Advertisement

Landslides

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 1197–1206 | Cite as

Froude characteristics of both dense granular and water flows in flume modelling

  • C. E. ChoiEmail author
  • C. W. W. Ng
  • S. C. H. Au-Yeung
  • G. R. Goodwin
Technical Note

Abstract

One of the challenges associated with small-scale flume modelling is achieving dynamic similarity. Froude (Fr) scaling is commonly adopted to capture the bulk characteristics of a flowing medium. Although the Fr number cannot capture the micro-interactions of a flow medium, it is commonly adopted by engineers, due to its simplistic nature for characterising mass-wasting processes. Given the prevalence of Fr scaling, an improved understanding of the development of Fr characteristics for channelized surge flows is certainly warranted. A 5-m long rectangular flume model was adopted to carry out experiments using dense uniform dry granular and water flows, separately. Laser and photoconductive sensors, and high speed imagery were used to estimate flow velocity and thickness. Results reveal that the Fr behaviour of uniform dry sand and water flows is dependent on its energy-dissipation mechanism. The initial volume has a greater influence on suppression of Fr conditions compared to shallower channel inclinations for both granular and water flows. The major limitation of small-scale flume modelling lies in limited initial volumes. Limited initial volumes lead to shallow flow depths and results in the flow velocity controlling Fr development of the flow mass with transportation. Frictional materials are not favourable for developing low Fr numbers in flume modelling.

Keywords

Froude characteristics Flume modelling Dense granular flow Water flow Mass-wasting processes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (HKUST 06/CRF/12R and T22-603/15 N). The authors would also like to acknowledge the support by the HKUST Jockey Club Institute of Advanced Study. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the constructive comments from the two anonymous reviewers of this paper.

References

  1. Armanini A, Larcher M, Odorizzi M (2011) Dynamic impact of a debris flow against a vertical wall. Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment 11:1041–1049Google Scholar
  2. 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 and Earth Syst Sci 12:1693–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi CE, Ng CWW, Song D, Kwan JSH, Shiu HYK, Ho KKS, Koo RCH (2014) Flume investigation of landslide debris-resisting baffles. Can Geotech J 51(5):540–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi CE, Au-Yeung SCH, Ng CWW, Song D (2015) Flume investigation of landslide granular debris and water runup mechanisms. Géotechnique Letters 5(1):28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cui P, Zeng C, Lei Y (2015) Experimental analysis on the impact force of viscous debris flow. Earth Surf Process Landf. doi: 10.1002/esp.3744 Google Scholar
  6. Forterre Y, Pouliquen O (2008) Flows of dense granular media. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geotechnical Engineering Office (2012) GEO report no. 270: supplementary technical guidance on design of rigid debris-resisting barriers. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong SARGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 1–5 September 2009. WMHE, Ohrid, Macedonia, pp 137–148Google Scholar
  9. Hauksson S, Pagliardi M, Barbolini M, Jóhannesson T (2007) Laboratory measurements of impact forces of supercritical granular flow against mast-like obstacles. Cold Reg Sci Technol 49(1):54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35(3):245–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ng CWW, Choi CE, Law RPH (2013) Longitudinal spreading of granular flow in trapezoidal channels. Geomorphol 194:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ng CWW, Choi CE, Song D, Kwan JSH, Koo RCH, Shiu HYK, Ho KKS (2014) Physical modelling of baffles influence on landslide debris mobility. Landslides 12(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pudasaini SP, Kroner C (2008) Shock waves in rapid flows of dense granular materials: theoretical predictions and experimental results. Phys Rev E 78(041308):1–11Google Scholar
  14. Speerli J, Hersperger R, Wendeler C, Roth A (2010) Physical modeling of debris flows over flexible ring-net barriers. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. 28 June – 1 July 2010. ICPMG, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 1285–1290Google Scholar
  15. Scheidl C, Chiari M, Kaitna R, Müllegger M, Krawtschuk A, Zimmermann T, Proske D (2013) Analysing debris-flow impact models, based on a small scale modelling approach. Surv Geophys 34(1):121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhou GGD, Ng CWW (2010) Dimensional analysis of natural debris flows. Can Geotech J 47(7):719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. E. Choi
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. W. W. Ng
    • 1
  • S. C. H. Au-Yeung
    • 1
  • G. R. Goodwin
    • 1
  1. 1.The Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyKowloonHong Kong SAR

Personalised recommendations