Figure 4.24 - Model with virtual valves in the extremities of the geometries to simulate the permeability of the mold promoting a more uniformed filling

Optimization of filling systems for low pressure by Flow-3D

Dissertação de Mestrado
Ciclo de Estudos Integrados Conducentes ao
Grau de Mestre em Engenharia Mecânica
Trabalho efectuado sob a orientação do
Doutor Hélder de Jesus Fernades Puga
Professor Doutor José Joaquim Carneiro Barbosa

ABSTRACT

논문의 일부로 튜터 선택 가능성과 해결해야 할 주제가 설정되는 매개변수를 염두에 두고 개발 주제 ‘Flow- 3D ®에 의한 저압 충전 시스템 최적화’가 선택되었습니다. 이를 위해서는 달성해야 할 목표와 이를 달성하기 위한 방법을 정의하는 것이 필요했습니다.

충전 시스템을 시뮬레이션하고 검증할 수 있는 광범위한 소프트웨어에도 불구하고 Flow-3D®는 시장에서 최고의 도구 중 하나로 표시되어 전체 충전 프로세스 및 행동 표현과 관련하여 탁월한 정확도로 시뮬레이션하는 능력을 입증했습니다.

이를 위해 관련 프로세스를 더 잘 이해하고 충진 시스템 시뮬레이션을 위한 탐색적 기반 역할을 하기 위해 이 도구를 탐색하는 것이 중요합니다. 지연 및 재료 낭비에 반영되는 실제적인 측면에서 충전 장치의 치수를 완벽하게 만드는 비용 및 시간 낭비. 이러한 방식으로 저압 주조 공정에서 충진 시스템을 설계하고 물리적 모델을 탐색하여 특성화하는 방법론을 검증하기 위한 것입니다.

이를 위해 다음 주요 단계를 고려하십시오.

시뮬레이션 소프트웨어 Flow 3D® 탐색;
충전 시스템 모델링;
모델의 매개변수를 탐색하여 모델링된 시스템의 시뮬레이션, 검증 및 최적화.

따라서 연구 중인 압력 곡선과 주조 분석에서 가장 관련성이 높은 정보의 최종 마이닝을 검증하기 위한 것입니다.

사용된 압력 곡선은 수집된 문헌과 이전에 수행된 실제 작업을 통해 얻었습니다. 결과를 통해 3단계 압력 곡선이 층류 충진 체계의 의도된 목적과 관련 속도가 0.5 𝑚/𝑠를 초과하지 않는다는 결론을 내릴 수 있었습니다.

충전 수준이 2인 압력 곡선은 0.5 𝑚/𝑠 이상의 속도로 영역을 채우는 더 난류 시스템을 갖습니다. 열전달 매개변수는 이전에 얻은 값이 주물에 대한 소산 거동을 확증하지 않았기 때문에 연구되었습니다.

이러한 방식으로 주조 공정에 더 부합하는 새로운 가치를 얻었습니다. 달성된 결과는 유사한 것으로 나타난 NovaFlow & Solid®에 의해 생성된 결과와 비교되어 시뮬레이션에서 설정된 매개변수를 검증했습니다. Flow 3D®는 주조 부품 시뮬레이션을 위한 강력한 도구로 입증되었습니다.

As part of the dissertation and bearing in mind the parameters in which the possibility of a choice of tutor and the subject to be addressed is established, the subject for development ’Optimization of filling systems for low pressure by Flow 3D ®’ was chosen. For this it was necessary to define the objectives to achieve and the methods to attain them. Despite the wide range of software able to simulate and validate filling systems, Flow 3D® has been shown as one of the best tools in the market, demonstrating its ability to simulate with distinctive accuracy with respect to the entire process of filling and the behavioral representation of the fluid obtained. To this end, it is important to explore this tool for a better understanding of the processes involved and to serve as an exploratory basis for the simulation of filling systems, simulation being one of the great strengths of the current industry due to the need to reduce costs and time waste, in practical terms, that lead to the perfecting of the dimensioning of filling devices, which are reflected in delays and wasted material. In this way it is intended to validate the methodology to design a filling system in lowpressure casting process, exploring their physical models and thus allowing for its characterization. For this, consider the following main phases: The exploration of the simulation software Flow 3D®; modeling of filling systems; simulation, validation and optimization of systems modeled by exploring the parameters of the models. Therefore, it is intended to validate the pressure curves under study and the eventual mining of the most relevant information in a casting analysis. The pressure curves that were used were obtained through the gathered literature and the practical work previously performed. Through the results it was possible to conclude that the pressure curve with 3 levels meets the intended purpose of a laminar filling regime and associated speeds never exceeding 0.5 𝑚/𝑠. The pressure curve with 2 filling levels has a more turbulent system, having filling areas with velocities above 0.5 𝑚/𝑠. The heat transfer parameter was studied due to the values previously obtained didn’t corroborate the behavior of dissipation regarding to the casting. In this way, new values, more in tune with the casting process, were obtained. The achieved results were compared with those generated by NovaFlow & Solid®, which were shown to be similar, validating the parameters established in the simulations. Flow 3D® was proven a powerful tool for the simulation of casting parts.

키워드

저압, Flow 3D®, 시뮬레이션, 파운드리, 압력-시간 관계,Low Pressure, Flow 3D®, Simulation, Foundry, Pressure-time relation

Figure 4.39 - Values of temperature contours using full energy heat transfer parameter for simula — Figure 4.39 – Values of temperature contours using full energy heat transfer parameter for simula

Figure 4.40 – Comparison between software simulations (a) Flow 3D® simulation,
(b) NovaFlow & Solid® simulation — Figure 4.40 – Comparison between software simulations (a) Flow 3D® simulation, (b) NovaFlow & Solid® simulation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] E. Stanley and D. B. Sc, “Fluid Flow Aspects of Solidification Modelling : Simulation
of Low Pressure Die Casting .”
[2] Y. Sahin, “Computer aided foundry die-design,” Metallography, vol. 24, no. 8, pp.
671–679, 2003.
[3] F. Bonollo, J. Urban, B. Bonatto, and M. Botter, “Gravity and low pressure die casting
of aluminium alloys : a technical and economical benchmark,” La Metall. Ital., vol. 97,
no. 6, pp. 23–32, 2005.
[4] P. a and R. R, “Study of the effect of process parameters on the production of a nonsimmetric low pressure die casting part,” La Metall. Ital., pp. 57–63, 2009.
[5] “Fundição em baixa pressão | Aluinfo.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.aluinfo.com.br/novo/materiais/fundicao-em-baixa-pressao. [Accessed: 18-
Sep-2015].
[6] “Low Pressure Sand Casting by Wolverine Bronze.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.wolverinebronze.com/low-pressure-sand-casting.php. [Accessed: 18-Sep2015].
[7] A. Reikher, “Numerical Analysis of Die-Casting Process in Thin Cavities Using
Lubrication Approximation,” no. December, 2012.
[8] P. Fu, A. a. Luo, H. Jiang, L. Peng, Y. Yu, C. Zhai, and A. K. Sachdev, “Low-pressure
die casting of magnesium alloy AM50: Response to process parameters,” J. Mater.
Process. Technol., vol. 205, no. 1–3, pp. 224–234, 2008.
[9] X. Li, Q. Hao, W. Jie, and Y. Zhou, “Development of pressure control system in
counter gravity casting for large thin-walled A357 aluminum alloy components,”
Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 847–851, 2008.
[10] J. a. Hines, “Determination of interfacial heat-transfer boundary conditions in an
aluminum low-pressure permanent mold test casting,” Metall. Mater. Trans. B, vol. 35,
no. 2, pp. 299–311, 2004.
[11] A. Lima, A. Freitas, and P. Magalhães, “Processos de vazamento em moldações
permanentes,” pp. 40–49, 2003.
[12] Y. B. Choi, K. Matsugi, G. Sasaki, K. Arita, and O. Yanagisawa, “Analysis of
Manufacturing Processes for Metal Fiber Reinforced Aluminum Alloy Composite
Fabricated by Low-Pressure Casting,” Mater. Trans., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1227–1231,
68
2006.
[13] G. Mi, X. Liu, K. Wang, and H. Fu, “Numerical simulation of low pressure die-casting
aluminum wheel,” China Foundry, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 48–52, 2009.
[14] J. Kuo, F. Hsu, and W. Hwang, “ADVANCED Development of an interactive
simulation system for the determination of the pressure ± time relationship during the
® lling in a low pressure casting process,” vol. 2, pp. 131–145, 2001.
[15] S.-G. Liu, F.-Y. Cao, X.-Y. Zhao, Y.-D. Jia, Z.-L. Ning, and J.-F. Sun, “Characteristics
of mold filling and entrainment of oxide film in low pressure casting of A356 alloy,”
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, vol. 626, pp. 159–164, 2015.
[16] “Casting Training Class – Lecture 10 – Solidification and Shrinkage-Casting.” FLOW3D®.
[17] “UAB Casting Engineering Laboratory.” [Online]. Available:
file:///C:/Users/Jos%C3%A9 Belo/Desktop/Artigo_Software/UAB Casting
Engineering Laboratory.htm. [Accessed: 09-Nov-2015].
[18] A. Louvo, “Casting Simulation as a Tool in Concurrent Engineering,” pp. 1–12, 1997.
[19] T. R. Vijayaram and P. Piccardo, “Computers in Foundries,” vol. 30, 2012.
[20] M. Sadaiah, D. R. Yadav, P. V. Mohanram, and P. Radhakrishnan, “A generative
computer-aided process planning system for prismatic components,” Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 709–719, 2002.
[21] Ministry_of_Planning, “Digital Data,” vol. 67, pp. 1–6, 2004.
[22] S. Shamasundar, D. Ramachandran, and N. S. Shrinivasan, “COMPUTER
SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENTCASTING PROCESS.”
[23] J. M. Siqueira and G. Motors, “Simulation applied to Aluminum High Pressure Die
Casting,” pp. 1–5, 1998.
[24] C. Fluid, COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS. Abdulnaser Sayma & Ventus
Publishing ApS, 2009.
[25] C. a. Felippa, “1 – Overview,” Adv. Finite Elem. Methods, pp. 1–9.
[26] a. Meena and M. El Mansori, “Correlative thermal methodology for castability
simulation of ductile iron in ADI production,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 212,
no. 11, pp. 2484–2495, 2012.
[27] T. R. Vijayaram, S. Sulaiman, a. M. S. Hamouda, and M. H. M. Ahmad, “Numerical
simulation of casting solidification in permanent metallic molds,” J. Mater. Process.
69
Technol., vol. 178, pp. 29–33, 2006.
[28] “General CFD FAQ — CFD-Wiki, the free CFD reference.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/General_CFD_FAQ. [Accessed: 10-Nov-2015].
[29] “FEM | FEA | CFD.” [Online]. Available: http://fem4analyze.blogspot.pt/. [Accessed:
09-Nov-2015].
[30] “Fundição; revista da Associação portuguesa de fundição,” Fundição, vol. N
o
227.
[31] “Casting Training Class – Lecture 1 – Introduction_to_FLOW-3D – Casting.” FLOW3D®.
[32] F. Science, “FLOW-3D Cast Documentation,” no. 3.5, p. 80, 2012.
[33] “Casting Training Class – Lecture 4 – Geometry Building – General.” FLOW-3D®.
[34] F. Science, “FLOW-3D v11.0.3 User Manual,” pp. 1–132, 2015.
[35] “Casting Training Class – Lecture 5 Meshing Concept – General.” FLOW-3D®.
[36] “Casting Training Class – Lecture 6 – Boundary_Conditions – Casting.” FLOW-3D®.
[37] “Casting Training Class – Lecture 9 – Physical Models-castings.” FLOW-3D®.
[38] P. A. D. Jácome, M. C. Landim, A. Garcia, A. F. Furtado, and I. L. Ferreira, “The
application of computational thermodynamics and a numerical model for the
determination of surface tension and Gibbs–Thomson coefficient of aluminum based
alloys,” Thermochim. Acta, vol. 523, no. 1–2, pp. 142–149, 2011.
[39] J. P. Anson, R. A. L. Drew, and J. E. Gruzleski, “The surface tension of molten
aluminum and Al-Si-Mg alloy under vacuum and hydrogen atmospheres,” Metall.
Mater. Trans. B Process Metall. Mater. Process. Sci., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. XVI–1032,
1999.

원문 보기

3D Flow and Temperature Analysis of Filling a Plutonium Mold

플루토늄 주형 충전의 3D 유동 및 온도 분석

Authors: Orenstein, Nicholas P. [1]

Publication Date:2013-07-24
Research Org.: Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.: DOE/LANL
OSTI Identifier: 1088904
Report Number(s): LA-UR-13-25537
DOE Contract Number: AC52-06NA25396
Resource Type: Technical Report
Country of Publication: United States
Language: English
Subject: Engineering(42); Materials Science(36); Radiation Chemistry, Radiochemistry, & Nuclear Chemistry(38)

Introduction

The plutonium foundry at Los Alamos National Laboratory casts products for various special nuclear applications. However, plutonium’s radioactivity, material properties, and security constraints complicate the ability to perform experimental analysis of mold behavior. The Manufacturing Engineering and Technologies (MET-2) group previously developed a graphite mold to vacuum cast small plutonium disks to be used by the Department of Homeland Security as point sources for radiation sensor testing.

A two-stage pouring basin consisting of a funnel and an angled cavity directs the liquid into a vertical runner. A stack of ten disk castings connect to the runner by horizontal gates. Volumetric flow rates were implemented to limit overflow into the funnel and minimize foundry returns. Models using Flow-3D computational fluid dynamics software are employed here to determine liquid Pu flow paths, optimal pour regimes, temperature changes, and pressure variations.

Setup

Hardcopy drawings provided necessary information to create 3D .stl models for import into Flow-3D (Figs. 1 and 2). The mesh was refined over several iterations to isolate the disk cavities, runner, angled cavity, funnel, and input pour. The final flow and mold-filling simulation utilizes a fine mesh with ~5.5 million total cells. For the temperature study, the mesh contained 1/8 as many cells to reduce computational time and set temperatures to 850 °C for the molten plutonium and 500 °C for the solid graphite mold components (Fig. 3).

Flow-3D solves mass continuity and Navier-Stokes momentum equations over the structured rectangular grid model using finite difference and finite volume numerical algorithms. The solver includes terms in the momentum equation for body and viscous accelerations and uses convective heat transfer.

Simulation settings enabled Flow-3D physics calculations for gravity at 980.665 cm/s 2 in the negative Z direction (top of mold to bottom); viscous, turbulent, incompressible flow using dynamically-computed Renormalized Group Model turbulence calculations and no-slip/partial slip wall shear, and; first order, full energy equation heat transfer.

Mesh boundaries were all set to symmetric boundary conditions except for the Zmin boundary set to outflow and the Zmax boundary set to a volume flow. Vacuum casting conditions and the high reactivity of remaining air molecules with Pu validate the assumption of an initially fluidless void.

Results

The flow follows a unique three-dimensional path. The mold fills upwards with two to three disks receiving fluid in a staggered sequence. Figures 5-9 show how the fluid fills the cavity, and Figure 7 includes the color scale for pressure levels in these four figures. The narrow gate causes a high pressure region which forces the fluid to flow down the cavity centerline.

It proceeds to splash against the far wall and then wrap around the circumference back to the gate (Figs. 5 and 6). Flow in the angled region of the pouring basin cascades over the bottom ledge and attaches to the far wall of the runner, as seen in Figure 7.

This channeling becomes less pronounced as fluid volume levels increase. Finally, two similar but non-uniform depressed regions form about the centerline. These regions fill from their perimeter and bottom until completion (Fig. 8). Such a pattern is counter, for example, to a steady scenario in which a circle of molten Pu encompassing the entire bottom surface rises as a growing cylinder.

Cavity pressure becomes uniform when the cavity is full. Pressure levels build in the rising well section of the runner, where impurities were found to settle in actual casting. Early test simulations optimized the flow as three pours so that the fluid would never overflow to the funnel, the cavities would all fill completely, and small amounts of fluid would remain as foundry returns in the angled cavity.

These rates and durations were translated to the single 2.7s pour at 100 cm 3 per second used here. Figure 9 shows anomalous pressure fluctuations which occurred as the cavities became completely filled. Multiple simulations exhibited a rapid change in pressure from positive to negative and back within the newly-full disk and surrounding, already-full disks.

The time required to completely fill each cavity is plotted in Figure 10. Results show negligible temperature change within the molten Pu during mold filling and, as seen in Figure 11, at fill completion.

Figure 5: Bottom cavity filling
from runner — Figure 5: Bottom cavity filling from runner

Figure 8: Edge detection of cavity fill geometry. Two similar depressed areas form
about the centerline. Top cavity shown; same pressure scale as other figures — Figure 8: Edge detection of cavity fill geometry. Two similar depressed areas form about the centerline. Top cavity shown; same pressure scale as other figures

Figure 10: Cavity fill times,from first fluid contact with pouring basin, Figure 11:Fluid temperature remains essentially constant

Conclusions

Non-uniform cavity filling could cause crystal microstructure irregularities during solidification. However, the small temperature changes seen – due to large differences in specific heat between Pu and graphite – over a relatively short time make such problems unlikely in this case.

In the actual casting, cooling required approximately ten minutes. This large difference in time scales further reduces the chance for temperature effects in such a superheated scenario. Pouring basin emptying decreases pressure at the gate which extends fill time of the top two cavities.

The bottom cavity takes longer to fill because fluid must first enter the runner and fill the well. Fill times continue linearly until the top two cavities. The anomalous pressure fluctuations may be due to physical attempts by the system to reach equilibrium, but they are more likely due to numerical errors in the Flow3D solver.

Unsuccessful tests were performed to remove them by halving fluid viscosity. The fine mesh reduced, but did not eliminate, the extent of the fluctuations. Future work is planned to study induction and heat transfer in the full Pu furnace system, including quantifying temporal lag of the cavity void temperature to the mold wall temperature during pre-heat and comparing heat flux levels between furnace components during cool-down.

Thanks to Doug Kautz for the opportunity to work with MET-2 and for assigning an interesting unclassified project. Additional thanks to Mike Bange for CFD guidance, insight of the project’s history, and draft review.

원본 보기

액체-수소 탱크를 위한 결합된 열역학-유체-역학 솔루션

Coupled thermodynamic-fluid-dynamic solution for a liquid-hydrogen tank

G. D. Grayson

Published Online:23 May 2012 https://doi.org/10.2514/3.26706

Read Now

Tools Share

Introduction

ROPELLANT 열 성층화 및 외부 교란에 대한 유체 역학적 반응은 발사체와 우주선 모두에서 중요합니다. 과거에는 결합된 솔루션을 제공할 수 있는 충분한 계산 기술이 부족하여 이러한 문제를 개별적으로 해결했습니다.1

이로 인해 모델링 기술의 불확실성을 허용하기 위해 큰 안전 계수를 가진 시스템이 과도하게 설계되었습니다. 고중력 환경과 저중력 환경 모두에서 작동하도록 설계된 미래 시스템은 기술적으로나 재정적으로 실현 가능하도록 과잉 설계 및 안전 요소가 덜 필요합니다.

이러한 유체 시스템은 열역학 및 유체 역학이 모두 중요한 환경에서 모델의 기능을 광범위하게 검증한 후에만 고충실도 수치 모델을 기반으로 할 수 있습니다. 상용 컴퓨터 코드 FLOW-3D2는 유체 역학 및 열 모델링 모두에서 가능성을 보여주었으며,1 따라서 열역학-유체-역학 엔지니어링 문제에서 결합된 질량, 운동량 및 에너지 방정식을 푸는 데 적합함을 시사합니다.

발사체의 복잡한 액체 가스 시스템에 대한 포괄적인 솔루션을 달성하기 위한 첫 번째 단계로 액체 유체 역학과 열역학을 통합하는 제안된 상단 단계 액체-수소(Lit) 탱크의 간단한 모델이 여기에 제시됩니다. FLOW-3D FLOW-3D 프로그램은 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory에서 시작되었으며 마커 및 셀 방법에서 파생된 것입니다.3 현재 상태로 가져오기 위해 수년에 걸쳐 광범위한 코드 수정이 이루어졌습니다.2

프로그램은 다음과 같습니다. 일반 Navier-Stokes 방정식을 풀기 위해 수치 근사의 중앙 유한 차분 방법을 사용하는 3차원 유체 역학 솔버입니다. 모멘텀 및 에너지 방정식의 섹션은 특정 응용 프로그램에 따라 활성화 또는 비활성화할 수 있습니다.

코드는 1994년 9월 13일 접수를 인용하기 위해 무액체 표면, 복잡한 용기 기하학, 여러 점성 모델, 표면 장력, 다공성 매체를 통한 흐름 및 응고와 함께 압축성 또는 비압축성 유동 가정을 제공합니다. 1995년 1월 15일에 받은 개정; 1995년 2월 17일 출판 승인.

ROPELLANT thermal stratification and fluid-dynamic response to external disturbances are of concern in both launch vehicles and spacecraft. In the past these problems have been addressed separately for want of sufficient computational technology to provide for coupled solutions.1 This has resulted in overdesigned systems with large safety factors to allow for the uncertainty in modeling techniques. Future systems designed to perform in both highand low-gravity environments will require less overdesign and safety factors to be technically and financially feasible. Such fluid systems can be based on high-fidelity numerical models only after extensive validation of the models’ capabilities in environments where both the thermodynamics and the fluid dynamics are important. The commercial computer code FLOW-3D2 has shown promise in both fluid-dynamic and thermal modeling,1 thus suggesting suitability for solving the coupled mass, momentum, and energy equations in thermodynamic-fluid-dynamic engineering problems. As a first step to achieving a comprehensive solution for complex liquidgas systems in a launch vehicle, a simple model of a proposed upper-stage liquid-hydrogen (Lit) tank incorporating the liquid fluid dynamics and thermodynamics is presented here. FLOW-3D The FLOW-3D program originated at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and is a derivative of the marker-and-cell method.3 Extensive code modifications have been made over the years to bring it to its present state.2 The program is a three-dimensional fluiddynamic solver that uses a central finite-difference method of numerical approximation to solve the general Navier-Stokes equations. Sections of the momentum and energy equations can be enabled or disabled depending on the particular application. The code provides compressible or incompressible flow assumptions with liquid free surfaces, complex container geometries, several viscosity models, surface tension, flow though porous media, and solidification, to cite Received Sept. 13, 1994; revision received Jan. 15, 1995; accepted for publication Feb. 17, 1995. Copyright © 1995 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. *Engineer/Scientist, Propulsion Analysis and Hydraulics, Space Transportation Division, MS 13-3, 5301 Bolsa Avenue. Member AIAA. a few of the possibilities. Further information on FLOW-3D’s capabilities and details of the numerical algorithms can be found in Ref. 2

DOI 바로가기

원문 바로보기

영국 Dawlish의 방파제에 대한 온대 저기압 피해: 목격자 설명, 해수면 분석 및 수치 모델링

Extratropical cyclone damage to the seawall in Dawlish, UK: eyewitness accounts, sea level analysis and numerical modelling

Natural Hazards (2022)Cite this article

152 Accesses
3 Altmetric
Metricsdetails

Abstract

2014년 2월 영국 해협(영국)과 특히 Dawlish에 영향을 미친 온대 저기압 폭풍 사슬은 남서부 지역과 영국의 나머지 지역을 연결하는 주요 철도에 심각한 피해를 입혔습니다.

이 사건으로 라인이 두 달 동안 폐쇄되어 5천만 파운드의 피해와 12억 파운드의 경제적 손실이 발생했습니다. 이 연구에서는 폭풍의 파괴력을 해독하기 위해 목격자 계정을 수집하고 해수면 데이터를 분석하며 수치 모델링을 수행합니다.

우리의 분석에 따르면 이벤트의 재난 관리는 성공적이고 효율적이었으며 폭풍 전과 도중에 인명과 재산을 구하기 위해 즉각적인 조치를 취했습니다. 파도 부이 분석에 따르면 주기가 4–8, 8–12 및 20–25초인 복잡한 삼중 봉우리 바다 상태가 존재하는 반면, 조위계 기록에 따르면 최대 0.8m의 상당한 파도와 최대 1.5m의 파도 성분이 나타났습니다.

이벤트에서 가능한 기여 요인으로 결합된 진폭. 최대 286 KN의 상당한 임펄스 파동이 손상의 시작 원인일 가능성이 가장 높았습니다. 수직 벽의 반사는 파동 진폭의 보강 간섭을 일으켜 파고가 증가하고 최대 16.1m3/s/m(벽의 미터 너비당)의 상당한 오버탑핑을 초래했습니다.

이 정보와 우리의 공학적 판단을 통해 우리는 이 사고 동안 다중 위험 계단식 실패의 가장 가능성 있는 순서는 다음과 같다고 결론을 내립니다. 조적 파괴로 이어지는 파도 충격력, 충전물 손실 및 연속적인 조수에 따른 구조물 파괴.

The February 2014 extratropical cyclonic storm chain, which impacted the English Channel (UK) and Dawlish in particular, caused significant damage to the main railway connecting the south-west region to the rest of the UK. The incident caused the line to be closed for two months, £50 million of damage and an estimated £1.2bn of economic loss. In this study, we collate eyewitness accounts, analyse sea level data and conduct numerical modelling in order to decipher the destructive forces of the storm. Our analysis reveals that the disaster management of the event was successful and efficient with immediate actions taken to save lives and property before and during the storm. Wave buoy analysis showed that a complex triple peak sea state with periods at 4–8, 8–12 and 20–25 s was present, while tide gauge records indicated that significant surge of up to 0.8 m and wave components of up to 1.5 m amplitude combined as likely contributing factors in the event. Significant impulsive wave force of up to 286 KN was the most likely initiating cause of the damage. Reflections off the vertical wall caused constructive interference of the wave amplitudes that led to increased wave height and significant overtopping of up to 16.1 m³/s/m (per metre width of wall). With this information and our engineering judgement, we conclude that the most probable sequence of multi-hazard cascading failure during this incident was: wave impact force leading to masonry failure, loss of infill and failure of the structure following successive tides.

Introduction

The progress of climate change and increasing sea levels has started to have wide ranging effects on critical engineering infrastructure (Shakou et al. 2019). The meteorological effects of increased atmospheric instability linked to warming seas mean we may be experiencing more frequent extreme storm events and more frequent series or chains of events, as well as an increase in the force of these events, a phenomenon called storminess (Mölter et al. 2016; Feser et al. 2014). Features of more extreme weather events in extratropical latitudes (30°–60°, north and south of the equator) include increased gusting winds, more frequent storm squalls, increased prolonged precipitation and rapid changes in atmospheric pressure and more frequent and significant storm surges (Dacre and Pinto 2020). A recent example of these events impacting the UK with simultaneous significant damage to coastal infrastructure was the extratropical cyclonic storm chain of winter 2013/2014 (Masselink et al. 2016; Adams and Heidarzadeh 2021). The cluster of storms had a profound effect on both coastal and inland infrastructure, bringing widespread flooding events and large insurance claims (RMS 2014).

The extreme storms of February 2014, which had a catastrophic effect on the seawall of the south Devon stretch of the UK’s south-west mainline, caused a two-month closure of the line and significant disruption to the local and regional economy (Fig. 1b) (Network Rail 2014; Dawson et al. 2016; Adams and Heidarzadeh 2021). Restoration costs were £35 m, and economic effects to the south-west region of England were estimated up to £1.2bn (Peninsula Rail Taskforce 2016). Adams and Heidarzadeh (2021) investigated the disparate cascading failure mechanisms which played a part in the failure of the railway through Dawlish and attempted to put these in the context of the historical records of infrastructure damage on the line. Subsequent severe storms in 2016 in the region have continued to cause damage and disruption to the line in the years since 2014 (Met Office 2016). Following the events of 2014, Network Rail ^Footnote1 who owns the network has undertaken a resilience study. As a result, it has proposed a £400 m refurbishment of the civil engineering assets that support the railway (Fig. 1) (Network Rail 2014). The new seawall structure (Fig. 1a,c), which is constructed of pre-cast concrete sections, encases the existing Brunel seawall (named after the project lead engineer, Isambard Kingdom Brunel) and has been improved with piled reinforced concrete foundations. It is now over 2 m taller to increase the available crest freeboard and incorporates wave return features to minimise wave overtopping. The project aims to increase both the resilience of the assets to extreme weather events as well as maintain or improve amenity value of the coastline for residents and visitors.

In this work, we return to the Brunel seawall and the damage it sustained during the 2014 storms which affected the assets on the evening of the 4th and daytime of the 5th of February and eventually resulted in a prolonged closure of the line. The motivation for this research is to analyse and model the damage made to the seawall and explain the damage mechanisms in order to improve the resilience of many similar coastal structures in the UK and worldwide. The innovation of this work is the multidisciplinary approach that we take comprising a combination of analysis of eyewitness accounts (social science), sea level and wave data analysis (physical science) as well as numerical modelling and engineering judgement (engineering sciences). We investigate the contemporary wave climate and sea levels by interrogating the real-time tide gauge and wave buoys installed along the south-west coast of the English Channel. We then model a typical masonry seawall (Fig. 2), applying the computational fluid dynamics package FLOW3D-Hydro,^Footnote2 to quantify the magnitude of impact forces that the seawall would have experienced leading to its failure. We triangulate this information to determine the probable sequence of failures that led to the disaster in 2014.

Data and methods

Our data comprise eyewitness accounts, sea level records from coastal tide gauges and offshore wave buoys as well as structural details of the seawall. As for methodology, we analyse eyewitness data, process and investigate sea level records through Fourier transform and conduct numerical simulations using the Flow3D-Hydro package (Flow Science 2022). Details of the data and methodology are provided in the following.

Eyewitness data

The scale of damage to the seawall and its effects led the local community to document the first-hand accounts of those most closely affected by the storms including residents, local businesses, emergency responders, politicians and engineering contractors involved in the post-storm restoration work. These records now form a permanent exhibition in the local museum in Dawlish^Footnote3, and some of these accounts have been transcribed into a DVD account of the disaster (Dawlish Museum 2015). We have gathered data from the Dawlish Museum, national and international news reports, social media tweets and videos. Table 1 provides a summary of the eyewitness accounts. Overall, 26 entries have been collected around the time of the incident. Our analysis of the eyewitness data is provided in the third column of Table 1 and is expanded in Sect. 3.Table 1 Eyewitness accounts of damage to the Dawlish railway due to the February 2014 storm and our interpretations

Full size table

Sea level data and wave environment

Our sea level data are a collection of three tide gauge stations (Newlyn, Devonport and Swanage Pier—Fig. 5a) owned and operated by the UK National Tide and Sea Level Facility^Footnote4 for the Environment Agency and four offshore wave buoys (Dawlish, West Bay, Torbay and Chesil Beach—Fig. 6a). The tide gauge sites are all fitted with POL-EKO (www.pol-eko.com.pl) data loggers. Newlyn has a Munro float gauge with one full tide and one mid-tide pneumatic bubbler system. Devonport has a three-channel data pneumatic bubbler system, and Swanage Pier consists of a pneumatic gauge. Each has a sampling interval of 15 min, except for Swanage Pier which has a sampling interval of 10 min. The tide gauges are located within the port areas, whereas the offshore wave buoys are situated approximately 2—3.3 km from the coast at water depths of 10–15 m. The wave buoys are all Datawell Wavemaker Mk III units^Footnote5 and come with sampling interval of 0.78 s. The buoys have a maximum saturation amplitude of 20.5 m for recording the incident waves which implies that every wave larger than this threshold will be recorded at 20.5 m. The data are provided by the British Oceanographic Data Centre^Footnote6 for tide gauges and the Channel Coastal Observatory^Footnote7 for wave buoys.

Sea level analysis

The sea level data underwent quality control to remove outliers and spikes as well as gaps in data (e.g. Heidarzadeh et al. 2022; Heidarzadeh and Satake 2015). We processed the time series of the sea level data using the Matlab signal processing tool (MathWorks 2018). For calculations of the tidal signals, we applied the tidal package TIDALFIT (Grinsted 2008), which is based on fitting tidal harmonics to the observed sea level data. To calculate the surge signals, we applied a 30-min moving average filter to the de-tided data in order to remove all wind, swell and infra-gravity waves from the time series. Based on the surge analysis and the variations of the surge component before the time period of the incident, an error margin of approximately ± 10 cm is identified for our surge analysis. Spectral analysis of the wave buoy data is performed using the fast Fourier transform (FFT) of Matlab package (Mathworks 2018).

Numerical modelling

Numerical modelling of wave-structure interaction is conducted using the computational fluid dynamics package Flow3D-Hydro version 1.1 (Flow Science 2022). Flow3D-Hydro solves the transient Navier–Stokes equations of conservation of mass and momentum using a finite difference method and on Eulerian and Lagrangian frameworks (Flow Science 2022). The aforementioned governing equations are:

∇.u=0∇.u=0

(1)

∂u∂t+u.∇u=−∇Pρ+υ∇2u+g∂u∂t+u.∇u=−∇Pρ+υ∇2u+g

(2)

where uu is the velocity vector, PP is the pressure, ρρ is the water density, υυ is the kinematic viscosity and gg is the gravitational acceleration. A Fractional Area/Volume Obstacle Representation (FAVOR) is adapted in Flow3D-Hydro, which applies solid boundaries within the Eulerian grid and calculates the fraction of areas and volume in partially blocked volume in order to compute flows on corresponding boundaries (Hirt and Nichols 1981). We validated the numerical modelling through comparing the results with Sainflou’s analytical equation for the design of vertical seawalls (Sainflou 1928; Ackhurst 2020), which is as follows:

pd=ρgHcoshk(d+z)coshkdcosσtpd=ρgHcoshk(d+z)coshkdcosσt

(3)

where pdpd is the hydrodynamic pressure, ρρ is the water density, gg is the gravitational acceleration, HH is the wave height, dd is the water depth, kk is the wavenumber, zz is the difference in still water level and mean water level, σσ is the angular frequency and tt is the time. The Sainflou’s equation (Eq. 3) is used to calculate the dynamic pressure from wave action, which is combined with static pressure on the seawall.

Using Flow3D-Hydro, a model of the Dawlish seawall was made with a computational domain which is 250.0 m in length, 15.0 m in height and 0.375 m in width (Fig. 3a). The computational domain was discretised using a single uniform grid with a mesh size of 0.125 m. The model has a wave boundary at the left side of the domain (x-min), an outflow boundary on the right side (x-max), a symmetry boundary at the bottom (z-min) and a wall boundary at the top (z-max). A wall boundary implies that water or waves are unable to pass through the boundary, whereas a symmetry boundary means that the two edges of the boundary are identical and therefore there is no flow through it. The water is considered incompressible in our model. For volume of fluid advection for the wave boundary (i.e. the left-side boundary) in our simulations, we utilised the “Split Lagrangian Method”, which guarantees the best accuracy (Flow Science, 2022).

The stability of the numerical scheme is controlled and maintained through checking the Courant number (CC) as given in the following:

C=VΔtΔxC=VΔtΔx

(4)

where VV is the velocity of the flow, ΔtΔt is the time step and ΔxΔx is the spatial step (i.e. grid size). For stability and convergence of the numerical simulations, the Courant number must be sufficiently below one (Courant et al. 1928). This is maintained by a careful adjustment of the ΔxΔx and ΔtΔt selections. Flow3D-Hydro applies a dynamic Courant number, meaning the program adjusts the value of time step (ΔtΔt) during the simulations to achieve a balance between accuracy of results and speed of simulation. In our simulation, the time step was in the range ΔtΔt = 0.0051—0.051 s.

In order to achieve the most efficient mesh resolution, we varied cell size for five values of ΔxΔx = 0.1 m, 0.125 m, 0.15 m, 0.175 m and 0.20 m. Simulations were performed for all mesh sizes, and the results were compared in terms of convergence, stability and speed of simulation (Fig. 3). A linear wave with an amplitude of 1.5 m and a period of 6 s was used for these optimisation simulations. We considered wave time histories at two gauges A and B and recorded the waves from simulations using different mesh sizes (Fig. 3). Although the results are close (Fig. 3), some limited deviations are observed for larger mesh sizes of 0.20 m and 0.175 m. We therefore selected mesh size of 0.125 m as the optimum, giving an extra safety margin as a conservative solution.

The pressure from the incident waves on the vertical wall is validated in our model by comparing them with the analytical equation of Sainflou (1928), Eq. (3), which is one of the most common set of equations for design of coastal structures (Fig. 4). The model was tested by running a linear wave of period 6 s and wave amplitude of 1.5 m against the wall, with a still water level of 4.5 m. It can be seen that the model results are very close to those from analytical equations of Sainflou (1928), indicating that our numerical model is accurately modelling the wave-structure interaction (Fig. 4).

Eyewitness account analysis

Contemporary reporting of the 4th and 5th February 2014 storms by the main national news outlets in the UK highlights the extreme nature of the events and the significant damage and disruption they were likely to have on the communities of the south-west of England. In interviews, this was reinforced by Network Rail engineers who, even at this early stage, were forecasting remedial engineering works to last for at least 6 weeks. One week later, following subsequent storms the cascading nature of the events was obvious. Multiple breaches of the seawall had taken place with up to 35 separate landslide events and significant damage to parapet walls along the coastal route also were reported. Residents of the area reported extreme effects of the storm, one likening it to an earthquake and reporting water ingress through doors windows and even through vertical chimneys (Table 1). This suggests extreme wave overtopping volumes and large wave impact forces. One resident described the structural effects as: “the house was jumping up and down on its footings”.

Disaster management plans were quickly and effectively put into action by the local council, police service and National Rail. A major incident was declared, and decisions regarding evacuation of the residents under threat were taken around 2100 h on the night of 4th February when reports of initial damage to the seawall were received (Table 1). Local hotels were asked to provide short-term refuge to residents while local leisure facilities were prepared to accept residents later that evening. Initial repair work to the railway line was hampered by successive high spring tides and storms in the following days although significant progress was still made when weather conditions permitted (Table 1).

Sea level observations and spectral analysis

The results of surge and wave analyses are presented in Figs. 5 and 6. A surge height of up to 0.8 m was recorded in the examined tide gauge stations (Fig. 5b-d). Two main episodes of high surge heights are identified: the first surge started on 3rd February 2014 at 03:00 (UTC) and lasted until 4th of February 2014 at 00:00; the second event occurred in the period 4th February 2014 15:00 to 5th February 2014 at 17:00 (Fig. 5b-d). These data imply surge durations of 21 h and 26 h for the first and the second events, respectively. Based on the surge data in Fig. 5, we note that the storm event of early February 2014 and the associated surges was a relatively powerful one, which impacted at least 230 km of the south coast of England, from Land’s End to Weymouth, with large surge heights.

Based on wave buoy records, the maximum recorded amplitudes are at least 20.5 m in Dawlish and West Bay, 1.9 m in Tor Bay and 4.9 m in Chesil (Fig. 6a-b). The buoys at Tor Bay and Chesil recorded dual peak period bands of 4–8 and 8–12 s, whereas at Dawlish and West Bay registered triple peak period bands at 4–8, 8–12 and 20–25 s (Fig. 6c, d). It is important to note that the long-period waves at 20–25 s occur with short durations (approximately 2 min) while the waves at the other two bands of 4–8 and 8–12 s appear to be present at all times during the storm event.

The wave component at the period band of 4–8 s can be most likely attributed to normal coastal waves while the one at 8–12 s, which is longer, is most likely the swell component of the storm. Regarding the third component of the waves with long period of 20 -25 s, which occurs with short durations of 2 min, there are two hypotheses; it is either the result of a local (port and harbour) and regional (the Lyme Bay) oscillations (eg. Rabinovich 1997; Heidarzadeh and Satake 2014; Wang et al. 1992), or due to an abnormally long swell. To test the first hypothesis, we consider various water bodies such as Lyme Bay (approximate dimensions of 70 km × 20 km with an average water depth of 30 m; Fig. 6), several local bays (approximate dimensions of 3.6 km × 0.6 km with an average water depth of 6 m) and harbours (approximate dimensions of 0.5 km × 0.5 km with an average water depth of 4 m). Their water depths are based on the online Marine navigation website.^Footnote8 According to Rabinovich (2010), the oscillation modes of a semi-enclosed rectangle basin are given by the following equation:

Tmn=2gd−−√[(m2L)2+(nW)2]−1/2Tmn=2gd[(m2L)2+(nW)2]−1/2

(5)

where TmnTmn is the oscillation period, gg is the gravitational acceleration, dd is the water depth, LL is the length of the basin, WW is the width of the basin, m=1,2,3,…m=1,2,3,… and n=0,1,2,3,…n=0,1,2,3,…; mm and nn are the counters of the different modes. Applying Eq. (5) to the aforementioned water bodies results in oscillation modes of at least 5 min, which is far longer than the observed period of 20–25 s. Therefore, we rule out the first hypothesis and infer that the long period of 20–25 s is most likely a long swell wave coming from distant sources. As discussed by Rabinovich (1997) and Wang et al. (2022), comparison between sea level spectra before and after the incident is a useful method to distinguish the spectrum of the weather event. A visual inspection of Fig. 6 reveals that the forcing at the period band of 20–25 s is non-existent before the incident.

Numerical simulations of wave loading and overtopping

Based on the results of sea level data analyses in the previous section (Fig. 6), we use a dual peak wave spectrum with peak periods of 10.0 s and 25.0 s for numerical simulations because such a wave would be comprised of the most energetic signals of the storm. For variations of water depth (2.0–4.0 m), coastal wave amplitude (0.5–1.5 m) (Fig. 7) and storm surge height (0.5–0.8 m) (Fig. 5), we developed 20 scenarios (Scn) which we used in numerical simulations (Table 2). Data during the incident indicated that water depth was up to the crest level of the seawall (approximately 4 m water depth); therefore, we varied water depth from 2 to 4 m in our simulation scenarios. Regarding wave amplitudes, we referred to the variations at a nearby tide gauge station (West Bay) which showed wave amplitude up to 1.2 m (Fig. 7). Therefore, wave amplitude was varied from 0.5 m to 1.5 m by considering a factor a safety of 25% for the maximum wave amplitude. As for the storm surge component, time series of storm surges calculated at three coastal stations adjacent to Dawlish showed that it was in the range of 0.5 m to 0.8 m (Fig. 5). These 20 scenarios would help to study uncertainties associated with wave amplitudes and pressures. Figure 8 shows snapshots of wave propagation and impacts on the seawall at different times.

Table 2 The 20 scenarios considered for numerical simulations in this study

Full size table

Results of wave amplitude simulations

Large wave amplitudes can induce significant wave forcing on the structure and cause overtopping of the seawall, which could eventually cascade to other hazards such as erosion of the backfill and scour (Adams and Heidarzadeh, 2021). The first 10 scenarios of our modelling efforts are for the same incident wave amplitudes of 0.5 m, which occur at different water depths (2.0–4.0 m) and storm surge heights (0.5–0.8 m) (Table 2 and Fig. 9). This is because we aim at studying the impacts of effective water depth (d_eff—the sum of mean sea level and surge height) on the time histories of wave amplitudes as the storm evolves. As seen in Fig. 9a, by decreasing effective water depth, wave amplitude increases. For example, for Scn-1 with effective depth of 4.5 m, the maximum amplitude of the first wave is 1.6 m, whereas it is 2.9 m for Scn-2 with effective depth of 3.5 m. However, due to intensive reflections and interferences of the waves in front of the vertical seawall, such a relationship is barely seen for the second and the third wave peaks. It is important to note that the later peaks (second or third) produce the largest waves rather than the first wave. Extraordinary wave amplifications are seen for the Scn-2 (d_eff = 3.5 m) and Scn-7 (d_eff = 3.3 m), where the corresponding wave amplitudes are 4.5 m and 3.7 m, respectively. This may indicate that the effective water depth of d_eff = 3.3–3.5 m is possibly a critical water depth for this structure resulting in maximum wave amplitudes under similar storms. In the second wave impact, the combined wave height (i.e. the wave amplitude plus the effective water depth), which is ultimately an indicator of wave overtopping, shows that the largest wave heights are generated by Scn-2, 7 and 8 (Fig. 9a) with effective water depths of 3.5 m, 3.3 m and 3.8 m and combined heights of 8.0 m, 7.0 m and 6.9 m (Fig. 9b). Since the height of seawall is 5.4 m, the combined wave heights for Scn-2, 7 and 8 are greater than the crest height of the seawall by 2.6 m, 1.6 m and 1.5 m, respectively, which indicates wave overtopping.

For scenarios 11–20 (Fig. 10), with incident wave amplitudes of 1.5 m (Table 2), the largest wave amplitudes are produced by Scn-17 (d_eff = 3.3 m), Scn-13 (d_eff = 2.5 m) and Scn-12 (d_eff = 3.5 m), which are 5.6 m, 5.1 m and 4.5 m. The maximum combined wave heights belong to Scn-11 (d_eff = 4.5 m) and Scn-17 (d_eff = 3.3 m), with combined wave heights of 9.0 m and 8.9 m (Fig. 10b), which are greater than the crest height of the seawall by 4.6 m and 3.5 m, respectively.

Our simulations for all 20 scenarios reveal that the first wave is not always the largest and wave interactions, reflections and interferences play major roles in amplifying the waves in front of the seawall. This is primarily because the wall is fully vertical and therefore has a reflection coefficient of close to one (i.e. full reflection). Simulations show that the combined wave height is up to 4.6 m higher than the crest height of the wall, implying that severe overtopping would be expected.

Results of wave loading calculations

The pressure calculations for scenarios 1–10 are given in Fig. 11 and those of scenarios 11–20 in Fig. 12. The total pressure distribution in Figs. 11, 12 mostly follows a triangular shape with maximum pressure at the seafloor as expected from the Sainflou (1928) design equations. These pressure plots comprise both static (due to mean sea level in front of the wall) and dynamic (combined effects of surge and wave) pressures. For incident wave amplitudes of 0.5 m (Fig. 11), the maximum wave pressure varies in the range of 35–63 kPa. At the sea surface, it is in the range of 4–20 kPa (Fig. 11). For some scenarios (Scn-2 and 7), the pressure distribution deviates from a triangular shape and shows larger pressures at the top, which is attributed to the wave impacts and partial breaking at the sea surface. This adds an additional triangle-shaped pressure distribution at the sea surface elevation consistent with the design procedure developed by Goda (2000) for braking waves. The maximum force on the seawall due to scenarios 1–10, which is calculated by integrating the maximum pressure distribution over the wave-facing surface of the seawall, is in the range of 92–190 KN (Table 2).

For scenarios 11–20, with incident wave amplitude of 1.5 m, wave pressures of 45–78 kPa and 7–120 kPa, for the bottom and top of the wall, respectively, were observed (Fig. 12). Most of the plots show a triangular pressure distribution, except for Scn-11 and 15. A significant increase in wave impact pressure is seen for Scn-15 at the top of the structure, where a maximum pressure of approximately 120 kPa is produced while other scenarios give a pressure of 7–32 kPa for the sea surface. In other words, the pressure from Scn-15 is approximately four times larger than the other scenarios. Such a significant increase of the pressure at the top is most likely attributed to the breaking wave impact loads as detailed by Goda (2000) and Cuomo et al. (2010). The wave simulation snapshots in Fig. 8 show that the wave breaks before reaching the wall. The maximum force due to scenarios 11–20 is 120–286 KN.

The breaking wave impacts peaking at 286 KN in our simulations suggest destabilisation of the upper masonry blocks, probably by grout malfunction. This significant impact force initiated the failure of the seawall which in turn caused extensive ballast erosion. Wave impact damage was proposed by Adams and Heidarzadeh (2021) as one of the primary mechanisms in the 2014 Dawlish disaster. In the multi-hazard risk model proposed by these authors, damage mechanism III (failure pathway 5 in Adams and Heidarzadeh, 2021) was characterised by wave impact force causing damage to the masonry elements, leading to failure of the upper sections of the seawall and loss of infill material. As blocks were removed, access to the track bed was increased for inbound waves allowing infill material from behind the seawall to be fluidised and subsequently removed by backwash. The loss of infill material critically compromised the stability of the seawall and directly led to structural failure. In parallel, significant wave overtopping (discussed in the next section) led to ballast washout and cascaded, in combination with masonry damage, to catastrophic failure of the wall and suspension of the rails in mid-air (Fig. 1b), leaving the railway inoperable for two months.

Wave Overtopping

The two most important factors contributing to the 2014 Dawlish railway catastrophe were wave impact forces and overtopping. Figure 13 gives the instantaneous overtopping rates for different scenarios, which experienced overtopping. It can be seen that the overtopping rates range from 0.5 m³/s/m to 16.1 m³/s/m (Fig. 13). Time histories of the wave overtopping rates show that the phenomenon occurs intermittently, and each time lasts 1.0–7.0 s. It is clear that the longer the overtopping time, the larger the volume of the water poured on the structure. The largest wave overtopping rates of 16.1 m³/s/m and 14.4 m³/s/m belong to Scn-20 and 11, respectively. These are the two scenarios that also give the largest combined wave heights (Fig. 10b).

The cumulative overtopping curves (Figs. 14, 15) show the total water volume overtopped the structure during the entire simulation time. This is an important hazard factor as it determines the level of soil saturation, water pore pressure in the soil and soil erosion (Van der Meer et al. 2018). The maximum volume belongs to Scn-20, which is 65.0 m³/m (m-cubed of water per metre length of the wall). The overtopping volumes are 42.7 m³/m for Scn-11 and 28.8 m³/m for Scn-19. The overtopping volume is in the range of 0.7–65.0 m³/m for all scenarios.

For comparison, we compare our modelling results with those estimated using empirical equations. For the case of the Dawlish seawall, we apply the equation proposed by Van Der Meer et al. (2018) to estimate wave overtopping rates, based on a set of decision criteria which are the influence of foreshore, vertical wall, possible breaking waves and low freeboard:

qgH3m−−−−√=0.0155(Hmhs)12e(−2.2RcHm)qgHm3=0.0155(Hmhs)12e(−2.2RcHm)

(6)

where qq is the mean overtopping rate per metre length of the seawall (m³/s/m), gg is the acceleration due to gravity, HmHm is the incident wave height at the toe of the structure, RcRc is the wall crest height above mean sea level, hshs is the deep-water significant wave height and e(x)e(x) is the exponential function. It is noted that Eq. (6) is valid for 0.1<RcHm<1.350.1<RcHm<1.35. For the case of the Dawlish seawall and considering the scenarios with larger incident wave amplitude of 1.5 m (hshs= 1.5 m), the incident wave height at the toe of the structure is HmHm = 2.2—5.6 m, and the wall crest height above mean sea level is RcRc = 0.6–2.9 m. As a result, Eq. (6) gives mean overtopping rates up to approximately 2.9 m³/s/m. A visual inspection of simulated overtopping rates in Fig. 13 for Scn 11–20 shows that the mean value of the simulated overtopping rates (Fig. 13) is close to estimates using Eq. (6).

Discussion and conclusions

We applied a combination of eyewitness account analysis, sea level data analysis and numerical modelling in combination with our engineering judgement to explain the damage to the Dawlish railway seawall in February 2014. Main findings are:

Eyewitness data analysis showed that the extreme nature of the event was well forecasted in the hours prior to the storm impact; however, the magnitude of the risks to the structures was not well understood. Multiple hazards were activated simultaneously, and the effects cascaded to amplify the damage. Disaster management was effective, exemplified by the establishment of an emergency rendezvous point and temporary evacuation centre during the storm, indicating a high level of hazard awareness and preparedness.
Based on sea level data analysis, we identified triple peak period bands at 4–8, 8–12 and 20–25 s in the sea level data. Storm surge heights and wave oscillations were up to 0.8 m and 1.5 m, respectively.
Based on the numerical simulations of 20 scenarios with different water depths, incident wave amplitudes, surge heights and peak periods, we found that the wave oscillations at the foot of the seawall result in multiple wave interactions and interferences. Consequently, large wave amplitudes, up to 4.6 m higher than the height of the seawall, were generated and overtopped the wall. Extreme impulsive wave impact forces of up to 286 KN were generated by the waves interacting with the seawall.
We measured maximum wave overtopping rates of 0.5–16.1 m³/s/m for our scenarios. The cumulative overtopping water volumes per metre length of the wall were 0.7–65.0 m³/m.
Analysis of all the evidence combined with our engineering judgement suggests that the most likely initiating cause of the failure was impulsive wave impact forces destabilising one or more grouted joints between adjacent masonry blocks in the wall. Maximum observed pressures of 286 KN in our simulations are four times greater in magnitude than background pressures leading to block removal and initiating failure. Therefore, the sequence of cascading events was :1) impulsive wave impact force causing damage to masonry, 2) failure of the upper sections of the seawall, 3) loss of infill resulting in a reduction of structural strength in the landward direction, 4) ballast washout as wave overtopping and inbound wave activity increased and 5) progressive structural failure following successive tides.

From a risk mitigation point of view, the stability of the seawall in the face of future energetic cyclonic storm events and sea level rise will become a critical factor in protecting the rail network. Mitigation efforts will involve significant infrastructure investment to strengthen the civil engineering assets combined with improved hazard warning systems consisting of meteorological forecasting and real-time wave observations and instrumentation. These efforts must take into account the amenity value of coastal railway infrastructure to local communities and the significant number of tourists who visit every year. In this regard, public awareness and active engagement in the planning and execution of the project will be crucial in order to secure local stakeholder support for the significant infrastructure project that will be required for future resilience.

Notes

References

Ackhurst M (2020) Design of Vertical Gravity Sea and Quay Walls. ICE Publishing, Westminster, London
Adams K, Heidarzadeh M (2021) A multi-hazard risk model with cascading failure pathways for the Dawlish (UK) railway using historical and contemporary data. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc 56:102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102082 Article Google Scholar
BBC (2014a) Dawlish train battered by waves. Accessed 12 May 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-26076630
BBC (2014b) Dawlish storm victim: ‘Water coming through our windows’. Accessed 12 May 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-26056696
BBC (2014c) Devon and Cornwall storm: ‘Like living in a washing machine’. Accessed 12 May 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26051900
Brunel Institute (2022) A collaboration between the University of Bristol and the SS Great Britain. DM162/8/1/3/GWR Sketchbook21/folio 10. Accessed on 22 Feb 2022. https://archives.bristol.ac.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=DM162%2f8%2f1%2f3%2fGWR+Sketchbook+21%2ffolio+10
Courant R, Friedrichs K, Lewy H (1928) Über die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathematischen Physik. Math Ann 100(1):32–74Article Google Scholar
Cuomo G, Allsop W, Bruce T, Pearson J (2010) Breaking wave loads at vertical seawalls and breakwaters. Coastal Eng 57(4):424–439Article Google Scholar
Dacre HF, Pinto JG (2020) Serial clustering of extratropical cyclones: a review of where, when and why it occurs. Clim Atmos Sci 3:48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00152-9 Article Google Scholar
Dawlish Museum (2015) Dawlish The Great Storm. Video collection, available on DVD at: https://www.devonmuseums.net/The-Great-Storm-DVD/Dawlish-Museum/View-Product/
Dawson D, Shaw J, Gehrels WR (2016) Sea-level rise impacts on transport infrastructure: the notorious case of the coastal railway line at Dawlish, England. J Transport Geog 51:97–109Article Google Scholar
Feser F, Barcikowska M, Krueger O, Schenk F, Weisse R, Xia L (2015) Storminess over the North Atlantic and northwestern Europe—A review. Quarter J R Meteorol Soc 141:350–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2364 Article Google Scholar
Flow Science (2022) FLOW3D-Hydro version 1.0.1.3. Accessed 12 Feb 2022. https://www.flow3d.com/products/flow-3d-hydro/
Goda Y (2000) Random seas and design of maritime structures, vol 33. World Scientific Publishing Company
Grinsted A (2008) Tidal fitting toolbox. Accessed 6 Feb 2022. https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/19099-tidal-fitting-toolbox?focused=3854016&tab=function&s_tid=gn_loc_drop
Heidarzadeh M, Satake K (2014) Excitation of basin-wide modes of the Pacific Ocean following the march 2011 Tohoku Tsunami. Pure Appl Geophys 171(12):3405–3419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-013-0731-5 Article Google Scholar
Heidarzadeh M, Satake K (2015) Source properties of the 1998 July 17 Papua New Guinea tsunami based on tide gauge records. Geophys J Int 202(1):361–369Article Google Scholar
Heidarzadeh M, Gusman A, Ishibe T, Sabeti R, Šepić J (2022) Estimating the eruption-induced water displacement source of the 15 January 2022 Tonga volcanic tsunami from tsunami spectra and numerical modelling. Ocean Eng 261:112165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112165 Article Google Scholar
Hirt CW, Nichols BD (1981) Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys 39(1):201–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5 Article Google Scholar
Masselink G, Castelle B, Scott T, Dodet G, Suanez S, Jackson D, Floc’h F (2016) Extreme wave activity during 2013/2014 winter and morphological impacts along the Atlantic coast of Europe. Geophys Res Lett 43(5):2135–2143. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067492 Article Google Scholar
Mathworks (2018) MATLAB, 2018. 9.7.0.1190202 (R2019b), Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc.
Met Office (2016) Strong winds and flooding from storm Angus. November 2016. Accessed 4 Mar 2022. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/interesting/2016/strong-winds-and-flooding-from-storm-angus-november-2016—met-office.pdf,
Mölter T, Schindler D, Albrecht AT, Kohnle U (2016) Review on the projections of future storminess over the North Atlantic European Region. Atmosphere 7(4):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos7040060 Article Google Scholar
Network Rail (2014) West of Exeter Route Resilience Study. Accessed 4 May 2022. https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/West-of-Exeter-Route-Resilience-Study-1.pdf
Peninsula Rail Taskforce (2016) Closing the gap: The South West Peninsula strategic rail blueprint. Accessed 4 May 2022. https://peninsularailtaskforce.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/prtf-closing-the-gap.pdf
Rabinovich AB (1997) Spectral analysis of tsunami waves: Separation of source and topography effects. J Geophys Res Oceans 102(C6):12663–12676. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC00479 Article Google Scholar
Rabinovich AB (2010) Seiches and harbor oscillations. In: Handbook of coastal and ocean engineering, pp 193–236
RMS (2014) RMS White Paper 2013–2014 Winter Storms in Europe: An insurance and catastrophe modelling perspective. Accessed 12 May 2022. https://forms2.rms.com/rs/729-DJX-565/images/ws_2013_2014_europe_winter_storms.pdf
Sainflou G (1928) Essai sur les digues maritimes verticales. Annales de ponts et chaussées, vol 98, tome II, 1928(4):5–48. (in French)
Shakou LM, Wybo JL, Reniers G, Boustras G (2019) Developing an innovative framework for enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure to climate change. Safety Sci 118:364–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.019 Article Google Scholar
Van der Meer JW, Allsop NWH, Bruce T, De Rouck J, Kortenhaus A, Pullen T, Schüttrumpf H, Troch P and Zanuttigh B (2018) EurOtop, Manual on wave overtopping of sea defences and related structures. An overtopping manual largely based on European research, but for worldwide application. Available online at: www.overtopping-manual.com.
Wang Y, Su HY, Ren Z, Ma Y (2022) Source properties and resonance characteristics of the tsunami generated by the 2021 M 8.2 Alaska earthquake. J Geophys Res Oceans, 127(3):e2021JC018308. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC018308 Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Brunel University London for administering the scholarship awarded to KA. The Flow3D-Hydro used in this research for numerical modelling is licenced to Brunel University London through an academic programme contract. We sincerely thank Prof Harsh Gupta (Editor-in-Chief) and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive review comments.

Funding

This project was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through a PhD scholarship to Keith Adams.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UKKeith Adams
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UKMohammad Heidarzadeh

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Adams.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Availability of data

All data used in this study are provided in the body of the article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adams, K., Heidarzadeh, M. Extratropical cyclone damage to the seawall in Dawlish, UK: eyewitness accounts, sea level analysis and numerical modelling. Nat Hazards (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05692-2

Download citation

Received17 May 2022
Accepted17 October 2022
Published14 November 2022
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05692-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

Storm surge
Cyclone
Railway
Climate change
Infrastructure
Resilience

원문보기

Propagation of Landslide Surge in Curved River Channel and Its Interaction with Dam

굽은 강둑 산사태의 팽창 전파 및 댐과의 상호 작용, 곡선하천의 산사태 해일 전파 및 댐과의 상호작용

굽은 강둑 산사태의 팽창 전파 및 댐과의 상호 작용

펑후이, 황야지에

수자원 보존 및 환경 학교, Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei 443000

收稿日期:2021-08-19 修回日期:2021-09-30 发布日期:2022-10-13
通讯作者: Huang Yajie (1993-), Shangqiu, Henan, 석사 학위, 그의 연구 방향은 수리 구조입니다. 이메일: master_hyj@163.com
作者简介:Peng Hui(1976-)는 후베이성 이창에서 태어나 교수, 의사, 박사 지도교수로 주로 수력 구조의 교육 및 연구에 종사했습니다. 이메일:hpeng1976@163.com
基金资助:국가핵심연구개발사업(2018YFC1508801-4)

곡선하천의 산사태 해일 전파 및 댐과의 상호작용

PENG Hui, HUANG Ya-jie

중국 삼협대학 수자원환경대학 이창 443000 중국

Received:2021-08-19 Revised:2021-09-30 Published:2022-10-13

Abstract

추상적인:저수지 제방 산사태는 일반적인 지질학적 위험으로, 제때에 미리 경고하지 않으면 하천에 해일파가 발생하여 하천 교통이나 인근 수자원 보호 시설의 안전을 위험에 빠뜨릴 수 있습니다. 저수지 제방 산사태로 인한 해일파 전파 전파 Flow-3D를 이용하여 하류 댐과의 상호작용을 시뮬레이션 하였다. 수리학적 물리적 모델 시험의 타당성과 정확성을 검증하기 위하여 3차원 산사태 해지 모델을 구축하였다. 수면 높이 변화와 서지의 전파 과정에 대한 수리학적 물리적 모델 테스트. 그 동안,가장 위험한 수심과 입사각 조건은 다양한 조건에서 댐과 산사태 해일 사이의 상호 작용을 분석하여 얻었습니다. 엔지니어링 사례는 최대 동적 수두가 해일 높이의 수두보다 작고 물을 따라 감소한다는 것을 보여주었습니다. 이 경우, 서지의 정적 최대 수두에 따라 계산된 댐의 응력은 안전합니다.

As a common geological hazard,reservoir bank landslide would most probably induce surge waves in river if not prewarned in time,endangering river traffic or the safety of nearby water conservancy facilities.The propagation of surge wave induced by the landslide of curved river bank in reservoir and its interaction with downstream dam were simulated by using Flow-3D.A three-dimensional landslide surge model was constructed to verify the validity and accuracy of hydraulic physical model test.The result of the three-dimensional numerical simulation was in good agreement with that of hydraulic physical model test in terms of the water surface height change and the propagation process of the surge.In the mean time,the most dangerous water depth and incident angle conditions were obtained by analyzing the interaction between the dam and the landslide surge under different conditions.Engineering examples demonstrated that the maximum dynamic water head was smaller than the water head of surge height,and reduced along the water depth direction.In such cases,the stress of the dam calculated according to the static maximum water head of the surge is safe.

Key words

슬라이드 서지, 곡선 수로형 저수지, 수치 시뮬레이션, 동적 수압, 중력 댐, slide surges, curved channel type reservoirs, numerical simulation, dynamic water pressure, gravity dam

원문보기1

원문보기2

The failure propagation of weakly stable sediment: A reason for the formation of high-velocity turbidity currents in submarine canyons

약한 안정 퇴적물의 실패 전파: 해저 협곡에서 고속 탁도 흐름이 형성되는 이유

Yupeng Ren, Yi Zhang, Guohui Xu, Xingbei Xu, Houjie Wang & Zhiyuan Chen

Abstract

Abstract해저 협곡에서 탁도의 장거리 이동은 많은 양의 퇴적물을 심해 평원으로 운반할 수 있습니다. 이전 연구에서는 5.9~28.0m/s 범위의 다중 케이블 손상 이벤트에서 파생된 탁도 전류 속도와 0.15~7.2m/s 사이의 현장 관찰 결과에서 명백한 차이가 있음을 보여줍니다. 따라서 해저 환경의 탁한 유체가 해저 협곡을 고속으로 장거리로 흐를 수 있는지에 대한 질문이 남아 있습니다. 연구실 시험의 결합을 통해 해저협곡의 탁류의 고속 및 장거리 운동을 설명하기 위해 약안정 퇴적물 기반의 새로운 모델(약안정 퇴적물에 대한 파손 전파 모델 제안, 줄여서 WSS-PFP 모델)을 제안합니다. 및 수치 아날로그. 이 모델은 두 가지 메커니즘을 기반으로 합니다. 1) 원래 탁도류는 약하게 안정한 퇴적층의 불안정화를 촉발하고 연질 퇴적물의 불안정화 및 하류 방향으로의 이동을 촉진하고 2) 원래 탁도류가 협곡으로 이동할 때 형성되는 여기파가 불안정화로 이어진다. 하류 방향으로 약하게 안정한 퇴적물의 수송. 제안된 모델은 심해 퇴적, 오염 물질 이동 및 광 케이블 손상 연구를 위한 동적 프로세스 해석을 제공할 것입니다.

The long-distance movement of turbidity currents in submarine canyons can transport large amounts of sediment to deep-sea plains. Previous studies show obvious differences in the turbidity current velocities derived from the multiple cables damage events ranging from 5.9 to 28.0 m/s and those of field observations between 0.15 and 7.2 m/s. Therefore, questions remain regarding whether a turbid fluid in an undersea environment can flow through a submarine canyon for a long distance at a high speed. A new model based on weakly stable sediment is proposed (proposed failure propagation model for weakly stable sediments, WSS-PFP model for short) to explain the high-speed and long-range motion of turbidity currents in submarine canyons through the combination of laboratory tests and numerical analogs. The model is based on two mechanisms: 1) the original turbidity current triggers the destabilization of the weakly stable sediment bed and promotes the destabilization and transport of the soft sediment in the downstream direction and 2) the excitation wave that forms when the original turbidity current moves into the canyon leads to the destabilization and transport of the weakly stable sediment in the downstream direction. The proposed model will provide dynamic process interpretation for the study of deep-sea deposition, pollutant transport, and optical cable damage.

Keyword

turbidity current
excitation wave
dense basal layer
velocity
WSS-PFP model

References

Azpiroz-Zabala M, Cartigny M J B, Talling P J et al. 2017. Newly recognized turbidity current structure can explain prolonged flushing of submarine canyons. Science Advances, 3(10): e1700200, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700200.Article Google Scholar
Bagnold R A. 1962. Auto-suspension of transported sediment; turbidity currents. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 265(1322): 315–319, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0012.Google Scholar
Carter L, Gavey R, Talling P J et al. 2014. Insights into submarine geohazards from breaks in subsea telecommunication cables. Oceanography, 27(2): 58–67, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.40.Article Google Scholar
Carter L, Milliman J D, Talling P J et al. 2012. Near-synchronous and delayed initiation of long run-out submarine sediment flows from a record-breaking river flood, offshore Taiwan. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(12): L12603, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gl051172.Article Google Scholar
Cooper C, Wood J, Imran J et al. 2016. Designing for turbidity currents in the Congo Canyon. In: Offshore Technology Conference. OTC, Houston, TX. OTC-26919-MSp, https://doi.org/10.4043/26919-ms.Google Scholar
Dengler A T, Wilde P, Noda E K et al. 1984. Turbidity currents generated by Hurricane Iwa. Geo-Marine Letters, 4(1): 5–11, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02237967.Article Google Scholar
Fang A M, Li J L, Hou Q L. 1998. Sedimentation of turbidity currents and relative gravity flows: a review. Geological Review, 44(3): 270–280, https://doi.org/10.16509/j.georeview.1998.03.009. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
Felix M, Peakall J. 2006. Transformation of debris flows into turbidity currents: mechanisms inferred from laboratory experiments. Sedimentology, 53(1): 107–123, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2005.00757.x.Article Google Scholar
Gavey R, Carter L, Liu J T et al. 2017. Frequent sediment density flows during 2006 to 2015, triggered by competing seismic and weather events: observations from subsea cable breaks off southern Taiwan. Marine Geology, 384: 147–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.06.001.Article Google Scholar
Heerema C J, Talling P J, Cartigny M J et al. 2020. What determines the downstream evolution of turbidity currents?. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 532: 116023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.116023.Article Google Scholar
Heezen B C, Ericson D B, Ewing M. 1954. Further evidence for a turbidity current following the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake. Deep Sea Research (1953), 1(4): 193–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6313(54)90001-5.Article Google Scholar
Heezen B C, Ewing M. 1955. Orleansville earthquake and turbidity currents. AAPG Bulletin, 39(12): 2505–2514, https://doi.org/10.1306/5ceae2e6-16bb-11d7-8645000102c1865d.Google Scholar
Heezen B C, Ewing W M. 1952. Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake. American Journal of Science, 250(12): 849–873, https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.250.12.849.Article Google Scholar
Hsu S K, Kuo J, Lo C L et al. 2008. Turbidity currents, submarine landslides and the 2006 Pingtung earthquake off SW Taiwan. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 19(6): 767–772, https://doi.org/10.3319/tao.2008.19.6.767(pt).Article Google Scholar
Krause D C, White W C, Piper D J W et al. 1970. Turbidity currents and cable breaks in the western New Britain Trench. GSA Bulletin, 81(7): 2153–2160, https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1970)81[2153:tcacbi]2.0.co;2.Article Google Scholar
Kuenen P H. 1952. Estimated size of the Grand Banks turbidity current. American Journal of Science, 250(12): 874–884, https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.250.12.874.Article Google Scholar
Lambert A M, Kelts K R, Marshall N F. 1976. Measurements of density underflows from Walensee, Switzerland. Sedimentology, 23(1): 87–105, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1976.tb00040.x.Article Google Scholar
Liu J T, Wang Y H, Yang R J et al. 2012. Cyclone-induced hyperpycnal turbidity currents in a submarine canyon. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(C4): C04033, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jc007630.Article Google Scholar
Maier K L, Gales J A, Paull C K et al. 2019. Linking direct measurements of turbidity currents to submarine canyon-floor deposits. Frontiers in Earth Science, 7: 144, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00144.Article Google Scholar
Mulder T, Syvitski J P M, Migeon S et al. 2003. Marine hyperpycnal flows: initiation, behavior and related deposits. A review. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 20(6–8): 861–882, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2003.01.003.Article Google Scholar
Nie X, Luo W D, Zhou J. 2017. Depositional characteristics of the Penghu submarine canyon in the northeastern South China Sea. Marine Geology Frontiers, 33(8): 18–23, https://doi.org/10.16028/j.1009-2722.2017.08003. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
Nilsen T H, Shew R D, Steffens G S et al. 2008. Atlas of Deep-Water Outcrops. AAPG, Tulsa, https://doi.org/10.1306/St561240.Book Google Scholar
Parker G, Fukushima Y, Pantin H M. 1986. Self-accelerating turbidity currents. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 171: 145–181, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022112086001404.Article Google Scholar
Parker G. 1982. Conditions for the ignition of catastrophically erosive turbidity currents. Marine Geology, 46(3–4): 307–327, https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(82)90086-x.Article Google Scholar
Paull C K, Caress D W, Lundsten E et al. 2013. Anatomy of the La Jolla Submarine Canyon system; offshore southern California. Marine Geology, 335: 16–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2012.10.003.Article Google Scholar
Paull C K, Caress D W, Ussler III B et al. 2011. High-resolution bathymetry of the axial channels within Monterey and Soquel submarine canyons, offshore central California. Geosphere, 7(5): 1077–1101, https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00636.1.Article Google Scholar
Paull C K, Talling P J, Maier K L et al. 2018. Powerful turbidity currents driven by dense basal layers. Nature Communications, 9(1): 4114, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06254-6.Article Google Scholar
Piper D J W, Shor A N, Clarke J E H. 1988. The 1929 “Grand banks” earthquake, slump, and turbidity current. In: Clifton H E ed. Sedimentologic Consequences of Convulsive Geologic Events. Geological Society of America. p.77–92, https://doi.org/10.1130/SPE229-p77.
Sequeiros O E, Mosquera R, Pedocchi F. 2018. Internal structure of a self-accelerating turbidity current. Journal of Geophysical Research, 123(9): 6260–6276, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jc014061.Article Google Scholar
Sequeiros O E, Naruse H, Endo N et al. 2009. Experimental study on self-accelerating turbidity currents. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(C5): C05025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jc005149.Article Google Scholar
Shepard F P. 1954. High-velocity turbidity currents, a discussion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 222(1150): 323–326, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1954.0072.Google Scholar
Stetson H C, Smith J F. 1938. Behavior of suspension currents and mud slides on the continental slope. American Journal of Science, s5–35(205): 1–13, https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.s5-35.205.1.Article Google Scholar
Symons W Q, Sumner E J, Paull C K et al. 2017. A new model for turbidity current behavior based on integration of flow monitoring and precision coring in a submarine canyon. Geology, 45(4): 367–370, https://doi.org/10.1130/g38764.1.Article Google Scholar
Talling P J, Allin J, Armitage D A et al. 2015. Key future directions for research on turbidity currents and their deposits. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 85(2): 153–169, https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2015.03.Article Google Scholar
Wang Z W, Xu J P, Talling P J et al. 2020. Direct evidence of a high-concentration basal layer in a submarine turbidity current. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 161: 103300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2020.103300.Article Google Scholar
Winterwerp J C. 2006. Stratification effects by fine suspended sediment at low, medium, and very high concentrations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(C5): C05012, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jc003019.Article Google Scholar
Xu J P. 2014. Turbidity Current research in the past century: an overview. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 44(10): 98–105, https://doi.org/10.16441/j.cnki.hdxb.2014.10.014.Google Scholar
Zeng J J, Lowe D R, Prior D B et al. 1991. Flow properties of turbidity currents in Bute Inlet, British Columbia. Sedimentology, 38(6): 975–996, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1991.tb00367.x.Article Google Scholar
Zhang X, Wang L, Krabbenhoft K et al. 2020. A case study and implication: particle finite element modelling of the 2010 Saint-Jude sensitive clay landslide. Landslides, 17(5): 1117–1127, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01330-4.Article Google Scholar
Zhang Y W, Liu Z F, Zhao Y L et al. 2018. Long-term in situ observations on typhoon-triggered turbidity currents in the deep sea. Geology, 46(8): 675–678, https://doi.org/10.1130/g45178.1.Article Google Scholar
Zhou H G. 2020. Experimental study on flow ability and fixed sand bed shear force of turbid suspension.

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Hanru WU from Ocean University of China for his help in thesis writing, and Hao TIAN and Chenxi WANG from Ocean University of China for their helps in the preparation of the experimental materials. Guohui XU is responsible for the development of the initial concept, processing of test data, and management of coauthor contributions to the paper; Yupeng REN for the experiment setup and drafting of the paper; Yi ZHANG and Xingbei XU for the simulation part of the experiment; Houjie WANG for writing guidance; Zhiyuan CHEN for the experiment setup.