GEOMORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND ASSOCIATED DAMAGE OF A DEBRIS FLOW IN JANUARY 2011 IN CÓRREGO DO PRÍNCIPE WATERSHED, TERESÓPOLIS – MOUNTAINOUS REGION OF RIO DE JANEIRO STATE

Authors

  • Muriel Conq Universidade de Montpellier III, Montpellier
  • Carla Semiramis Silveira Universidade Federal Fluminense Instituto de Química Departamento de Geoquímica
  • Francisco Dourado Departamento de Geologia Aplicada, Instituto de Geologia Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14872

Keywords:

corrida de detritos, danos, bacia de drenagem, catástrofe

Abstract

http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14872

The Córrego do Principe (1,197 ha) watershed located at the mountainous range “Região Serrana” of the state of Rio de Janeiro was seriously affected by a debris flow that took place on January 12th, 2011. The event was triggered by an extreme rainfall that resulted in a major disaster causing destruction and deaths. Field observations together with Quickbird satellite images analysis (0.6 m resolution August/2006 and 1:8,000 aerial pictures May/2011) identified and classified the damages affecting buildings associated with geomorphological processes of erosion and deposition. The debris flow extended for about 4.8 km, the first two being characterized by erosion and transport of blocks, boulders and fine material. The deposition of this material happened on the last 2.8 kilometers. Buildings damages of greater intensity were observed associated with the erosion / transport area and four knickpoints have proven to significantly amplify the damages in their surroundings. Blocks and boulders came primarily from exhumation of riverbed ancient deposits. The deposition zone showed more than 2 m thickness sedimentation that buried part of the buildings and roads. High damage (difficult to reconstruct) covered an average of 42 % of the buildings in the Córrego do Principe watershed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2015-01-20

How to Cite

Conq, M., Silveira, C. S., & Dourado, F. (2015). GEOMORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND ASSOCIATED DAMAGE OF A DEBRIS FLOW IN JANUARY 2011 IN CÓRREGO DO PRÍNCIPE WATERSHED, TERESÓPOLIS – MOUNTAINOUS REGION OF RIO DE JANEIRO STATE. Ciência E Natura, 37(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14872

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 1 (2015)

Section

Geo-Sciences

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.