Recent Landslides

Landslides
DOI 10.1007/s10346-019-01313-5
Received: 31 August 2019
Accepted: 29 October 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany
part of Springer Nature 2019
Xuanmei Fan I Fan Yang I Srikrishnan Siva Subramanian I Qiang Xu I Zetao Feng I Olga
Mavrouli I Ming Peng I Chaojun Ouyang I John D. Jansen I Runqiu Huang
Prediction of a multi-hazard chain by an integrated
numerical simulation approach: the Baige landslide,
Jinsha River, China

Abstract Successive major landslides during October and Novem-
ber 2018 in Baige village, eastern Tibet, dammed the Jinsha River
on two occasions, and the subsequent dam breaches instigated a
multi-hazard chain that flooded many towns downstream. Analy-
sis of high-resolution aerial images and field investigations un-
veiled three potentially unstable rock mass clusters in the source
area of the landslides, suggesting possible future failures with
potential for river-damming and flooding. In order to evaluate
and understand the disaster chain effect linked to the potentially
unstable rock mass, we systematically studied the multi-hazard
scenarios through an integrated numerical modelling approach.
Our model begins with an evaluation of the probability of land-
slide failure, including runout and river damming, and then ad-
dresses the dam breach and resultant flood—hence simulating
and visualising an entire disaster chain. The model parameters
were calibrated using empirical data from the two Baige landslides.
Then, we predict the future cascading hazards via seven scenarios
according to all possible combinations of potential rock mass
failure. For each scenario, the landslide runouts, dam-breaching,
and flooding are numerically simulated with full consideration of
uncertainties among the model input parameters. The maximum
dam breach flood extent, depth, velocity, and peak arrival time are
predicted at sequential sites downstream. As a first attempt to
simulate the full spectrum of a landslide-induced multi-hazard
chain, our study provides insights and substantiates the value
provided by multi-hazard modelling. The integrated approach
described here can be applied to similar landslide-induced chains
of hazards in other regions.
Keywords Disaster chain . Landslide runout . landslide dam
breach . outburst flood . integrated numerical simulation
Introduction
Catastrophic natural hazards are known to produce a chain of
multi-hazards, whereby one type of hazard triggers a series of
other hazards in succession, resulting in amplification of the
damage in time and space (Carpignano et al. 2009; Fan et al.
2019a). Dealing with multi-hazard chains and preventing the
propagation of secondary catastrophes are very challenging. As
a multi-hazard chain develops, for example, natural dams creat-
ed by catastrophic landsliding can pose a more severe threat than
the initial landslide (Fan et al. 2019b). Landslide dams and
associated dam breach floods are a common phenomenon in
tectonically active settings and have been widely studied in re-
gions, such as Japan (Swanson et al. 1986), Central Asia (Evans
et al. 2011; Strom 2015; Strom and Abdrakhmatov 2018), China
(Chai et al. 1995; Fan et al. 2009), Italy (Casagli and Ermini 1999;
Tacconi Stefanelli et al. 2015), Venezuela (Ferrer 1999), Argentina
(Hermanns et al. 2011), Peru (Tacconi Stefanelli et al. 2018), and
New Zealand (Korup 2005; Wolter et al. 2016). In China, river-
blocking landslides and dam breach floods occur frequently,
especially around the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau due to frequent
earthquakes and deep river-valley incision (Ouimet et al. 2007).
Recent major landslide dam breach floods in this region include
the Diexi landslide dam and subsequent flooding induced by the
1933 Diexi earthquake (Dai et al. 2005), the 2000 Yigong landslide
dam breach flood in Tibet (Delaney and Evans 2015), the
Tangjiashan landslide dam breach flood induced by the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake (Fan et al. 2012), and in 2018 the succes-
sive landslide dams and floods at Baige on the Jinsha River of
eastern Tibet (Fan et al. 2019b).
The Jinsha River basin in China is prone to large-scale
landsliding (Sijing et al. 2000). More than 60 historical
landslide-damming events are known along the mainstream
and tributaries of the Jinsha River (Chai et al. 2000). Successive
landslides on 11 October and 3 November 2018 dammed the
Jinsha River twice and caused catastrophic floods (Fan et al.
2019b). Although the first landslide dam breached naturally, the
second one formed a barrier lake with a volume of ~ 524 million
m3, seriously threatening the lives of people living upstream and
downstream. Despite immediate and prolonged disaster mitiga-
tion measures, natural and manual breaching of the dam caused
floods in the lower reaches of the Jinsha River, inundating > 3400
houses and destroying a 3.5 × 103 km2 area of croplands. More
than 102,000 people were evacuated (Liang et al. 2019; Ouyang
et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019a; Zhang et al. 2019b). According to
field and remote-sensing investigations, there still exists three
large and potentially unstable rock masses at the trailing edge of
the landslide and some major discontinuities (i.e. cracks and
joints) have clearly propagated and enlarged, threatening to
trigger a failure that is likely to block the Jinsha River again,
causing future mayhem (Fan et al. 2019b). Analysing the proba-
bility of a future disaster chain is therefore vital.
Previous studies on landslides, landslide dams, and dam breach
floods have mostly focused on a single type of geomorphic hazard
based on the perspective that different types of disasters are quasi-
independent and the interactions between them can hence be
ignored (Yutao and Shengxie 2009). However, the successive land-
slides, sequential damming, and aftermath flooding in Jinsha River
provide a valuable opportunity to study the causes and effects of
interconnected multi-hazard events. To this end, our study pre-
sents analyses of landsliding, damming, natural dam-breaching,
and flooding, as well as the interactions between each of these
processes by constructing realistic scenarios based on our obser-
vations at Baige. First, we identify the probability of possible future
landslides in Baige by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) survey and

Landslides
 Recent Landslides

Fig. 1 Map showing the location of the Baige landslides. a lake water-depth upstream and b towns affected by flooding downstream (light blue line in the inset marks
the Jinsha river)

by mapping the potentially unstable rock-mass located near the
scarp of the previous failures. Second, we simulate such landslides
after empirical and numerical quantification of the probabilities
and then we evaluate how they will dam the river and how the
breach may develop. Third, we analyse the dam breach flood. Our
approach therefore encompasses an entire disaster chain viewing
its separate interacting parts and its whole. We integrate different
physically based numerical models for simulating different types
of hazards (i.e. FLAC3D and RocPlane for landslide initiation,
MassFlow for landslide runout and damming, DABA for dam
breach, and HEC-RAS for river flooding). This integrated approach
proposed in this study helps to predict the entire disaster chain.
The results provide new insights for modelling the disaster chain
effect and for early warning and risk mitigation in the future.

Fig. 2 Potentially unstable rock mass identified around the source area of Baige landslides. a View along the Jinsha River. b Enlarged view

Landslides
Fig. 3 Flowchart of the integrated numerical modelling approach
The Baige landslides
The successive landslides in Baige occurred on October 11th and
November 3rd 2018, respectively. The event have gained much
attention from the landslide research community and a number
of studies have been reported so far (Fan et al. 2019b; Liang
et al. 2019; Ouyang et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019a; Zhang et al.
2019b). Here, we predict possible future chains of multi-hazards
by modelling the landslides and dam breach at Baige and then
visualise the downstream flooding to Lijian, 600 km down-
stream. The study area is shown in Fig. 1a with the flood
impacted area marked in blue (see Fig. 1b). The landslides
occurred on the right bank of Jinsha River (viewing along the
Landslides
 Recent Landslides
Table 1 Designed scenarios and calculated volumes of possible rock-mass failures the dammed lake began to drain after overtopping. At midnight,
Number Potential unstable area Volume (× 106 m3) the peak water level reached 2918.3 masl (metres above sea
level) and the maximum water storage capacity of the lake was
Scenario 1 A1 7.5
290 million m3. Around 07:00, on October 13, maximum dis-
Scenario 2 A2 2.0 charge from the dam was ~ 10,000 m3/s; by 09:00, the right
Scenario 3 A3 2.1 bank of the dam was completely washed away; and by 09:30, the
water level had dropped by 20.3 m, and a discharge channel
Scenario 4 A1 + A2 9.5
with a width of ~ 200 m at the surface and a bottom width of ~
Scenario 5 A1 + A3 9.6 60 m was formed. The natural breach of the first landslide
Scenario 6 A2 + A3 4.1 caused a flood and imposed huge losses on towns downstream.
Some houses, roads, and bridges were damaged, and more than
Scenario 7 A1 + A2 + A3 11.6
20,000 people were immediately evacuated and relocated
temporarily.
The second landslide, a reactivation of the first, occurred on 3
Table 2 Mechanical properties of the rock masses used in FLAC3D November 2018. Some huge blocks of rock at the rear edge of the
Parameter Serpentinite Gneiss landslide were mobilised and entrained along with materials depos-
ited by the first landslide. The landslide deposits from the second
Material bulk density 2400 kg/m3 2700 kg/m3
landslide blocked the natural drainage channel of the first landslide
Friction 25° 30° dam and once again blocked the Jinsha River. The landslide volume
Cohesion 0.25 MPa 0.3 MPa was ~ 3.5 million m3, and the entrainment volume was ~ 8.5 million
m3. The average height of the dam was 50 m higher than the previous
Bulk modulus 2.26 GPa 2.26 GPa
one, and the maximum height was ~ 135 m. The threat from the
Shear modulus 1.1 GPa 1.1 GPa second landslide dam was much higher than the first, as the lake
water-level was continuously increasing and the successive land-
slides caused an increase in the landslide dam height. According to
direction of river flow). The first landslide occurred in the early the safety regulations of the local government, the maximum allowed
morning of 11 October 2018, with a source volume of 23 million storage capacity of reservoirs along the Jinsha River was 1.189 billion
m3. The landslide dam was composed of unstable rock and soil m3. In consideration of this, an artificial spillway was constructed
and was about 1100 m long and 500 m wide along the river and the dam was artificially breached on 12 November. The artificial
valley. The average height of the dam above the original river spillway was 220 m in length, with a maximum width of 42 m, a
water level was 40 m, and the maximum height was 85 m (Fan bottom width of 3 m, and average depth of 11.5 m, with a slope about
et al. 2019b). On 12 October 2018, at about 17:15, the water from 1:1.3. The elevation of the spillway top was 2967 masl. At 13:45 on 13

Table 3 Failure plane geometries and statistical distribution of rock mass parameters used in RocPlane
Parameter Unit A1_1 A1_2 A2 A3
Slope angle Degrees 45 35 42 40
Height m 350 102 140 280
Unit weight MN/m3 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024
Angle of failure plane Degrees 35 26 37 31
Waviness of failure plane Degrees 2 2 2 2
Upper face angle Degrees 25 10 15 25
Bench width No No No No
Friction angle Mean Degrees 25 25 25 25
Distribution Normal Normal Normal Normal
Standard deviation 5 5 5 5
Minimum 15 15 15 15
Maximum 35 35 35 35
Cohesion Mean MPa 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Distribution Normal Normal Normal Normal
Standard deviation 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Minimum 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Maximum 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

Landslides
Table 4 Results of deterministic and probabilistic analyses of rock mass stability
Parameter A1_1 A1_2 A2 A3
Deterministic SF SF SF SF
Water pressure 0% 1.21 2.62 2.33 1.49
10% 1.20 2.61 2.31 1.47
20% 1.16 2.57 2.26 1.41
30% 1.08 2.51 2.17 1.32
40% 0.99 2.43 2.05 1.18
50% 0.86 2.32 1.89 0.999
Probabilistic PF PF PF PF
Water pressure 0% 0.1422 0 0 0.0051
Mean: 10% 0.1612 0 0.0001 0.0073
Distribution: normal
Standard deviation: 3%
Distribution: 15%

November, the water storage of the lake reached 578 million m3 with
a total increase of 64.04 m in water level (see Fig. 1a). Large-scale
flood discharge began at 14:00, and the maximum discharge of ~
31,000 m3/s occurred at 18:00. Given the artificial dam-breaching, a
major flood was expected downstream and > 100,000 people were
evacuated from towns at risk in Sichuan, Tibet, and Yunnan prov-
inces. The flood inundated many houses in the towns of Judian and
Shigu, many roads were blocked, bridges were destroyed, and farm-
lands were flooded.
From the high-resolution UAV images and field investigations
performed by the authors (Fan et al. 2019b), three potentially
dangerous rock masses were identified in the source area of the
landslides (Fig. 2a, b). A preliminary estimate of the total volume
of potentially dangerous rock-mass was ~ 12 million m3 (~ 2
million m3 in the rear A2, 2.1 million m3 in the left A3, and 7.5
million m3 in the right A1). In the case of this rock-mass mobilising
and blocking the river, the lives and property of tens of thousands
of people will be once again threatened.

Fig. 4 Changes in topographic elevation measured through DEMs obtained before and after Baige landslides . a Landslide on 11 October 2018. b Landslide on 3
November 2018

Landslides
 Recent Landslides
Table 5 Best-fit model parameters used in the MassFlow simulation for the two Baige landslides
Parameter First event Second event
Topographic mesh resolution 5m 5m
Material bulk density, ρ 2400 kg/m 3
2400 kg/m3
Rheological model Coulomb friction Coulomb friction
Friction coefficient, φ 0.38 0.48
Cohesion, c 25 kPa 25 kPa
Pore water pressure coefficient, μ/σ 0.3 0.3
Time step, Δt ≤ 1 s (dynamic) ≤ 1 s (dynamic)

Data and methods used FLAC3D and RocPlane tools (Lorig and Varona 2000; Eberhardt
In this study, we integrate different numerical models to simulate and 2003). For the landslide runout simulation, we adopted the MassFlow
predict the entire disaster chain (Fig. 1). First, to quantify the stability of program developed by Ouyang et al. (2014). The dam breach is simu-
the individual rock masses and to estimate the failure probability, we lated by the DABA program (Chang and Zhang 2010), and the dam

Fig. 5 Calibration of best-fit parameter friction and pore water pressure coefficients against runout distance and landslide deposit thickness for both the first and second
landslides. Blue dots correspond to simulation, red dots match the field observation, thick blue lines are fit and blue shades are error range.

Landslides
Fig. 6 Calibration of parameters of friction and pore water pressure (PWP) coefficients for the first Baige landslide. a Friction coefficient = 0.30. b Friction coefficient =
0.38. c Friction coefficient = 0.6. d Pore water pressure = 0.2. e Pore water pressure = 0.3. f Pore water pressure = 0.4
breach induced flood is simulated by the HEC-RAS program (Brunner
1995; Brunner 2002). Our four-step methodology is shown in Fig. 3. Data
preparation and model calibration from previous failures are completed
in step 1. Anticipated disaster scenarios are designed, and landslide
initiation and runout modelling are completed in step 2. Dam breach
and consequent flooding are simulated, respectively, in step 3 and step 4.
Initially, the geotechnical parameters needed for the landslide runout
model were calibrated via back calculation from the two Baige landslide
events using the MassFlow program. The parameters of the dam breach
model and the flood model are calibrated according to the measured
peak discharge, peak arrival time, and final flood area recorded by the
hydrological station located downstream.
Three potentially unstable rock-mass zones were identified
based on detailed topographic mapping, analyses of deforma-
tion history, and characteristics of surface-exposed macro-
cracks. All these potentially unstable rock-mass zones were
assumed to fail by sliding and their runout is simulated using
the MassFlow program. The geotechnical parameters used in
step 2 are the same as the input parameters used in step 1.
According to the characteristics of landslide accumulation and
geometric parameters obtained from step 2, the input of step 3
is extracted and taken forward to the calibrated dam breach
model to predict the dam-breaching processes and the
hydrograph. Finally, in step 4, the hydrograph is input into the
calibrated flood model and the flood area after catastrophic
dam breach is predicted based on the river morphology and
hydraulic data. Thus, a systematic prediction of the entire chain
of multi-hazards, successive landslides, landslide dams, dam
breach, and consequent flood can be visualised.
Anticipated future landslide scenarios
We observed deeply penetrating tension cracks in the back edge of the
landslide scarp. To identify the potentially unstable rock mass, we
Landslides
 Recent Landslides
Fig. 7 Calibration of parameters of friction and pore water pressure (PWP) coefficients for the second Baige landslide. a Friction coefficient = 0.30. b Friction coefficient =
0.48. c Friction coefficient = 0.6. d Pore water pressure = 0.2. e Pore water pressure = 0.3. f Pore water pressure = 0.4
relied on the digital elevation model (DEM) data obtained by the UAV
surveys. The details of the field investigation and remote sensing
surveys were reported in Fan et al. (2019b) and are not repeated here.
The potential landslide areas are divided into three parts as shown in
Fig. 2. Thanks to continuous monitoring of displacement using instru-
ments such as crack gauges, we know that the rock mass is still
deforming and cracks are expanding. In other words, there is a risk
of a landslide at any time (Fan et al. 2019b). The potentially unstable
landslide areas are grouped as A1, A2 and A3, and their respective
volumes are calculated using a 3D-UAV model as shown in Table 1.
Rock mass A1 is further separated into two zones (i.e. A1_1 and A1_2).
The scenarios are designed based on assumed possible failures of A1-
A3 and their combinations. The worst-case scenario is scenario 7 in
which A1-A3 slide simultaneously.
Deterministic analysis of large landslides are often performed
despite the complexities involved. Despite the limitations, for
the purpose of quantifying the stability, we performed a
Landslides
continuum mechanistic slope stability assessment using
FLAC3D (see Supplementary Materials for more information
about the model). Our slope stability assessment employs the
shear strength reduction technique (Lorig and Varona 2000).
For these analyses, we assume homogeneous mechanical prop-
erties of serpentinite (Wang et al. 2019), because all three rock
masses are composed of this lithology (assumed to be similar to
gneiss, as shown in Table 2).
In addition to the three-dimensional numerical simulation
using FLAC3D, we performed a series of deterministic as well
probabilistic analyses of the three rock masses using the
RocPlane tool (Rocscience Inc.). The methods of analysis and
calculation of safety factor (SF) and probability of failure (PF)
follow Hoek and Bray (1981) and Mavrouli et al. (2009). For
these analyses, the rock masses are all assumed to undergo
plane failure with roughly estimated and pre-specified failure
geometries (see Table 3).
Fig. 8 Comparisons between measured landslide thickness and numerically simulated landslide thickness for a October 11 and b November 3 landslides. Left: the
measured landslide thickness; middle: predicted landslide thickness; and right: comparison of landslide accumulation thickness along the Jinsha River
Dynamic modelling of landslides by MassFlow
MassFlow is a two-dimensional dynamic TVD-MacCormack
finite difference solver that uses structured meshes over a var-
iable computational domain based on the principles of contin-
uum mechanics and depth-integrated governing equations for
single-phase flow (Ouyang et al. 2013; Ouyang et al. 2014;
Iverson and Ouyang 2015; Ouyang et al. 2019). Many studies
have used this program to simulate the dynamics of landslides
and debris flows (Ouyang et al. 2015; Ouyang et al. 2017; Scaringi
et al. 2018). For our study, we used the Coulomb friction mate-
rial model, which requires three parameters: total cohesion, a
friction coefficient, and a pore water pressure coefficient. The
mesh size depends on the resolution of the DEM which is set to
5 m. The detailed governing mechanisms of MassFlow, the
modelling procedure, and its limitations are reported by
Ouyang et al. (2013), and model performance evaluations can
be found in Scaringi et al. (2018).
Landslide dam breach process modelling by the DABA model
The DABA model is a physically based dam failure model for the
analysis of landslide dam breaches developed by Chang and Zhang
(2010). The model can consider breach evolution and sediment
erosion and can predict the outflowing flood hydrograph. The
seepage flow of lake water through the dam is simulated by the
hydrodynamic model using the broad-crested weir flow equation.
It is assumed that the cross section of the landslide dam is trap-
ezoidal, and the overall slope is constantly changing. Final dam
breach dimensions, the timing of the breach, and peak flow are
typical model outputs. The model also considers the variation of
soil erodibility with depth. A few studies have used the DABA
model to simulate the dam breach using the Tangjiashan and
Xiaogangjian landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake, with results in good agreement with observations
(Peng and Zhang 2012a; Peng and Zhang 2012b; Peng 2012; Peng
et al. 2014; Shi et al. 2015; Shi et al. 2018). Recently too, Zhang et al.
Landslides
 Recent Landslides
Fig. 9 Velocity during runout of a first landslide and b second landslide travelling downslope towards the Jinsha River at t = 10 s, 20 s, 40 s, 70 s, and 90 s
(2019a) analysed the two Baige landslide dam breach using the
DABA model with satisfactory results.
Dam breach flood modelling
In this study, the one-dimensional hydraulic model developed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-RAS 4.0, was used to simulate the
dam breach induced flood (Brunner 1995; Brunner 2002). This simple
model is preferred over other more complexes approached when
routing the floodwaters over large areas. The governing equations of
the model accord with conservation of energy, mass, and momentum
for steady-state seepage flow. The main inputs include dam breach
parameters, breach time, a breach flow discharge curve, river geometry
parameters, and a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM). HEC-
RAS outputs include flood depth, mean velocity, and energy per section
downstream.
Results
Failure probability analysis of the potentially unstable rock masses
The FLAC3D simulation result shows an overall safety factor (SF)
of 1.22 (see Supplementary Materials). Rock mass A1_1 is found to
be the least stable among the three rock masses. Failure will occur
if further stabilisation measures are not performed. In addition, a
series of deterministic as well as probabilistic analyses using
RocPlane suggest an SF of 1.21 for rock mass A1_1. If water is
assumed to be present inside the tension crack at different
Landslides
percentages (i.e. 10 to 50%), rock mass A1_1 provides the most
threatening condition, with SF ranging from 1.20 to 0.86, respec-
tively. The probabilistic analysis also yields the highest probability
of failure at rock mass A1_1: 0.1622 and 0.1422, with and without
pore water pressure inside the tension crack, respectively (see
Table 4). Based on the above analyses, it is clear that scenarios
listed in Table 1 are all feasible, though scenario 1 has the highest
probability of occurrence.
Model calibration by back calculation of the 2018 successive Baige
landslides
By comparing DEMs obtained before and after the two landslides,
the difference in topographic elevation, the initial sliding position,
thickness of the sliding body, and the accumulation area of both
landslides were determined, respectively (Fig. 4a, b).
According to the field investigation and the analysis of broadband
seismogram monitoring performed by Zhang et al. (2019b), the peak
velocity during runout of the first landslide was recorded at the nearest
seismological station within 100 s. Based on this observation, the
numerical modelling for all the landslides is performed for 100 s and
the numerical time-step is kept at 1 s (t = 1 s). The results were then
compared with the actual thickness and extent of the accumulated
landslide deposit. The best-fit parameters were obtained by
reconstructing the two 2018 landslide events via numerical simulation,
as shown in Table 5. Simulations were performed with a range of
friction coefficient values (0.3 to 0.6) and pore water pressure
Fig. 10 Runout and accumulation at time step, t = 80 s for the 7 studied scenarios
coefficient values (0.3 to 0.6) until the predicted runout distance
matched the observations. The bulk density and cohesion were kept
constant following Wang et al. (2019). Calculations were completed
separately for the first and second landslide events (Fig. 5).
The calibrated friction coefficients for the first and second
landslides were 0.38 and 0.48, respectively. The increase in friction
coefficient for the second landslide occurs because it also
entrained materials deposited by the first landslide. The runout
distance and accumulation thickness of the landslide deposits
predicted from the numerical simulations of the first landslide
are compared with observations in Fig. 6.
For the friction calibration, the pore water pressure coefficient
was kept constant at 0.3 for both the first and second landslides.
For the pore water pressure coefficient, the friction coefficients
were kept constant at 0.38 and 0.48 for the first and second
landslides respectively. The bulk density and the cohesion value
Landslides
 Recent Landslides

Fig. 11 a Velocity-time and kinetic energy-time curves obtained from the numerical simulation and b simulated landslide accumulation thickness for scenarios 1 to
7 (profile taken along the line shown in Fig. 8b)

are also kept constant as 2400 kg/m3 and 25,000 Pa following
previous analysis of the Baige landslides by Wang et al. (2019).
The runout distance and landslide accumulation thickness of the
second landslide event are compared as shown in Fig. 7.
Maximum accumulation thickness of the first landslide was 81.4 m,
and for the second landslide, it was 78.2 m, being higher on the upstream
side relative to the downstream side (Fig. 8a, b). A profile taken along the
river flow direction (Fig. 8) compares observations of the accumulation
area with results of the numerical simulation. The simulations are
shown to be in good agreement with observations.
Landslide velocities simulated for both events are plotted at 10 s
interval in Fig. 9. When t = 90 s, the velocity of the sliding body is less
than 1 m/s (i.e. the sliding body has essentially stopped moving). The
simulation results show that the maximum velocity of the second
landslide is 21.23 m/s at 25 s. After the first landslide, a large volume
of loose material was deposited on the slip surface and accumulation

Table 6 Landslide dam geometries obtained from simulations using MassFlow

Scenarios Dam height Dam width Downstream slope length Downstream slope angle Upstream slope angle
(m) (m) (m) (°) (°)
Scenario 1 60.38 269 207 8.25 6.34
Scenario 2 50.77 200 164 5.92 8.85
Scenario 3 46.38 200 156 6.58 6.38
Scenario 4 70.42 300 210 9.73 7.52
Scenario 5 66.38 300 168 10.12 6.36
Scenario 6 59.91 276 120 13.59 12.26
Scenario 7 73.82 355 300 7.03 7.85

Landslides
Table 7 Properties of landslide dam materials of the upper and lower layers calculation of the second landslide event. Scenario 7 (simultaneous
(Zhang et al. 2019a) failure of all three rock masses) is the most hazardous of all. The
Property Upper layer Lower layer velocities of individual potentially unstable blocks throughout the
runout time of the simulation are shown in Fig. 11a. The results show
Depth (m) 32.5 49
that the maximum thickness of landslide accumulation is 68 m for
Void ratio 0.775 0.6 scenario 7. Scenario 3 creates the thinnest landslide deposit, 30 m (Fig.
Coefficient of uniformity 440 900 11b). From these simulations, it is clear that any of these seven hypo-
thetical scenarios have a high chance of damming the Jinsha River.
Plasticity index, PI (%) – –
Fines content (%) – – Scenario-based dam breach prediction
Friction angle (°) 36 36 The DABA model is used to calculate the hydrograph of the dam
breach under different anticipated scenarios. The landslide dam
Mean particle size, D50 (mm) 10 30
dimensions were determined by the MassFlow simulations (see
Specific gravity 2.7 2.68 Table 6).
The first landslide dam at Baige breached naturally and no
measured records of the flow are available. The second flood
area, and the friction coefficient of the base is larger than that of the discharge from the artificially breached landslide dam in Novem-
first landslide due to its strong resisting effect against the entraining ber 2018 is recorded (Ouyang et al. 2019), and we use that to
process. Because the velocity of motion is slower than that of the first calibrate the DABA model (see Fig. 13). After calibrating the model
landslide and the amount of material was less, the energy was also less. parameters, the same properties were used to predict the
The rock mass deposits from the second landslide were deposited hydrograph of the dam breach under scenarios 1 to 7. In the
above the natural breach channel of the first. Both the first and second scenario simulations, the calibrated parameters are used because
landslides were successfully simulated using the MassFlow program. the rock type, failure mechanism, and runout distance of the
These results are also in agreement with the modelling performed by future anticipated rock masses are believed to be similar to the
Ouyang et al. (2019). second landslide event. Based on our field investigation, the
landslide dam material is mainly composed of sandy soil with a
Scenario-based modelling and prediction of possible future landslides few rock blocks, with properties shown in Table 7. Incorporating
Based on the field investigations and remote-sensing data, the areal the high degree of heterogeneity expected in landslide dam
extents of the potentially unstable area and the depth of the failure materials presents a complicated and challenging modelling
surface were determined. Using the topographic data after the second problem. Here, the landslide dam is assumed to have two layers.
landslide, the landslide runout and accumulation characteristics of the Basal materials will be more compacted than the upper materials,
unstable rock mass are studied following scenarios 1 to 7 (Fig. 10). For and hence, we attribute different properties to these two layers,
these future scenario simulations, the runout was modelled using the accordingly, after Zhang et al. (2019a) (Table 7).
same mechanical parameters calibrated via the second Baige landslide In order to see the effect of any heterogeneity, a simple sensi-
(see Table 5). Field investigations confirmed that large amounts of loose tivity analysis was performed using the DABA model, which con-
material are still present even after the second landslide event. These siders differing soil erodibility (Kd). The model assumes that soil
unstable masses are also made up of the same rock type; thus, it is samples possess a range of grain-size distributions and coefficients
justifiable for the future scenarios to use parameters obtained from back of uniformity (Cu), resulting in differing erodibility (Kd), given as
follows:

K d ¼2007e4:77 C u −0:76 ð1Þ

By changing the erodibility (Kd) of the two dam layers at

Fig. 12 Sensitivity of the erodibility parameter (Kd) assessed for the second Baige
landslide dam breach
different percentages, the variation of the results for the second
Baige landslide was assessed (Fig. 12).
Figure 13 shows the predicted and observed dam breach
hydrographs of the second landslide dam breach (model calibra-
tion) and breaches according to scenarios 1 to 7. The measured
hydrograph (black curve) of the second landslide dam event agrees
well with the simulated hydrograph (dash line). The simulated
peak discharge 31,227 m3/s is within 5% of the observed 31,000
m3/s. Under scenarios 1 to 7, the maximum discharge is obtained
from scenario 7 (24,549 m3/s), and the minimum discharge is from
scenario 3 (6725 m3/s). The breach parameter from the numerical
simulations is summarised in Table 8. All the peak outflows from
scenarios 1 to 7 are lower than the second Baige landslide dam
breach event. To visualise the impact of downstream flooding
under these seven scenarios, we carried the results from the DABA
model over to the flood model.

Landslides
 Recent Landslides

Fig. 13 Flow discharge curve during the dam breach for the seven anticipated disaster scenarios and second landslide dam event

Scenario-based dam breach flood simulation
The peak discharge values obtained from the DABA model were
input to the HEC-RAS model to simulate the impacts of
flooding in the downstream areas. This has been done first for
the second landslide dam breach flooding and then for scenar-
ios 1 to 7. First, the parameters of the HEC-RAS model are
calibrated with the hydrological monitoring data (Table 9).
The flood simulation results correspond well with the measured
data to 300 km downstream. Yet, the Jinsha River extends >
600 km from the Baige landslide. Possibly due to limitations in
the topographic data used to define river geometry, the arrival
time of peak flow in the model differs slightly from the mea-
surement beyond 300 km downstream, but the simulations
overall agree well with observations. Peak flows estimated at
monitoring locations also match well.
The peak flow at the landslide dam after the second landslide
dam breach occurred at 18:00 on 13 November. The numerical
simulations show peak discharge at Yebatan (54 km downstream
of Baige) reaches 28,368 m3/s within 2 h 6 min (± 30 min), falling to
6282 m3/s at Shigu (557 km downstream of Baige) after 42 h 6 min
(± 30 min). In comparison, the hydrological data indicate peak
discharge of 28,300 m3/s after 2 h at Yebatan and 5210 m3/s at Shigu
after 35 h 40 min, respectively. Figure 14 shows the accuracy and
error range in the estimated peak discharge and peak arrival time
of floods at the four hydrological stations.
The calibrated model is used to simulate and predict the peak
flow and arrival time of the flooding at various locations down-
stream based on scenarios 1 to 7 (see Fig. 1 for locations). The
simulation results show that scenario 7 has the largest flood area.
The areal extents of the flooded regions are shown for the second

Table 8 Breaching parameters for scenarios 1 to 7 and the second landslide event using DABA
Simulation Breach channel depth Breach channel top width Breach channel bottom Breach time Peak outflow rate
scenarios (m) (m) width (m) (h) (m3/s)
2nd Event 52.37 254.95 167.06 66.38 31,227.36
Scenario 1 36.52 411.93 350.65 193.88 14,731.43
Scenario 2 30.31 246.38 195.51 125.32 11,661.06
Scenario 3 33.25 384.47 328.67 180.23 6725.30
Scenario 4 43.32 431.47 358.77 307.73 22,424.10
Scenario 5 40.38 460.58 392.81 196.38 18,175.89
Scenario 6 37.00 244.31 182.21 106.92 18,942.27
Scenario 7 44.63 428.49 353.59 176.67 24,549.02

Landslides
Table 9 Simulated and measured flood parameters for areas along Jinsha River after the second landslide dam breach flood
Distance Site Simulated peak Simulated peak arrival Actual peak flow Real peak arrival
(km) flow(m3/s) time (m3/s) time
0 Barrier dam 32,400 13-November-2018 31,000 13-November-2018
17:51 18:00
54 Yebatan hydropower 28,368 13-November-2018 28,300 13-November-2018
station 19:57 20:00
190 Batang hydrologic 19,553 14-November-2018 20,900 14-November-2018
station 1:27 1:40
380 Benzilan hydropower 13,984 14-November-2018 15,700 14-November-2018
station 10:27 13:15
557 Shigu hydrologic station 6282 15-November-2018 5210 15-November-2018
12:57 5:40

landslide dam breach event, scenario 4 and scenario 7 in Fig. 15.
The peak flow of scenario 4 is smaller compared with other
scenarios, and the flood area is the smallest. The flood area of
the second event is between scenarios 4 and 7. The flood simula-
tion results of all scenarios are summarized in Table 10.
During emergencies, the peak discharge from the dam breach
and the arrival time of peak flooding are crucial data to determine
and forecast in advance to mitigate disasters. The forecast of the
arrival time of the peak flood sets the evacuation time for local
people. The peak arrival time (Table 10) can be used to predict
flood overtopping time and flood arrival time in downstream
towns under specified inflow rates. Our simulations predict the
flood arrival time with an uncertainty of ±30 min.
Discussion
There were fortunately no casualties caused by the successive
Baige landslides in 2018. The early warning system ensured safety
during the emergency response operations (Fan et al. 2019b).
Following the second landslide, the flood associated with artificial
breaching imposed severe impacts on many towns downstream
and > 100,000 people were evacuated. Construction of the artifi-
cial spillway to drain the dammed lake was, on the other hand,
inevitable as it posed an extremely threatening situation for the
lives and property of thousands of people downstream. Prompt
action by state authorities no doubt saved many lives, though
property losses were considerable due to the rapid propagation
of multiple hazards over a short span of time. The early warning
system deployed in Baige predicted occurrences of secondary
landslides and averted human losses and monitoring of this site
is ongoing (Fan et al. 2019b). Nevertheless, no early warning
system can as yet predict cascading dam breach hazards and
forecast the areas flooded under a catastrophic breaching scenario.
Further, dam breach models usually lack the data required for
precise analyses, as the internal structure of landslide dams is
revealed only after the breach (Wang et al. 2015; Wang et al.
2016). Fan et al. (2019b) reported geomorphic stability indices for
the Baige landslide dams and successfully predicted the breach
probability. However, until models are capable of predicting with
adequate precision the probability of dam breaching together with
resultant peak flood discharge, their value will be limited. Such
difficulties were met during the emergency response operations
following the Baige landslides. The lessons learned from Baige
underline the necessity of a better understanding of the propaga-
tion of disaster chains in the real world.
To understand the disaster chain and its impacts under differ-
ent scenarios, here we devised a set of numerical modelling ap-
proaches that are easy to apply, although the pre-existing
programs we used each carry their own advantages and limita-
tions. The landslide initiation analyses by FLAC3D and RocPlane
were useful for deterministic and probabilistic assessment of

Fig. 14 Accuracy and error range in the estimated a peak discharge and b peak arrival time of floods at the four hydrological stations located downstream of Baige

Landslides
 Recent Landslides

Fig. 15 Prediction of flooded areas under anticipated disaster scenarios in the towns of a Judian and b Shigu

stability of individual rock masses. The analyses of FLAC3D and
RocPlane are continuum and limit equilibrium based respectively,
whereby a number of simplifications are assumed. Such simplifi-
cations in practice naturally bring some limitations (Cala and
Flisiak 2001). The MassFlow code we used to simulate the land-
slides directly models the runout, whereby a certain volume of
landslide initiation must be specified prior to the simulation. This
is inherent to many landslide runout simulation programs
(Scaringi et al. 2018), the landslide runouts being essentially back
calculations via a range of rheologies (Legros 2002; Beguería et al.
2009; Luna et al. 2010). Here, we preferred the Coulomb friction
material model, which has proved useful in many case studies
(Iverson and Ouyang 2015; Ouyang et al. 2015; Ouyang et al.
2019). Despite the inherent limitations of the landslide runout
modelling, the MassFlow code successfully simulated the Baige
landslides with a considerable level of precision and also proved
to be useful for the anticipated disaster scenario simulations.
Similarly, the DABA model and the HEC-RAS model used for
dam breach and flood simulations, respectively, were found satis-
factory. A key advantage of the modelling codes used here is their
adaptability for diverse input boundary conditions, which allow
the interlinking of one code with another. Overall, our integrated
modelling approach using three different program codes was suc-
cessful and appropriate for modelling the landslide-induced disas-
ter chain effects examined at Baige.
The successive Baige landslide events demonstrate the disaster
amplification effect, that is, the sequential occurrence of one
disaster caused by another—in other words, a multi-hazard

Table 10 Peak discharge and peak arrival time for scenarios 1 to 7 at two sites downstream along the Jinsha River
Simulation scenarios Yebatan hydropower station(54 km) Shigu town (557 km)
Peak discharge(m3/s) Peak arrival time (h) Peak discharge(m3/s) Peak arrival time(h)
Scenario 1 16,828 13-October-2018 15:00±0 : 30 5077 15-October-2018 9:30±0 : 30
Scenario 2 12,189 13-October-2018 13:30±0 : 30 3943 15-October-2018 10:30±0 : 30
Scenario 3 9638 13-October-2018 10:00±0 : 30 3351 15-October-2018 9:00±0 : 30
Scenario 4 24,905 13-October-2018 16:30±0 : 30 6864 15-October-2018 8:00±0 : 30
Scenario 5 20,873 13-October-2018 15:00±0 : 30 5978 15-October-2018 7:30±0 : 30
Scenario 6 18,983 13-October-2018 5:30±0 : 30 5042 15-October-2018 0:30±0 : 30
Scenario 7 26,924 14-October-2018 4:00±0 : 30 7767 15-October-2018 18:00±0 : 30

Landslides
disaster chain. If we were to thoroughly understand the dynamics
of the disaster chain, it might be possible to mitigate the associated
destruction. Before a disaster chain is triggered, the probability of
such occurrences can be forecast so as to reduce casualties and
economic losses. While there is no single program that can simu-
late with precision and predict complex disaster chains (i.e. land-
slides, dam breach, and floods), the integrated numerical
modelling approach outlined here is a notable advance that we
hope will be adopted by state agencies in the near future (Bout and
Jetten 2018; Bout et al. 2018a; Bout et al. 2018b).
Conclusions
The Baige landslides provide an excellent example of a landslide-
induced disaster chain that propagated to far-field areas hundreds
of km downstream of the trigger point. Based upon the numerical
analyses performed in this study, we provide insights to the pro-
cesses and interactions between landslide initiation probability,
landslide runout, dam-breaching, and flood propagation under a
set of hypothetical scenarios representative of steep, landslide-
dominated terrain. The integration of different numerical models
(i.e. MassFlow, DABA, and HEC-RAS) simulated successfully the
events triggered by the two landslides at Baige. The simulation
results are in good agreement with the observations. Using the
well-calibrated integrated model, we attempted to predict the
flood disaster caused by future possible landslides under different
anticipated scenarios. The prediction of dam-breaching and the
consequent flooding downstream can provide invaluable guidance
to assist with the evacuation of local people during emergency
scenarios. An improved fundamental understanding of disaster
chains coupled with refinement of such integrated numerical sim-
ulations promises to alleviate future catastrophic losses of human
and non-human life.
Funding information
This research is financially supported by the National Science
Fund for Outstanding Young Scholars of China (Grant No.
41622206), the Funds for Creative Research Groups of China
(Grant No. 41521002), the Fund for International Cooperation
(NSFC-RCUK_NERC), Resilience to Earthquake-Induced Land-
slide Risk in China (Grant No. 41661134010), and National Key
R&D Program of China (No. 2017YFC1501002).
References
Beguería S, Van Asch TWJ, Malet JP, Gröndahl S (2009) A GIS-based numerical model for
simulating the kinematics of mud and debris flows over complex terrain. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 9:1897–1909
Bout B, Jetten VG (2018) The validity of flow approximations when simulating
catchment-integrated flash floods. J Hydrol 556:674–688
Bout B, Lombardo L, van Westen C and Jetten V (2018a) A new model for integrated
multi-hazard modelling of flooding and mass movements in mountainous watersheds
pp 9172
Bout B, Lombardo L, van Westen CJ, Jetten VG (2018b) Integration of two-phase solid
fluid equations in a catchment model for flashfloods, debris flows and shallow slope
fail ures. E nviron Model S oftw 105:1 –16. h ttp s:/ / doi .org/ 10. 1016/
j.envsoft.2018.03.017
Brunner GW (1995) HEC-RAS river analysis system. Hydraulic reference manual. Version
1.0. Hydrologic Engineering Center Davis CA,
Brunner GW (2002) Hec-ras (river analysis system). ASCE, pp 3782-3787
Cala M and Flisiak J (2001) Slope stability analysis with FLAC and limit equilibrium
methods. FLAC and numerical modeling in geomechanics. Proceedings of the Second
International FLAC Symposium
Carpignano A, Golia E, Di Mauro C, Bouchon S, Nordvik JP (2009) A methodological
approach for the definition of multi-risk maps at regional level: first application. J Risk
Res 12:513–534
Casagli N, Ermini L (1999) Geomorphic analysis of landslide dams in the Northern
Apennine. Trans Jpn Geomorphol 20:219–249
Chai HJ, Liu HC, Zhang ZY (1995) The catalog of Chinese landslide dam events. J Geol
Hazards Environ Preserv 6:1–9
Chai HJ, H-c L, Z-y Z (2000) THE TEMPORAL-SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DAMMING
LANDSLIDES IN CHINA. J Mt Res S 1
Chang DS, Zhang LM (2010) Simulation of the erosion process of landslide dams due to
overtopping considering variations in soil erodibility along depth. Nat Hazards Earth
Syst Sci 10:933–946
Dai FC, Lee CF, Deng JH, Tham LG (2005) The 1786 earthquake-triggered landslide dam
and subsequent dam-break flood on the Dadu River, southwestern China. Geomor-
phology 65:205–221
Delaney KB, Evans SG (2015) The 2000 Yigong landslide (Tibetan Plateau), rockslide-
dammed lake and outburst flood: review, remote sensing analysis, and process
model li ng. Geomorphol ogy 246:377–393. https://doi. org/ 10.1016/
j.geomorph.2015.06.020
Eberhardt E (2003) Rock slope stability analysis - utilization of advanced numerical
techniques. Earth and Ocean sciences at UBC
Evans SG, Hermanns RL, Strom A, Scarascia-Mugnozza G (2011) Natural and artificial
rockslide dams. Springer Science & Business Media
Fan X, Gorum T, van Westen CJ, Xu Q, Tang C, Huang R (2009) Distribution of large
landslides and landslide dams triggered by the Wenchuan earthquake, Sichuan,
China. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, p 2863
Fan X, Tang CX, van Westen CJ, Alkema D (2012) Simulating dam-breach flood scenarios
of the Tangjiashan landslide dam induced by the Wenchuan Earthquake. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 12:3031–3044. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3031-2012
Fan X, Scaringi G, Korup O, West AJ, van Westen CJ, Tanyas H, Hovius N, Hales TC, Jibson
RW, Allstadt KE, Zhang L, Evans SG, Xu C, Li G, Pei X, Xu Q, Huang R (2019a)
Earthquake-induced chains of geologic hazards: patterns, mechanisms, and impacts.
Rev Geophys 0. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000626
Fan X, Xu Q, Alonso-Rodriguez A, Siva Subramanian S, Li W, Zheng G, Dong X, Huang R
(2019b) Successive landsliding and damming of the Jinsha River in eastern Tibet,
China: prime investigation, early warning, and emergency response. Landslides
16:1003–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01159-x
Ferrer C (1999) Represamientos y rupturas de embalses naturales (lagunas de
obstrución) como efectos cosísmicos: Algunos ejemplos en los Andes venezolanos.
Revista Geográfica Venezolana 40:109–121
Hermanns RL, Folguera A, Penna I, Fauqué L, Niedermann S (2011) Landslide dams in
the Central Andes of Argentina (northern Patagonia and the Argentine northwest).
Springer, Natural and artificial rockslide dams, pp 147–176
Hoek, E., & Bray, J. D. (1981). Rock slope engineering. CRC Press
Iverson RM, Ouyang C (2015) Entrainment of bed material by Earth-surface mass flows:
review and reformulation of depth-integrated theory. Rev Geophys 53:27–58
Korup O (2005) Geomorphic imprint of landslides on alpine river systems, southwest
New Zealand. Earth Surf Process Landf 30:783–800
Legros F (2002) The mobility of long-runout landslides. Eng Geol 63:301–331
Liang G, Wang Z, Zhang G, Wu L (2019) Two huge landslides that took place in quick
succession within a month at the same location of Jinsha River. Landslides 16:1059–
1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01165-z
Lorig L, Varona P (2000) Practical slope-stability analysis using finite-difference codes.
Slope stability in surface mining:115–124
Luna BQ, van Westen CJ, Jetten V, Cepeda J, Stumpf A, Malet JP and van Asch TWJ
(2010) A preliminary compilation of calibrated rheological parameters used in
dynamic simulations of landslide run-out. pp 255-260
Mavrouli, O. C., Corominas Dulcet, J., & Wartman, J. (2009). Methodology to evaluate
rock slope stability under seismic conditions at Solà de Santa Coloma. Andorra.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9(6),1763–1773.
Ouimet WB, Whipple KX, Royden LH, Sun Z, Chen Z (2007) The influence of large
landslides on river incision in a transient landscape: eastern margin of the Tibetan
Plateau (Sichuan, China). Geol Soc Am Bull 119:1462–1476
Ouyang C, He S, Xu Q, Luo Y, Zhang W (2013) A MacCormack-TVD finite difference
method to simulate the mass flow in mountainous terrain with variable computa-
tional domain. Computers & Geosciences 52:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cageo.2012.08.024
Landslides
 Recent Landslides
Ouyang C, He S, Xu Q (2014) MacCormack-TVD finite difference solution for dam break Wang L, Wen M, Zhen F (2019) Researches on the Baige landslide at Jinshajiang river,
hydraulics over erodible sediment beds. J Hydraul Eng 141:06014026 Tibet, China. Chin J Geol Hazard Control 30
Ouyang C, He S, Tang C (2015) Numerical analysis of dynamics of debris flow over Wolter A, Gischig V, Stead D, Clague JJ (2016) Investigation of geomorphic and seismic
erodible beds in Wenchuan earthquake-induced area. Eng Geol 194:62–72 effects on the 1959 Madison Canyon, Montana, landslide using an integrated field,
Ouyang C, Zhou K, Xu Q, Yin J, Peng D, Wang D, Li W (2017) Dynamic analysis and engineering geomorphology mapping, and numerical modelling approach. Rock
numerical modeling of the 2015 catastrophic landslide of the construction waste Mech Rock Eng 49:2479–2501
landfill at Guangming, Shenzhen, China. Landslides 14:705–718 Yutao F, Shengxie X (2009) Chain mechanism and optimized control of collapses,
Ouyang C, An H, Zhou S, Wang Z, Su P, Wang D, Cheng D, She J (2019) Insights from the landslides and debris flows. J Catastrophology 3
failure and dynamic characteristics of two sequential landslides at Baige village along Zhang L, Xiao T, He J, Chen C (2019a) Erosion-based analysis of breaching of Baige
the Jinsha River, China. Landslides 16:1397–1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346- landslide dams on the Jinsha River, China, in 2018. Landslides. 16:1965–1979. https://
019-01177-9 doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01247-y
Peng S-H (2012) 1D and 2D numerical modeling for solving dam-break flow problems Zhang Z, He S, Liu W, Liang H, Yan S, Deng Y, Bai X, Chen Z (2019b) Source
using finite volume method. J Appl Math characteristics and dynamics of the October 2018 Baige landslide revealed by
Peng M, Zhang LM (2012a) Breaching parameters of landslide dams. Landslides 9:13–31. broadband seismograms. Landslides 16:777–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-011-0271-y 019-01145-3
Peng M, Zhang LM (2012b) Analysis of human risks due to dam break floods—part 2:
application to Tangjiashan landslide dam failure. Nat Hazards 64:1899–1923
X. Fan ()) : F. Yang ()) : S. Siva Subramanian : Q. Xu : Z. Feng :
Peng M, Zhang LM, Chang DS, Shi ZM (2014) Engineering risk mitigation measures for
J. D. Jansen : R. Huang
the landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Eng Geol 180:68–84
Scaringi G, Fan X, Xu Q, Liu C, Ouyang C, Domènech G, Yang F, Dai L (2018) Some
considerations on the use of numerical methods to simulate past landslides and State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection (SKLGP),
possible new failures: the case of the recent Xinmo landslide (Sichuan, China). Chengdu University of Technology,
Landslides 15:1359–1375 Chengdu, 610059, China
Shi ZM, Guan SG, Peng M, Zhang LM, Zhu Y, Cai QP (2015) Cascading breaching of the Email: fxm_cdut@qq.com
Tangjiashan landslide dam and two smaller downstream landslide dams. Eng Geol Email: youngfann@qq.com
193:445–458
Shi Z-M, Zheng H-C, Yu S-B, Peng M, Jiang T (2018) Application of cfd-dem to investigate O. Mavrouli
seepage characteristics of landslide dam materials. Comput Geotech 101:23–33 Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC),
Sijing W, Guohe L, Qiang Z, Chaoli LAN (2000) Engineering geological study of the active University of Twente,
tectonic region for hydropower development on the Jinsha River, upstream of the Enschede, The Netherlands
Yangtze River. Acta Geol Sin-English Edition 74:353–361
Strom A (2015) Natural river damming: climate-driven or seismically induced phenom- M. Peng
ena: basics for landslide and seismic hazard assessment. Engineering Geology for Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of
Society and Territory-Volume 2, Springer, pp 33-41 Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
Strom A, Abdrakhmatov K (2018) Rockslides and rock avalanches of Central Asia: Tongji University,
distribution, morphology, and internal structure. Elsevier Shanghai, China
Swanson FJ, Oyagi N and Tominaga M (1986) Landslide dams in Japan. Landslide dams:
processes, risk, and mitigation, ASCE, pp 131-145 C. Ouyang
Tacconi Stefanelli C, Catani F, Casagli N (2015) Geomorphological investigations on Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Surface Processes & Institute of Mountain
landslide dams. Geoenvironmental Disasters 2:21 Hazards and Environment (IMHE),
Tacconi Stefanelli C, Vilímek V, Emmer A, Catani F (2018) Morphological analysis and Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS),
features of the landslide dams in the Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Landslides 15:507–521 Chengdu, China
Wang B, Zhang T, Zhou Q, Wu C, Y-l C, Wu P (2015) A case study of the Tangjiashan
landslide dam-break. J Hydrodyn 27:223–233 J. D. Jansen
Wang G, Furuya G, Zhang F, Doi I, Watanabe N, Wakai A, Marui H (2016) Layered internal GFÚ Institute of Geophysics,
structure and breaching risk assessment of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam in Czech Academy of Sciences,
Niigata, Japan. Geomorphology 267:48–58 Prague, Czech Republic

Landslides