Advertisement

Landslides

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 431–444 | Cite as

A study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity

  • Adam B. ProchaskaEmail author
  • Paul M. Santi
  • Jerry D. Higgins
  • Susan H. Cannon
Original Article

Abstract

Debris flow velocities are commonly back-calculated from superelevation events which require subjective estimates of radii of curvature of bends in the debris flow channel or predicted using flow equations that require the selection of appropriate rheological models and material property inputs. This research investigated difficulties associated with the use of these conventional velocity estimation methods. Radii of curvature estimates were found to vary with the extent of the channel investigated and with the scale of the media used, and back-calculated velocities varied among different investigated locations along a channel. Distinct populations of Bingham properties were found to exist between those measured by laboratory tests and those back-calculated from field data; thus, laboratory-obtained values would not be representative of field-scale debris flow behavior. To avoid these difficulties with conventional methods, a new preliminary velocity estimation method is presented that statistically relates flow velocity to the channel slope and the flow depth. This method presents ranges of reasonable velocity predictions based on 30 previously measured velocities.

Keywords

Debris flow Velocity Superelevation Mitigation Design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the US Department of Education through a Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Fellowship, award #P200A060133. Thanks to Richard Giraud from the Utah Geological Survey for providing airphotos and to Ron Allingham for AutoCAD assistance. Also thanks to Victor deWolfe, Joe Gartner, Morgan McArthur, and Nate Soule for the measurement of many of the cross-sections used in this study. Joe Gartner, Jason Kean, and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

  1. Apmann RP (1973) Estimating discharge from superelevation in bends. J Hydraul Div 99:65–79Google Scholar
  2. Arattano M (2003) Monitoring the presence of the debris-flow front and its velocity through ground vibration detectors. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C-L (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the third international conference. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 719–730Google Scholar
  3. Arattano M, Grattoni P (2000) Using a fixed video camera to measure debris-flow surface velocity. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the second international conference. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 273–281Google Scholar
  4. Arattano M, Deganutti AM, Marchi L (1997) Debris flow monitoring activities in an instrumented watershed on the Italian Alps. In: Chen C-L (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the first international conference. ASCE, New York, pp 506–515Google Scholar
  5. Bertolo P, Wieczorek GF (2005) Calibration of numerical models for small debris flows in Yosemite Valley, California, USA. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:993–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen C-L (1987) Comprehensive review of debris flow modeling concepts in Japan. In: Costa JE, Wieczorek GF (eds) Reviews in engineering geology, vol VII. Debris flows/avalanches: process, recognition, and mitigation. The Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp 13–29Google Scholar
  7. Chou HT, Liao WM, Lin ML (2000) Landslide induced debris-flow at a dump site. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the second international conference. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 157–160Google Scholar
  8. Chow VT (1959) Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa JE (1984) Physical geomorphology of debris flows. In: Costa JE, Fleisher PJ (eds) Developments and applications of geomorphology. Springer, Berlin, pp 268–317Google Scholar
  10. Cui P, Chen X, Waqng Y, Hu K, Li Y (2005) Jiangjia Ravine debris flows in south-western China. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Praxis, Chichester, pp 565–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curry RR (1966) Observation of alpine mudflows in the Tenmile Range, central Colorado. Geol Soc Amer Bull 77:771–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeGraff JV (1997) Geologic investigation of the Pilot Ridge debris flow, Groveland Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service FS-6200-7 (10/73)Google Scholar
  13. Dibblee TW Jr (2003a) Geologic map of the Cajon Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California. Dibblee geology center map #DF-104. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. Dibblee TW Jr (2003b) Geologic map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California. Dibblee geology center map #DF-105. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  15. Gartner JE (2005) Relations between wildfire related debris-flow volumes and basin morphology, burn severity, material properties and triggering storm rainfall. Master of Arts thesis, University of Colorado Department of GeographyGoogle Scholar
  16. Genevois R, Tecca PR, Berti M, Simoni A (2000) Debris-flows in the dolomites: experimental data from a monitoring system. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the second international conference. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 283–291Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton D, Zhang S (1997) Velocity profile assessment for debris flow hazards. In: Chen C-L (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the first international conference. ASCE, New York, pp 474–483Google Scholar
  18. Henderson FM (1966) Open channel flow. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21:663–677Google Scholar
  20. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iverson RM (2003) The debris-flow rheology myth. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C-L (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the third international conference. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 303–314Google Scholar
  22. Iverson RM, LaHusen RG, Major JJ, Zimmerman CL (1994) Debris flow against obstacles and bends: dynamics and deposits. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 75:274Google Scholar
  23. Jackson LE Jr (1979) A catastrophic glacial outburst flood (jökulhlaup) mechanism for debris flow generation at the Spiral Tunnels, Kicking Horse River basin, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 16:806–813Google Scholar
  24. Jackson LE Jr, Hungr O, Gardner JS, Mackay C (1989) Cathedral Mountain debris flows, Canada. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 40:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakob M (2005) A size classification for debris flows. Eng Geol 79:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakob M, Hungr O, Thomson B (1997) Two debris flows with anomalously high magnitude. In: Chen C-L (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the first international conference. ASCE, New York, pp 382–394Google Scholar
  27. Jakob M, Anderson D, Fuller T, Hungr O, Ayotte D (2000) An unusually large debris flow at Hummingbird Creek, Mara Lake, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 37:1109–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jan CD, Wang YY, Han WL (2000) Resistance reduction of debris-flow due to air entrainment. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the second international conference. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 369–372Google Scholar
  29. Johnson AM (1984) Debris flow. In: Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley, Chichester, pp 257–361Google Scholar
  30. Johnson AM, Martosudarmo SY (1997) Discrimination between inertial and macro-viscous flows of fine-grained debris with a rolling-sleeve viscometer. In: Chen C-L (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the first international conference. ASCE, New York, pp 229–238Google Scholar
  31. Jordan RP (1994) Debris flows in the Southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia: dynamic behaviour and physical properties. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, The University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Keaton JR, DeGraff JV (1996) Surface observation and geologic mapping. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides investigation and mitigation. Special Report 247, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, pp 178–230Google Scholar
  33. Lo DOK (2000) Review of natural terrain landslide debris-resisting barrier design. GEO Report No. 104, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionGoogle Scholar
  34. Locat J (1997) Normalized rheological behaviour of fine muds and their flow properties in a pseudoplastic regime. In: Chen C-L (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the first international conference. ASCE, New York, pp 260–269Google Scholar
  35. Lorenzini G, Mazza N (2004) Debris flow phenomenology and rheological modeling. WIT Press, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  36. Major JJ, Iverson RM (1999) Debris-flow deposition: effects of pore-fluid pressure and friction concentrated at flow margins. GSA Bull 111:1424–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marina P, Giuseppe S (2007) The runout of debris flows: application of two numerical models and comparison of results. Proceedings of the first North American landslide conference, Vail, Colorado, 3–8 June 2007 (compact disk)Google Scholar
  38. McArdell BW, Zanuttigh B, Lamberti A, Rickenmann D (2003) Systematic comparison of debris-flow laws at the Illgraben torrent, Switzerland. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C-L (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the third international conference. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 647–657Google Scholar
  39. McClung DM (2001) Superelevation of flowing avalanches around curved channel bends. J Geophys Res 106:16,489–16,498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDonald GN, Giraud RE (2002) September 12, 2002, fire-related debris flows east of Santaquin and Spring Lake, Utah County, Utah. Technical Report 02-09, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UtahGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyer GA, Wells SG (1997) Fire-related sedimentation events on alluvial fans, Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. J Sediment Res 67:776–791Google Scholar
  42. Meyer GA, Pierce JL, Wood SH, Jull AJT (2001) Fire, storms, and erosional events in the Idaho batholith. Hydrol Process 15:3025–3038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nasmith HW, Mercer AG (1979) Design of dykes to protect against debris flows at Port Alice, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 16:748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Brien JS (1986) Physical processes, rheology and modeling of mud flows. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, Colorado State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Pashias N, Boger DV (1996) A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurement. J Rheol 40:1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pierson TC (1985) Initiation and flow behavior of the 1980 Pine Creek and Muddy River lahars, Mount St. Helens, Washington. Geol Soc Amer Bull 96:1056–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pierson TC, Costa JE (1987) A rheologic classification of subaerial sediment-water flows. In: Costa JE, Wieczorek GF (eds) Reviews in engineering geology, vol VII. Debris flows/avalanches: process, recognition, and mitigation. The Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  48. Reneau SL, Dietrich WE (1987) The importance of hollows in debris flow studies; examples from Marin County, California. In: Costa JE, Wieczorek GF (eds) Reviews in engineering geology, vol VII. Debris flows/avalanches: process, recognition, and mitigation. The Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp 165–180Google Scholar
  49. Rickenmann D (1999) Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazards 19:47–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rickenmann D, Koch T (1997) Comparison of debris flow modelling approaches. In: Chen C-L (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the first international conference. ASCE, New York, pp 576–585Google Scholar
  51. Santi PM (1988) The kinematics of debris flow transport down a canyon. Master of Science in Geology Thesis, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  52. Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH, DeGraff JV (2006) Evaluation of post-wildfire debris flow mitigation methods and development of decision-support tools. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program, JFSP Contract 03-1-4-14. Also at http://www.firescience.gov/projects/03-1-4-14/03-1-4-14_final_report.pdf
  53. Savage WZ, Smith WK (1986) A model for the plastic flow of landslides. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1385, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Soule NC (2006) The influence of coarse material on the yield strength and viscosity of debris flows. Master of Science in Geological Engineering Thesis, Colorado School of MinesGoogle Scholar
  55. Suwa H, Yamakoshi T (2000) Estimation of debris-flow motion by field surveys. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the second international conference. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 293–299Google Scholar
  56. Suwa H, Akamatsu J, Nagai Y (2003) Energy radiation by elastic waves from debris flows. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C-L (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the third international conference. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 895–904Google Scholar
  57. Thomas GB Jr, Finney RL (1984) Calculus and analytic geometry. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  58. Tropeano D, Turconi L, Rosso M, Cavallo C (2003) The October 15, 2000 debris flow in the Bioley torrent, Fenis, Aosta valley, Italy—damage and processes. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C-L (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the third international conference. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 1037–1048Google Scholar
  59. VanDine DF (1985) Debris flows and debris torrents in the Southern Canadian Cordillera. Can Geotech J 22:44–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. VanDine DF (1996) Debris flow control structures for forest engineering. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program, Working Paper 08/1996Google Scholar
  61. Williams GP (1986) River meanders and channel size. J Hydrol 88:147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang S, Chen J (2003) Measurement of debris-flow surface characteristics through close-range photogrammetry. In: Rickenmann D, Chen C-L (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Proceedings of the third international conference. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 775–784Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam B. Prochaska
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul M. Santi
    • 1
  • Jerry D. Higgins
    • 1
  • Susan H. Cannon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geology and Geological EngineeringColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  2. 2.US Geological SurveyDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations