Proceedings of the 12th International INQUA meeting on paleoseismology, active tectonic and archaeoseismology

Fig. 3: Configuration of Profiles A, B, and C. Table 1: Distance reached by the analogue landslides. ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƌĞĂĐŚĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ůĂŶĚƐůŝĚĞ͘ dĞƐƚƐ ^ĂŶĚ ϭ ^ĂŶĚ Ϯ ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ϭϵϬŵ ϭϲϬŵ ϭϳϱŵ WƌŽĨŝůĞ ϮϯϬŵ ϴϬŵ ϭϱϱŵ WƌŽĨŝůĞů ϮϭϬŵ ϴϬŵ ϭϰϱŵ WƌŽĨŝůĞ ϭϵϬŵ ϮϭϬŵ ϮϬϬŵ Fig. 3: Configuration of Profiles A, B, and C. A N A L O G U E M O D E L S R E S U LT S To establish a baseline for potentially comparing the intervened profiles, the first stage involved assessing the profile without any elements, resulting in an average distance reached (analogue runout) of 175 m between both sands from the 0 m point (Table 1 and Fig. 4). After testing the three intervened profiles, Profile B yielded the best results, as it was able to contain the hypothetical landslide more effectively, averaging 145 m. This is 30 m less than the averaging runout without any intervention (Table 1 and Fig. 4). On the other hand, when comparing the results of both sand grain sizes across the different configurations (Table 1), it is evident that Sand 1 does not exhibit analog behavior appropriate for the scale of the process, as its runout is independent of the modeled mitigation measures. By excluding the fine-grained sand and the calculated averages (Table 1), it is interpreted that the tests with coarse-grained sand demonstrate consistent analog behavior with the mitigation measures. Profile B yields the best results, effectively containing the hypothetical landslide and reducing its runout by 80 m omp red to the slope without any intervention. Fig. 4: Results of the Case B model, selected as the best alternative for alluvial containment. (1) Fine-grained sand, (2) Coarse-grained sand. Fig. 3: Configuration of Profiles A, B, and C. Fig. 4: Results of the Case B model, selected as the best alternative for alluvial containment. (1) Fine-grained sand, (2) Coarse-grained sand. Table 1: Distance reached by the analogue landslides.