Skip to main content
Log in

A general analytical model for superelevation in landslide

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

Abstract

Superelevation is an often observed phenomenon in landslide and debris flow down a complex three-dimensional topography. The degree of superelevation is controlled by the geometry of the channel, the material involved and also the flow dynamics. Empirical methods are usually applied to estimate superelevation. However, those models are incomplete and lack important aspects of the channel geometry, material properties and flow dynamics, instigating serious errors in estimating flow velocities that could only be controlled empirically by introducing ad hoc correction factors. Here, we present new and complete analytical models for superelevation and superelevation velocities down a general topography providing a fully dynamical method. New models formally include essential forces that play an important role in the flow dynamics, namely gravitational forces, topographic- and hydraulic-pressure gradients and Coulomb friction. We discuss the importance of geometry in inducing superelevation and that one directional channel without twist cannot produce superelevation. With the new models we can, in principle, exactly obtain the flow velocities of deformable landslide, dynamic impact pressures and the explicit description of deposition. We have formally provided two alternative analytical representations for superelevation: geometrical and dynamical definitions of superelevation, which is a new concept. We proved that for superelevation to take place, the transversal velocity must have a gradient across the channel. We have analytically constructed a new non-dimensional superelevation number. Superelevation velocity appears to be a non-linear function of the superelevation number. We can now explicitly quantify the superelevation intensity in landslide motion. It has several implications. We proved that superelevation is higher for fluid-saturated debris flows than for dry granular flows. New superelevation models have been validated against a laboratory granular flow down a multi-dimensionally curved channel, and a natural debris flow event in Chamoson, Valais, Switzerland. Our theoretical superelevation velocities appear to be very close to the velocity measured in laboratory and in the field, which however, are largely overestimated by the empirical models. We further validated the model by constructing an exact analytical solution and by applying it to describe superelevation-induced propagation and deposition of the natural debris flow event. New simulations produced observed propagating fronts.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.lematin.ch/suisse/suisse-romande/lave-torrentielle-devale-chamoson/story/16161089

  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGNISaAjbxU

Abbreviations

b :

basal surface of flow

B :

channel width

\( \mathcal{A},\mathcal{B} \) :

functions of physical, geometrical parameters

C :

master curve

C, D :

non-linear advection, diffusion coefficients

Cx, Cy, Ct :

coefficients of (dynamic) impact pressures, total pressure

\( \mathcal{C},{\mathcal{C}}_0 \) :

constant of integration

e :

corresponds to superelevation in transportation lines

f :

corresponds to friction in transportation lines

Fx, Fy :

net driving forces along x, y

g :

gravity constant

gx, gy, gz :

components of gravitational acceleration

H :

assumed hydraulic pressure gradient

h :

debris flow depth

ho, hi :

flow depths in outer and inner curvatures of channel

\( \mathcal{I} \) :

=\( \mathcal{I}\left({\mathcal{S}}_N\right) \), superelevation intensity

K :

empirical superelevation correction factor

Kx, Ky :

earth pressure coefficients

\( {K}_{y_p},{K}_{y_a} \) :

passive/active Ky on outer/inner flanks

O :

coordinate origin, at master curve or talweg

px, py, pt :

(dynamic) impact pressures, total pressure

P u :

=μκη, unified parameter

R :

=1/κ, radius of curvature

s :

length along the channel

\( {\mathcal{S}}_N \) :

superelevation number

t :

time

u, v :

velocity components along x, y

u :

=(u, v)

vo, vi,:

velocities on outer and inner flanks of slope

x, y, z :

coordinate lines/flow directions

α, β :

advection, diffusion flux parameters

γ :

pressure parameter

δ :

basal friction angle

ζ, ζl :

channel slope angle, mean lateral slope

η, ϕ,:

ccumulation of torsion

θ :

azimuthal angle

κ :

curvature

λ :

pore pressure ratio

μ; μe, μ0 :

= tan δ, friction coefficient; static, effective μ

τ :

torsion

ϕ 0 :

reference value of ϕ

References

  • Agisoft LLC (2015) Agisoft PhotoScan user manual, professional edition, version 1.2.6

  • Allen JRL (1985) Principles of physical sedimentology. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Apmann RP (1973) Estimating discharge from superelevation in bends. J Hydraul Div, ASCE 99:65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Badoux H (1971) Feuille 1305 Dt de Morcles et notice explicative Atlas geol. Suisse 1:25000. Comm. geol. Suisse

  • Bertolo P, Wieczorek GF (2005) Calibration of numerical models for small debris flows in Yosemite Valley, California, USA. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:993–1001

    Google Scholar 

  • Bregoli F, Medina V, Bateman A (2018) TXT-tool 3.034-2.1 a debris flow regional fast hazard assessment toolbox, in: Landslide dynamics: ISDR-ICL landslide interactive teaching tools. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57777-7_10

  • Bulmer MH, Barnouin-Jha OS, Peitersen MN, Bourke M (2002) An empirical approach to studying debris flows: implications for planetary modeling studies. J Geophys Res 107:9–1–9-14. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JE001531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CL (1987) Comprehensive review of debris flow modelling concepts in Japan. Geol Soc Am Rev Eng Geol 7:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1130/REG7-p13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGrayv-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Christen M, Kowalski J, Bartelt P (2010) RAMMS: numerical simulation of dense snow avalanches in three-dimensional terrain. Cold Reg Sci Technol 63:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa JE (1984) Physical geomorphology of debris flows. In: Costa JE, Fleisher P (eds) Developments and applications of geomorphology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 268–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham B (1937) River flow around bends. Nature 140:728–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00093-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Blasio FV (2011) Introduction to the physics of landslides: lecture notes on the dynamics of mass wasting. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haas T, Braat L, Leuven JRFW, Lokhorst IR, Kleinhans MG (2015) Effects of debris flow composition on runout, depositional mechanisms, and deposit morphology in laboratory experiments. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 120:1949–1972

    Google Scholar 

  • Domnik B, Pudasaini SP, Katzenbach R, Miller SA (2013) Coupling of full two-dimensional and depth-averaged models for granular flows. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 201:56–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Faug T (2015) Depth-averaged analytic solutions for free-surface granular flows impacting rigid walls down inclines. Phys Rev E:92. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.062310

  • Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ (2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102(3):85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer JT, Kowalski K, Pudasaini SP (2012) Topographic curvature effects in applied avalanche modeling. Cold Reg Sci Technol 74:21–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Girardeau-Montaut, D (2006) Detection de changement sur des donnees geometriques tridimensionnelles. PhD Thesis, Telecom ParisTech. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00001745/

  • Guzzetti F (2000) Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of landslide risk in Italy. Eng Geol 58:89–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungr O, McDougall S (2009) Two numerical models for landslide dynamic analysis. Comput Geosci 35:978–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21(4):663–677. https://doi.org/10.1139/t84-073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11(2):167–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson RM, Denlinger RP (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across three-dimensional terrain: 1. Coulomb mixture theory. J Geophys Res 106(B1):537–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakob M (2005) Debris-flow hazard analysis. In: Jakob and Hungr (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena, pp 411–443

  • Johnson AM, Rodine JR (1984) Debris flow. In: Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability, pp 257–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Jop P, Forterre Y, Pouliquen O (2006) A constitutive law for dense granular flows. Nature 441:727–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattel P, Kafle J, Fischer JT, Mergili M, Tuladhar BM, Pudasaini SP (2018) Interaction of two-phase debris flow with obstacles. Eng Geol 242:197–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Khattri KB, Pudasaini SP (2018) An extended quasi two-phase mass flow model. Int J Non Linear Mech 106:205–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Khattri KB, Pudasaini SP (2019) Channel flow simulation of a mixture with a full-dimensional generalized quasi two-phase model. Math Comput Simul 165:280–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroi E, Bonnard Ch, Fell R, McInnes R (2005) “Risk assessment and management. In: Hungr O., Fell R., Couture R. (Eds.) Landslide risk management, Vancouver, Proceedings of International Conference on Landslide Risk Management, Vancouver, Canada,31 May-02 June, 139–198

  • McClung DM (2001) Superelevation of flowing avalanches around curved channel bends. J Geophys Res 106:16489–16498

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina V, Hürlimann M, Bateman A (2008) Application of FLATModel, a 2D finite volume code, to debris flows in the northeastern part of the Iberian Peninsula. Landslides 5:127–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergili M, Fischer JT, Krenn J, Pudasaini SP (2017) r.avaflow v1, an advanced open-source computational framework for the propagation and interaction of two-phase mass flow. Geosci Model Dev 10:553–569. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-553-2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergili M, Emmer A, Juricova A, Cochachin A, Fischer JT, Huggel C, Pudasaini SP (2018) How well can we simulate complex hydro-geomorphic process chains? The 2012 multi-lake outburst flood in the Santa Cruz Valley (Cordillera Blanca, Peru). Earth Surf Process Landf 43:1373–1389

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizuyama T, Uehara S (1981) Debris flow in steep slope channel curves. Jpn J Civ Eng 23:243–248

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien JS, Julien PY, Fullerton WT (1993) Two dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 119:244–261

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 33:143–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokhrel PR, Khattri KB, Tuladhar BM, Pudasaini SP (2018) A generalized quasi two-phase bulk mixture model for mass flow. Int J Non Linear Mech 99:229–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Potyondy PG (1961) Skin friction between various soils and construction materials. Geotechnique 11:339–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH (2008) A study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity. Landslides 5:431–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP (2011) Some exact solutions for debris and avalanche flows. Phys Fluids 23(4):043301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3570532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP (2012) A general two-phase debris flow model. J Geophys Res 117:F03010. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP, Hutter K (2003) Rapid shear flows of dry granular masses down curved and twisted channels. J Fluid Mech 495:193–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP, Hutter K (2007) Avalanche dynamics: dynamics of rapid flows of dense granular avalanches. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP, Mergili M (2019) A multi-phase mass flow model. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005204

  • Pudasaini SP, Miller SA (2013) The hypermobility of huge landslides and avalanches. Eng Geol 157:124–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP, Wang Y, Hutter K (2005) Modelling debris flows down general channels. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:799–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudasaini SP, Wang Y, Sheng LT, Hsiau SS, Hutter K, Katzenbach R (2008) Avalanching granular flows down curved and twisted channels: theoretical and experimental results. Phys Fluids 20:073302. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2945304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenmann D (1999) Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazards 19:47–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage SB, Hutter K (1991) The dynamics of avalanches of granular materials from initiation to runout. Part I: analysis. Acta Mech 86:201–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidl C, McArdell BW, Rickenmann D (2014) Debris-flow velocities and superelevation in a curved laboratory channel. Can Geotech J 52:305–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoklitsch A (1937) “Hydraulic structures” translated from the German by Samuel Shulitz. Am Soc Mech Eng New York I:151

    Google Scholar 

  • Shukry A (1950) FIow around bends in an open flume. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 115:751–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Stethem C (2013) Avalanches. In: Bobrowsky PT (ed) Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai YC, Noelle S, Gray JMNT, Hutter K (2002) Shock-capturing and front-tracking methods for granular avalanches. J Comput Phys 175:269–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson J (1876) On the origin and winding of rivers in alluvial plains, with remarks on the flow around bends in pipes. Proc R Soc London 25:5–8

  • Torbic DJ, O’Laughlin MK, Harwood DW, Bauer KM, Bokenkroger CD, Lucas LM, Ronchetto JR, Brennan S, Donnell E, Brown A, Varunjikar T (2014) Superelevation criteria for sharp horizontal curves on steep grades. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP REPORT 774. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

  • von Boetticher A, Turowski JM, McArdell BW, Rickenmann D, Kirchner JW (2016) Debrisintermixing-2.3: a finite volume solver for three-dimensional debris-flow simulations with two calibration parameters-part 1: model description. Geosci. Model Dev 9:2909–2923

    Google Scholar 

  • von Boetticher A, Turowski JM, McArdell BW, Rickenmann D, Hürlimann M, Scheidl C, Kirchner JW (2017) DebrisInterMixing-2.3: a finite volume solver for three-dimensional debris-flow simulations with two calibration parameters - part 2: model validation. Geosci Model Dev 10(706):3963–3978

  • Woodward SM (1920) Hydraulics of the Miami flood control project. Miami Conservancy District, Technical Report, Pt. VII, Daytron, Ohio

  • Woodward SM, Posey CJ (1941) Hydraulics of steady flow in open channels. Wiley, New York, p 112

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the reviewers, editor and the editorial board for their constructive comments and suggestions that largely improved the quality and clarity of the paper. We are grateful to Jose Pularello and Jeremie Voumard for their support to acquire and interpret the lidar and SfM data, for photogrammetric work and creation of Fig. 5. Shiva P. Pudasaini gratefully thanks the Herbette Foundation for providing financial support for Sabbatical visit to the University of Lausanne, Switzerland for the year 2018, April–June, where this contribution was triggered.

Funding

This work has been financially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the research project PU 386/5-1: “A novel and unified solution to multi-phase mass flows: UMultiSol”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiva P. Pudasaini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pudasaini, S.P., Jaboyedoff, M. A general analytical model for superelevation in landslide. Landslides 17, 1377–1392 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01333-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01333-1

Keywords

Navigation