Advertisement

Dynamical evolution properties of debris flows controlled by different mesh-sized flexible net barriers

  • Miao Huo
  • Jia-wen Zhou
  • Xing-guo Yang
  • Hong-wei Zhou
Original Paper
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Because the flexible net barrier is a gradually developed open-type debris-flow counter-measure, there are still uncertainties in its design criterion. By using several small-scale experimental flume model tests, the dynamical evolution properties of debris flows controlled by large and small mesh-sized (equal to D90 and D50, respectively) flexible net barriers are studied, including the debris flow behaviors, segregation, and permeability of sediments, as well as the energy absorption rates and potential overtopping occurring when debris flows impact the small mesh-sized one. Experimental results reveal that (a) two sediment deposition patterns are observed depending on variations in debris flow textures and mesh sizes; (b) the aggregation against flexible net barriers is dominated by flow dynamics; (c) the segregation and permeable functions of the barrier are determined by the mesh size, concentration, and flow dynamics; and (d) the smaller mesh-sized flexible net barrier tends to be more efficient in restraining more turbulent debris flows and can absorb greater rate of kinematic energy, and finally, the great kinematic energy dissipation that occurs when secondary debris flows interact with the post-deposits in front of the small mesh-sized flexible net barrier is believed to cause the failure of overtopping phenomenon. The mesh size is concluded to be the decisive parameter that should be associated with debris flow textures to design the control functions of flexible net barriers.

Keywords

Debris flow Flexible net barrier Mesh size Segregation and permeability Energy absorption 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51639007), the Youth Science and Technology Fund of Sichuan Province (2016JQ0011), and the Science and Technology Fund of Chengdu Water Authority (14H1055).

References

  1. Armanini A, Larcher M, Odorizzi M (2011) Dynamic impact of a debris flow front against a vertical wall. In proceedings of the 5th international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics. Prediction and Assessment, Padua, Italy, pp 1041–1049.  https://doi.org/10.4408/IJEGE.2011-03.B-113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashida K, Takahashi T (1980) Study on debris flow control – hydraulic function of grid-type open dam: annuals. DPRI 23B–2:433–441 (in Japanese) https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2433/70347 Google Scholar
  3. Ashwood W, Hungr O (2016) Estimating total resisting force in flexible barrier impacted by a granular avalanche using physical and numerical modeling. Can Geotech J 53:1700–1717.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brighenti R, Segalini A, Ferrero AM (2013) Debris flow hazard mitigation: a simplified analytical model for the design of flexible barriers. Comput Geotech 54:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.05.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunkal H, Santi P (2016) Exploration of design parameters for a dewatering barrier for debris flow mitigation. Eng Geol 208:81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabrera CJ, Castillo NL (2016) Evaluation of flexible barrier and sabo dam to control effects of debris flow in Santo Domingo Ravine. In B. Crookston & B. Tullis (Eds.), hydraulic barriers and water system management. 6th IAHR international symposium on hydraulic barriers, Portland, OR, 27-30 (pp. 284-294). doi:  https://doi.org/10.15142/T3220628160853
  7. Canelli L, Ferrero AM, Migliazza M, Segalini A (2012) Debris flow risk mitigation by the means of rigid and flexible barriers – experimental tests and impact analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:1693–1699.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-1693-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen XQ, You Y, Chen JG, Huang K, De-Ji LI (2014) Characteristics of a drainage channel with staggered indented sills for controlling debris flows. J Mt Sci 11(5):1242–1252.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2917-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi CE, Au-Yeung SCH, Ng CWW, Song D (2015) Flume investigation of landslide granular debris and water runup mechanisms. Geotechnique Letters 5:28–32.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geolett.14.00080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coussot P, Meunier M (1996) Recognition, classification and mechanical description of debris flows. Earth Sci Rev 40(3–4):209–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-8252(95)00065-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeNatale JS, Iverson RM, Major JJ, LaHusen RG, Fiegel GL, Duffy JD (1999) Experimental testing of flexible barriers for containment of debris flows. Open-file report 99-205, U.S. Geological Survey, Vanvcouver, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrero AM, Segalini A, Umili G (2015) Experimental tests for the application of an analytical model for flexible debris flow barrier design. Eng Geol 185:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D, Kaitna R, Scheidl C (2009) Debris flow impact estimation. In proceedings of the 11th international symposium on water management and hydraulic engineering. Ohrid, Macedonia, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  14. Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (2011) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial. Can Geotech J 21(4):663–677.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t84-073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11(2):167–194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huo M, Zhou JW, Yang XG, Zhou HW (2017) Effects of a flexible net barrier on the dynamic behaviours and interception of debris flows in mountainous areas. J Mt Sci 14(10):1903–1918.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-017-4373-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Itoh T, Horiuchi S, Akanuma J, Kaitsuka K, Kuraoka S, Morita T, Sugiyama M, Mizuyama T (2011) Fundamental hydraulic flume tests focused on sediment control function using a grid-type high dam. Proceedings of 5th international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment, ASCE, Padua, Italy, pp. 1051-2061. doi:  https://doi.org/10.4408/IJEGE.2011-03.B-114
  18. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296.  https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iverson RM (2014) Debris flows: behavior and hazard assessment. Geol Today 30:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iverson RM (2015) Scaling and design of landslide and debris-flow experiments. Geomorphology 244:9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.02.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iverson RM, George DL, Logan M (2016) Debris flow runup on vertical barriers and adverse slopes. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 121:2333–2357.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwan JSH, Cheung RWM (2012) Suggestions on design approaches for flexible debris-resisting barriers. GEO discussion note DN 1/2012. GEO, Hong Kong, p 90Google Scholar
  23. Kwan JSH, Chan SL, Cheuk JCY, Koo RCH (2014) A case study on an open hillside landslide impacting on a flexible rockfall barrier at Jordan Valley, Hong Kong. Landslides 11(6):1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0461-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le MH, Zhu J, Huang X, Tang D, Jiang Z, Chang M (2013) Activity characteristics and damming of Yongjiagou debris flow in Qingping area after Wenchuan earthquake. J Mt Sci 31(5):573–579 (in Chinese).  https://doi.org/10.16089/j.cnki.1008-2786.2013.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leonardi A, Wittel FK, Mendoza M, Vetter R, Herrmann HJ (2016) Grain–fluid–barrier interaction for debris flow impact on flexible barriers. Comput Aided Civ Inf Eng 31:323–333.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12165Source:arXiv CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mizuyama T (2008) Structural countermeasures for debris flow disasters. Int J Erosion Control Eng. 1:38–43.  https://doi.org/10.13101/ijece.1.38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mizuyama T, Kobashi S, Mizuno H (1995) Control of passing sediment with grid-type dams. J JSECE 47(5):8–13 (in Japanese).  https://doi.org/10.11475/sabo1973.47.5_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moriguchi S, Borja RI, Yashima A, Sawada K (2009) Estimating the impact force generated by granular flow on a rigid obstruction. Acta Geotech 4:57–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-009-0084-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ng CWW, Choi CE, Kwan JSH, Shiu HYK, Ho KSS, Koo RCH (2012) Flume modelling of debris flow resisting baffles. Proceedings of the one day seminar on natural terrain hazard mitigation measures, pp. 16-21Google Scholar
  30. Ng CWW, Song D, Choi CE, Liu LHD, Kwan JSH, Koo R, Pun WK (2016) Impact mechanisms of granular and viscous flows on rigid and flexible barriers. Can Geotech J 54:188–206.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Okubo S, Ikeya H, Ishikawa Y, Yamada T (2008) Development of new methods for countermeasures against debris flows. Recent Developments on Debris Flows. Springer Berlin Heidelberg pp. 166–185. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0117768
  32. Rickenmann D (1999) Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazards 19(1):47–77.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008064220727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Segalini A, Ferrero AM, Brighenti R (2013) Channelized debris flow hazard mitigation through the use of flexible barriers: a simplified computational approach for a sensitivity analysis Egu General Assembly p 15. http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/EGU2013-1991.pdf
  34. Sun HW, Law RPH (2015) A preliminary study on impact of landslide debris on flexible barriers. GEO Report No 309(p):47Google Scholar
  35. Takahashi T (2007) Debris flow mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. Taylor and Francis Group, London.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203946282
  36. Vagnon F, Segalini A (2016) Debris flow impact estimation on a rigid barrier. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16:1691–1697.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1691-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vagnon F, Ferrero A, Segalini A, Pirulli M (2017) Experimental study for the design of flexible barriers under debris flow impact. Landslides and Engineered Slopes. Experience, Theory and Practice - Aversa et al. (Eds) Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, Rome, Italy, pp. 1951–1956. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1201/b21520-244 Google Scholar
  38. Wendeler C, Volkwein A (2015) Laboratory tests for the optimization of mesh size for flexible debris-flow barriers. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:2099–2118.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-3-2099-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wendeler C, Volkwein A, Roth A, Denk M, Wartmann S (2007) Field measurements used for numerical modelling of flexible debris flow barriers. The fourth international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Chengdu, China, 10–13 September 2007. Pp. 681-687Google Scholar
  40. Wendeler C, Mcardell BW, Volkwein A, Denk M, Gröner E (2008) Debris flow mitigation with flexible ring net barriers – field tests and case studies. Debris Flow, pp:23–31.  https://doi.org/10.2495/DEB080031
  41. Xie T, Yang H, Wei F, Gardner JS, Dai Z, Xie X (2014) A new water-sediment separation barrier for debris flow defense and its model test. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(4):947–958.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0585-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang J, Guo ZX, Cao SY, Singh VP (2013) Scale model for the confluent area of debris flow and main river: a case study of the Wenjia gully. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(2):3083–3093.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-3083-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River EngineeringSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Water Resource and HydropowerSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations