Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of slit-type barrier on characteristics of water-dominant debris flows: small-scale physical modeling

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Landslides Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Slit-type barriers, one of open-type barriers, are widely used as active measures to mitigate potential risk and damage by debris flows, and those are designed and installed to reduce the flow energy by only passing relatively small debris. However, the mechanisms of slit-type barriers in reducing the debris flow velocity and debris volume remain poorly understood because of the lack of well-controlled and reliable physical modeling results. This study explored the influence of various arrangements of slit-type barriers, including P-type barriers in which each rectangular barrier was placed in parallel and V-type barriers where the barriers were placed in a V-shape, on characteristics of water-dominant debris flows via small-scale model experiments. The debris flow events were reproduced against the slit-type barriers, where the velocity reduction and trap ratio were monitored, varying the angle and shape of barrier arrangements. The velocity reduction and trap ratio appeared to increase as the angle of the barrier wall decreased because of the decreased opening ratio. The V-type barriers resulted in higher velocity reduction and trap ratio than the P-type, primarily because of the smaller effective opening ratio and the more backwater effect. In addition, as the debris contained more boulders, the extent of velocity reduction and debris trap became greater in all barrier types. Two types of opening ratios, the projected and effective opening ratios, were correlated to the interactions between debris and walls. The obtained results provide baseline data for the optimum design of slit-type barriers against debris flow and suggest that the slit-type barriers can effectively manage the risk of damage by debris flows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armanini A, Larcher M, Odorizzi M (2011) Dynamic impact of a debris flow front against a vertical wall. 5th International conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment, Padua, Italy, 14–17 June, pp 1041–1049

  • Choi CE, Ng CW, Au-Yeung SCH, Goodwin GR (2015) Froude characteristics of both dense granular and water flows in flume modelling. Landslides 12:1197–1206. doi:10.1007/s10346-015-0628-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui P, Zeng C, Lei Y (2015) Experimental analysis on the impact force of viscous debris flow. Earth Surf Proc Land 40:1644–1655. doi:10.1002/esp.3744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans SG (1982) Landslides and surficial deposits in urban areas of British Columbia: a review. Can Geotech J 19:269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoretti C (2000) The initiation of debris flow at high slopes: experimental results. J Hydraul Res 38:83–88. doi:10.1080/00221680009498343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D, Kaitna R, Scheidl C (2009) Debris flow impact estimation. 11th International symposium on water management and hydraulic engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia, 1–5 September, pp 1–5

  • Hungr O, Morgan G, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21:663–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeya H, Uehara S (1980) Experimental study about the sediment control of slit Sabo dams. J Jpn Erosion Control Eng Soc 114:37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakob M, Hungr O, Jakob DM (2005) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong S, Kim Y, Lee JK, Kim J (2015) The 27 July 2011 debris flows at Umyeonsan, Seoul, Korea. Landslides 12:799–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Nakagawa H, Kawaike K, Zhang H (2013) Study on characteristic analysis of closed-type Sabo dam with a flap due to dynamic force of debris flow. Annuals of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister D, Morgan G, Vandine D, Kerr J (1984) Debris torrents along Howe Sound, British Columbia. 4th International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto, Canada, pp 649–654

  • Nasmith H, Mercer A (1979) Design of dykes to protect against debris flows at Port Alice, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 16:748–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng CW, Choi C, Song D, Kwan J, Koo R, Shiu H, Ho KK (2015) Physical modeling of baffles influence on landslide debris mobility. Landslides 12:1–18. doi:10.1007/s10346-014-0476-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan HL, Huang JC, Wei LQ, Ou GQ (2012) A study on scouring laws downstream of debris flow Sabo dams. Appl Mech Mate 170–173:2071–2076

  • Pierson TC (2005) Hyperconcentrated flow―transitional process between water flow and debris flow. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 34:121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott KM, Vallance J, Pringle PT (1995) Sedimentology, behavior, and hazards of debris flows at Mount Rainier. USGS professional paper 1547, US Geological Survey

  • Sharpe CFS (1938) Landslides and related phenomena: a study of mass-movements of soil and rock. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanston DN, Swanson FJ (1976) Timber harvesting, mass erosion, and steepland forest geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphol Eng 4:199–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi T (2014) Debris flow: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. CRC, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thielicke W, Stamhuis E (2010) Time resolved digital particle image velocimetry tool for Matlab. This code can be downloadable at the following website: http://PIVlab.blogspot.com

  • Watanabe M, Mizuyama T, Uehara S (1980) Review of debris flow countermeasure facilities. J Jpn Erosion Control Eng Soc 115:40–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenbing H, Guoqiang O (2006) Efficiency of slit dam prevention against non-viscous debris flow. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 11:865–869. doi:10.1007/BF02830178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollinger F (1985) Debris detention basins in the European Alps. International symposium on erosion, debris flow and disaster prevention, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 433–438

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant (13SCIPS04) from Smart Civil Infrastructure Research Program funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) of Korea government and Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) and by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT Future Planning (2014R1A1003419).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tae-Hyuk Kwon.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(MP4 3489 kb)

ESM 2

(MP4 4034 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, SK., Lee, JM. & Kwon, TH. Effect of slit-type barrier on characteristics of water-dominant debris flows: small-scale physical modeling. Landslides 15, 111–122 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0853-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0853-4

Keywords

Navigation