order Four method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that run-out distance decreased when the other parameters were constant with increasing of friction value.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Avalanche Dynamics · Euler Method · Numerical Approach

Abstract

Some numerical methods were applied to PCM snow avalanche model for calculation of avalanche dynamics and the software named NUM-PCM 1.0 was developed. The implemented numerical methods included Euler (1st and 2nd order Taylor Polynomial), Midpoint, Modified Euler, and Runge-Kutta Order Four method. Once results from numerical calculation were obtained, every approach was compared using NUM-PCM 1.0, Also, friction parameter, mass-to-drag parameter, and delta (horizontal distance) parameter of the model were tested with different scenarios. It was found that run-out distance decreased when the other parameters were constant with increasing of friction value. While mass-to-drag was increasing, velocity of the avalanche was also increasing, although the run-out distances were close to each other. In addition, it was determined that when the horizontal distance exceeds 50 meters, even if the velocity values of avalanche are close in each method, avalanche with high velocity is stopped harshly without reaching the run-out zone.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDİN, A., EKER, R. (2016). A Computational Software for PCM Snow Avalanche Model. European Journal of Forest Engineering, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 11–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/665187

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Ancey, C., 2013. Why don’t avalanche-dynamics models of higher complexity necessarily lead to better predictions?, in International Snow Science Workshop, pp. 611–618,
  2. Grenoble. Barbolini, M., Gruber, U., Keylock, C.J., Naaim, M., Savi, F., 2000. Application of statistical and hydraulic-continuum dense-flow avalanche models to five real European sites. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 31, 133–149.
  3. Bartelt, P., Bühler, Y., Christen, M., Deubelbeiss, Y., Salz, M., Schneider, M., Schumacher, L., 2013. A numerical model for snow avalanches in research and practice, User Manual v1.5 Avalanche. WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF. Borstad, C.P. and McClung, D.M., 2009. Sensitive analyses in snow avalanche dynamics modeling and implications when modeling extreme events. Can. Geotech. J. 46, 1024-1033.
  4. Burden, R. and Faires, J., 1997. Numerical Analysis, 6th Edition New York: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. Christen, M., Bartelt, P., Kowalski, J., 2010. Back calculation of the in den Arelen avalanche with RAMMS: interpretation of model results. Annals of Glaciology 51(54), 161-168.
  5. Christen, M., Bartelt, P., Gruber, U., 2002. AVAL-1D: an avalanche dynamics program for the practice. In Proceedings of International Congress INTERPRAEVENT 2002 in the Pacific Rim, 14–18 October 2002,
  6. Matsumoto, Japan. Tokyo, International Research Society INTERPRAEVENT for the Pacific Rim, 715–725.
  7. Fuchs, S., Bründl, M., Stötter, J., 2004. Development of avalanche risk between 1950 and 2000 in the Municipally of Davos, Switzerland. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 263–275.
  8. Gubler, H.U., 1993. Swiss avalanche-dynamics procedures for dense flow, Avalanches. AlpuG, Dr. H. Gubler, Richtstattweg 2, CH-7270 Davos Platz. Jamieson, B., Margreth, S., Jones, A., 2008. Application and limitations of dynamic models for snow avalanche hazard mapping. International Snow Science Workshop, pg 730-739. Jóhannesson, T., Arnalds, Þ., Tracy, L., 2001. Results of the 2D avalanche model SAMOS for Siglufjörður. Report 01019, Vedurstofa Island. Karagöz, İ., 2001. Digital Analysis and Engineering Applications, Vipaş Publications cop., Bursa. McClung, D. and Schaerer, P., 1993. The Avalanche Handbook. The Mountaineers, Seattle, WA, 271 pp. Mears, A.I., 1992. Snow-avalanche hazard analysis for land-use planning and engineering. Colorado Geological Survey, Bulletin 49, 55 pp. Norem, H., Irgens, F., Schieldrop, B., 1989. Simulation of Snow-Avalanche Flow in Run-Out Zones. Annals of Glaciology, 13,