Article
Refine
Year of publication
Institute
- Fachbereich Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik (368) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (368) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (368) (remove)
Keywords
- avalanche (5)
- snow (3)
- Drinfeld modules (2)
- Transcendence (2)
- t-modules (2)
- 1P hub loads (1)
- Active humidity control (1)
- Aeroelasticity (1)
- Antarctic Glaciology (1)
- Avalanche (1)
Numerical avalanche dynamics models have become an essential part of snow engineering. Coupled with field observations and historical records, they are especially helpful in understanding avalanche flow in complex terrain. However, their application poses several new challenges to avalanche engineers. A detailed understanding of the avalanche phenomena is required to construct hazard scenarios which involve the careful specification of initial conditions (release zone location and dimensions) and definition of appropriate friction parameters. The interpretation of simulation results requires an understanding of the numerical solution schemes and easy to use visualization tools. We discuss these problems by presenting the computer model RAMMS, which was specially designed by the SLF as a practical tool for avalanche engineers. RAMMS solves the depth-averaged equations governing avalanche flow with accurate second-order numerical solution schemes. The model allows the specification of multiple release zones in three-dimensional terrain. Snow cover entrainment is considered. Furthermore, two different flow rheologies can be applied: the standard Voellmy–Salm (VS) approach or a random kinetic energy (RKE) model, which accounts for the random motion and inelastic interaction between snow granules. We present the governing differential equations, highlight some of the input and output features of RAMMS and then apply the models with entrainment to simulate two well-documented avalanche events recorded at the Vallée de la Sionne test site.
Two- and three-dimensional avalanche dynamics models are being increasingly used in hazard-mitigation studies. These models can provide improved and more accurate results for hazard mapping than the simple one-dimensional models presently used in practice. However, two- and three-dimensional models generate an extensive amount of output data, making the interpretation of simulation results more difficult. To perform a simulation in three-dimensional terrain, numerical models require a digital elevation model, specification of avalanche release areas (spatial extent and volume), selection of solution methods, finding an adequate calculation resolution and, finally, the choice of friction parameters. In this paper, the importance and difficulty of correctly setting up and analysing the results of a numerical avalanche dynamics simulation is discussed. We apply the two-dimensional simulation program RAMMS to the 1968 extreme avalanche event In den Arelen. We show the effect of model input variations on simulation results and the dangers and complexities in their interpretation.
Digital elevation models (DEMs), represent the three-dimensional terrain and are the basic input for numerical snow avalanche dynamics simulations. DEMs can be acquired using topographic maps or remote-sensing technologies, such as photogrammetry or lidar. Depending on the acquisition technique, different spatial resolutions and qualities are achieved. However, there is a lack of studies that investigate the sensitivity of snow avalanche simulation algorithms to the quality and resolution of DEMs. Here, we perform calculations using the numerical avalance dynamics model RAMMS, varying the quality and spatial resolution of the underlying DEMs, while holding the simulation parameters constant. We study both channelized and open-terrain avalanche tracks with variable roughness. To quantify the variance of these simulations, we use well-documented large-scale avalanche events from Davos, Switzerland (winter 2007/08), and from our large-scale avalanche test site, Valĺee de la Sionne (winter 2005/06). We find that the DEM resolution and quality is critical for modeled flow paths, run-out distances, deposits, velocities and impact pressures. Although a spatial resolution of ~25 m is sufficient for large-scale avalanche modeling, the DEM datasets must be checked carefully for anomalies and artifacts before using them for dynamics calculations.
Next-generation aircraft designs often incorporate multiple large propellers attached along the wingspan (distributed electric propulsion), leading to highly flexible dynamic systems that can exhibit aeroelastic instabilities. This paper introduces a validated methodology to investigate the aeroelastic instabilities of wing–propeller systems and to understand the dynamic mechanism leading to wing and whirl flutter and transition from one to the other. Factors such as nacelle positions along the wing span and chord and its propulsion system mounting stiffness are considered. Additionally, preliminary design guidelines are proposed for flutter-free wing–propeller systems applicable to novel aircraft designs. The study demonstrates how the critical speed of the wing–propeller systems is influenced by the mounting stiffness and propeller position. Weak mounting stiffnesses result in whirl flutter, while hard mounting stiffnesses lead to wing flutter. For the latter, the position of the propeller along the wing span may change the wing mode shapes and thus the flutter mechanism. Propeller positions closer to the wing tip enhance stability, but pusher configurations are more critical due to the mass distribution behind the elastic axis.