Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 1403–1433 | Cite as

A numerical model for the simulation of debris flow triggering, propagation and arrest

  • Andrea D’AnielloEmail author
  • Luca Cozzolino
  • Luigi Cimorelli
  • Renata Della Morte
  • Domenico Pianese
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, it is described the development and the assessment of a 1D numerical procedure for the simulation of debris flow phenomena. The procedure focuses on: (1) the rainfall triggering, and the effects induced on slope stability by both rainfall infiltration and groundwater dynamics; (2) the possible inception of debris flows during the propagation phenomenon itself, due to the actions exerted on the slope by the already triggered flowing masses; (3) the propagation phenomenon over complex topographies; (4) the non-Newtonian internal dissipative processes that develop within the sediment–water mixture; (5) the effects induced by the evolution of the boundaries where the propagation phenomenon occurs; (6) the run-out and arrest phenomena. In order to show the performance and capabilities of the model, the results of its application to an analytic test and to laboratory experimental tests are first analyzed, and finally, the application to a plausible debris flow scenario, taken from a real case study, is discussed.

Keywords

Debris flows Pyroclastic soils Rainfall triggering Slope stability analysis Propagation Finite volume method 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Authors want to thank the Editor and the two anonymous Reviewers for their observations that have been useful to improve considerably the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Audusse E, Bouchut F, Bristeau MO, Klein R, Perthame B (2004) A fast and stable well-balanced scheme with hydrostatic reconstruction for shallow water flows. SIAM J Sci Comput 25(6):2050–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begnudelli L, Rosatti G (2011) Hyperconcentrated 1D shallow flows on fixed bed with geometrical source term due to a bottom step. J Sci Comput 48(1–3):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilotta E, Cascini L, Foresta V, Sorbino G (2005) Geotechnical characterization of pyroclastic soils involved in huge flowslides. Geotech Geol Eng 23:365–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biot MA (1941) General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biot MA (1955) Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid. J Appl Phys 26:182–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Géotechnique 5:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bromhead EN (1986) The stability of slopes. Surrey University Press, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  8. Budetta P, de Riso R (2004) The mobility of some debris flows in pyroclastic deposits of the northwestern Campanian region (Southern Italy). Bull Eng Geol Environ 63:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao Z, Pender G, Wallis S, Carling P (2004) Computational dam-break hydraulics over erodible sediment bed. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 130(7):689–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cascini L, Cuomo S, Sorbino G (2005) Flow-like mass movements in pyroclastic soils: remarks on the modelling of triggering mechanisms. Ital Geotech J 4:11–31Google Scholar
  11. Cascini L, Cuomo S, Pastor M, Fernández-Merodo JA (2008) Geomechanical modelling of triggering mechanisms for rainfall-induced triangular shallow landslides of the flowtype. In: Sànchez-Marrè M, Béjar J, Comas J, Rizzoli AE, Guariso G (eds) Proceedings of the iEMSs fourth biennial meeting: international congress on environmental modelling and software (iEMSs 2008). 7–10 July 2008, Barcelona, Spain. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs), Manno, pp 1516–1523Google Scholar
  12. Cascini L, Cuomo S, Pastor M (2012) Inception of debris avalanches: remarks on geomechanical modelling. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-012-0366-0
  13. Cetina M, Rajar R, Hojnik T, Zakrajsek M, Krzyk M, Mikos M (2006) Case study: numerical simulations of debris flows below stoze, Slovenia. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 132(2):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen CL (1988) Generalized viscoplastic modeling of debris flow. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 114(3):237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  17. Cosenza E, Cozzolino L, Pianese D, Fabbrocino G, Acanfora M (2006) Concrete structures for mitigation of debris-flow hazard in the Montoro Inferiore area, Southern Italy. In Proceedings of 2nd fib congress, June 5–8, 2006, Naples, Italy, paper 19-5, ISBN-10: 88-89972-06-8Google Scholar
  18. Costa JE, Williams GP (1984) Debris-flow dynamics (video tape). US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 84-606Google Scholar
  19. Cozzolino L, Della Morte R, Covelli C, Del Giudice G, Pianese D (2011) Numerical solution of the discontinuous-bottom Shallow-water Equations with hydrostatic pressure distribution at the step. Adv Water Resour 34:1413–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cozzolino L, Della Morte R, Del Giudice G, Palumbo A, Pianese D (2012) A well-balanced spectral volume scheme with the wetting–drying property for the shallow-water equations. J Hydroinform 14(3):745–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cozzolino L, Cimorelli L, Covelli C, Della Morte R, Pianese D (2014a) A novel numerical approach for 1D variable density shallow flows over uneven rigid and erodible beds. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 140(3):254–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cozzolino L, Cimorelli L, Covelli C, Della Morte R, Pianese D (2014b) Boundary conditions in finite volume schemes for the solution of shallow-water equations: The non-submerged broad-crested weir. J Hydroinf. doi: 10.2166/hydro.2014.100
  23. Cozzolino L, Della Morte R, Cimorelli L, Covelli C, Pianese D (2014c) A broad-crested weir boundary condition in finite volume shallow-water numerical models. Proced Eng 70(2014):353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crosta GB, Imposimato S, Roddeman D (2008) Numerical modelling of entrainment/deposition in rock and debris-avalanches. Eng Geol 109(2009):135–145Google Scholar
  25. Cunge JA, Holly FM, Verwey A (1980) Practical aspects of computational river hydraulics. Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. D’Aniello A, Cozzolino L, Cimorelli L, Covelli C, Della Morte R, Pianese D (2014) One-dimensional simulation of debris-flow inception and propagation. The Third Italian Workshop on Landslides. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 9:112–121. doi: 10.1016/j.proeps.2014.06.005
  27. Dal Maso G, LeFloch PG, Murat F (1995) Definition and weak stability of nonconservative products. J Math Pures Appl IX Sèr 74(6):483–548Google Scholar
  28. De Vita P, Angrisani AC, Di Clemente E (2008) Engineering geological properties of the Phlegraean Pozzolan soil (Campania region, Italy) and effect of the suction on the stability of cut slopes. Ital J Eng Geol Environ 2:5–22Google Scholar
  29. Denlinger RP, Iverson RM (2001) Flow variably fluidized granular masses across three-dimensional terrain: 2. Numerical predictions and experimental tests. J Geophys Res 106(1):553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Denlinger RP, Iverson RM (2004) Granular avalanches across irregular three-dimensional terrain: 1. Theory and computation. J Geophys Res, 109(F1):1–14Google Scholar
  31. Di Crescenzo G, Santo A (2005) Debris slides-rapid earth flows in the carbonate massifs of the Campania region (Southern Italy): morphological and morphometric data for evaluating triggering susceptibility. Geomorphology 66:255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gottlieb S, Shu CW (1998) Total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta schemes. Math Comput 221(67):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gray JMNT, Kokelaar BP (2010) Large particle segregation, transport and accumulation in granular free-surface flows. J Fluid Mech 652:105–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guadagno FM, Forte R, Revellino P, Fiorillo F, Focareta M (2005) Some aspects of the initiation of debris avalanches in the Campania Region: the role of morphological slope discontinuities and the development of failure. Geomorphology 66:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hungr O (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows, and avalanches. Can Geotech J 32:610–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutchinson JN, Bhandari RK (1971) Undrained loading, a fundamental mechanism of mudflow and other mass movements. Geotechnique 21(4):353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iverson RM (2000) Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour Res 36(7):1897–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Iverson RM (2003) The debris-flow myth. In: Chen CL, Rickenmann D (eds) Debris flow mechanics and mitigation conference. Mills Press, Davos, pp 303–314Google Scholar
  40. Iverson RM (2013) Mechanics of debris flows and rock avalanches. In: Joseph H, Fernando S (eds) Handbook of environmental fluid dynamics, vol One. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, pp 573–587Google Scholar
  41. Iverson RM, Reid ME, LaHusen RG (1997) Debris-flow mobilization from landslides. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 25:85–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Iverson RM, Logan M, LaHusen RG, Berti M (2010) The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large-scale experiments. J Geophys Res 115:F03005Google Scholar
  43. Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1968) Soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Lin M-L, Wang K-L, Huang J-J (2005) Debris flow run off simulation and verification: case study of Chen-You-Lan watershed, Taiwan. EGU NHESS 5:439–445Google Scholar
  45. Major JJ (2000) Gravity-driven consolidation of granular slurries: implications for debris-flow deposition and deposit characteristics. J Sediment Res 70(1):64–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Major JJ, Iverson RM (1999) Debris-flow deposition: effects of pore-fluid pressure and friction concentrated at flow margins. GSA Bull 111(10):1424–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mangeney-Castelnau A, Vilotte JP, Bristeau MO, Perthame B, Bouchut F, Simeoni C, Yerneni S (2003) Numerical modeling of avalanches based on Saint-Venant equations using a kinetic scheme. J Geophys Res 108(B11):1–18Google Scholar
  48. McDougall S, Hungr O (2005) Dynamic modelling of entrainment in rapid landslides. Can Geotech J 42:1437–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medina V, Hurlimann M, Bateman A (2007) Application of FLATModel, a 2D finite volume code, to debris flows in the northern-eastern part of the Iberian peninsula. Landslides 5:127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Brien JS, Julien PY (1985) Physical properties and mechanics of hyperconcentrated sediment flows. In DS Bowles (ed) Proceedings ASCE Speciality, Conference on the delineation of landslides, flashflood, and debris flows hazards in Utah. Logan, Utah, pp 260–279Google Scholar
  51. O’Brien JS, Julien PY, Fullerton WT (1993) Two-dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 119(2):244–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Brien JS (1986) Physical processes, rheology and modeling of mudflows. PhD thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  53. Paik J (2014) A high resolution finite volume for 1D debris flow. J Hydroenviron Res xx:1–11Google Scholar
  54. Paik J, Park S-D (2011) Numerical simulation of flood and debris flows through drainage culvert. Ital J Eng Geol Environ Book 11:487–493Google Scholar
  55. Papa M, Pianese D (2002) Influence of cross-sectional velocity, density and pressure gradients on debris flow modelling. Phys Chem Earth 27(36):1545–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pastor M, Haddad B, Sorbino G, Cuomo S, Drempetic V (2009) A depth integrated coupled SPH model for flow-like landslides and related phenomena. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 33(2):143–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pianese D (1993) Influenza della non stazionarietà e non uniformità del trasporto solido sui processi di evoluzione d’alveo, Communication No. 725. Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering G. Ippolito, University of Napoli Federico II, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  58. Pianese D (1994) Comparison of different mathematical models for river dynamics analysis. Communication No. 782. Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering G. Ippolito, University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli. Presented at International Workshop on Floods and Inundations related to Large Earth Movements, Trent Univ., Trent, Italy, 4–7 OctGoogle Scholar
  59. Pianese D (1999) Sulle cause meteoriche di innesco dei movimenti franosi. Atti del Convegno “Analisi del dissesto idrogeologico in Italia”—Internal. Rep. no. 870. Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering. Federico II UniversityGoogle Scholar
  60. Pianese D, Barbiero L (2003) Formulation of a two-dimensional unsteady debris-flow model for the analysis of debris-flow hazards and countermeasures thereof. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference on debris-flow hazards and mitigation: mechanics, predictions and assessment, Congress Center, Davos (Switzerland), September 10–12, 2003, vol 1, pp 705–716Google Scholar
  61. Pianese D, Barbiero L (2004) Discussion of the paper: ‘Case Study: Malpasset Dam-Break Simulation using a Two-Dimensional Finite Volume Method’ (2002) by Alessandro Valiani, Valerio Caleffi, and Andrea Zanni, published on the J Hydraul Eng ASCE 130(9): 941-944; ISSN: 0733-9429Google Scholar
  62. Potter D (1972) Computational physics. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Pudasaini SP, Wang Y, Hutter K (2005) Modelling debris flows down general channels. EGU NHESS 5:799–819Google Scholar
  64. Quan Luna B, Remaitre A, van Asch ThWJ, Malet J-P, van Westen CJ (2011) Analysis of debris flow behavior with a one dimensional run-out model incorporating entrainment. Eng Geol 128(2012):63–75Google Scholar
  65. Rossi F, Villani P (1995) Valutazione delle Piene in Campania. CNR-GNDCI, Pubbl. N. 1472, Grafica Metelliana & C., Cava de' Tirreni (SA)Google Scholar
  66. Savage SB, Hutter K (1989) The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough incline. J Fluid Mech 199:177–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Savage SB, Hutter K (1991) The dynamics of avalanches of granular materials from initiation to runout, part I. Analysis. Acta Mech 86:201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. SCS (Soil Conservation Service) (1972) SCS national engineering handbook, Sec. 4. Hydrology, USDA, USAGoogle Scholar
  69. Sosio R, Crosta GB, Frattini P (2007) Field observations, rheological testing and numerical modelling of a debris-flow event. Earth Surf Process Landf 32:290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Spinewine B, Zech Y (2007) Small-scale laboratory dam-break waves on movable beds. J Hydraul Res 45(Extra Issue):73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Takahashi T (1991) Debris flow. IAHR monograph. A.A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  72. Takahashi T (2007) Debris flow. Mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. Taylor and Francis, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Takahashi T, Nakagawa H (1989) Debris flow hazard zone mapping. In: Proceedings Japan–China (Taipei) joint seminar on natural hazard mitigation. Kyoto, Japan, pp 363–372Google Scholar
  74. Takahashi T, Tsujimoto H (1985) Delineation of the debris flow hazardous zone by a numerical simulation method. In Proceedings international syrup on erosion, debris flow and disaster prevention. Tsukuba, Japan, pp 457–462Google Scholar
  75. Tarolli P, Borga M, Dalla Fontana G (2008) Analyzing the influence of upslope bedrock outcrops on shallow landsliding. Geomorphology 93:186–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Toro EF (1999) Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  77. Toro EF (2001) Shock-capturing methods for free-surface shallow flows. Wiley, LTDGoogle Scholar
  78. Toro EF, Spruce M, Speares W (1994) Restoration of the contact surface in the HLL Riemann solver. Shock Waves 4(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang FW, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2003) Downslope volume enlargement of a debris slide-debris flow in the 1999 Hiroshima, Japan, rainstorm. Eng Geol 69:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zienkiewicz OC, Chang CT, Bettess P (1980) Drained, undrained, consolidating dynamic behaviour assumptions in soils. Geotechnique 30:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Shrefler BA, Shiomi T (1999) Computational geomechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea D’Aniello
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luca Cozzolino
    • 2
  • Luigi Cimorelli
    • 1
  • Renata Della Morte
    • 2
  • Domenico Pianese
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringUniversity of Naples ParthenopeNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations