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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
Apmann RP (1973) Estimating discharge from superelevation in bends. J Hydraul Div, ASCE 99:65–79
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
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
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
Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGrayv-Hill Book Company, New York
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
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
Cunningham B (1937) River flow around bends. Nature 140:728–729
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
de Blasio FV (2011) Introduction to the physics of landslides: lecture notes on the dynamics of mass wasting. Springer, Berlin
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
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
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
Fischer JT, Kowalski K, Pudasaini SP (2012) Topographic curvature effects in applied avalanche modeling. Cold Reg Sci Technol 74:21–30
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
Hungr O, McDougall S (2009) Two numerical models for landslide dynamic analysis. Comput Geosci 35:978–992
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
Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11(2):167–194
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
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
Jop P, Forterre Y, Pouliquen O (2006) A constitutive law for dense granular flows. Nature 441:727–730
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
Khattri KB, Pudasaini SP (2018) An extended quasi two-phase mass flow model. Int J Non Linear Mech 106:205–222
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
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
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
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
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
Mizuyama T, Uehara S (1981) Debris flow in steep slope channel curves. Jpn J Civ Eng 23:243–248
O’Brien JS, Julien PY, Fullerton WT (1993) Two dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 119:244–261
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
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
Potyondy PG (1961) Skin friction between various soils and construction materials. Geotechnique 11:339–353
Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH (2008) A study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity. Landslides 5:431–444
Pudasaini SP (2011) Some exact solutions for debris and avalanche flows. Phys Fluids 23(4):043301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3570532
Pudasaini SP (2012) A general two-phase debris flow model. J Geophys Res 117:F03010. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002186
Pudasaini SP, Hutter K (2003) Rapid shear flows of dry granular masses down curved and twisted channels. J Fluid Mech 495:193–208
Pudasaini SP, Hutter K (2007) Avalanche dynamics: dynamics of rapid flows of dense granular avalanches. Springer, Berlin
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
Pudasaini SP, Wang Y, Hutter K (2005) Modelling debris flows down general channels. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:799–819
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
Rickenmann D (1999) Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazards 19:47–77
Savage SB, Hutter K (1991) The dynamics of avalanches of granular materials from initiation to runout. Part I: analysis. Acta Mech 86:201–223
Scheidl C, McArdell BW, Rickenmann D (2014) Debris-flow velocities and superelevation in a curved laboratory channel. Can Geotech J 52:305–317
Schoklitsch A (1937) “Hydraulic structures” translated from the German by Samuel Shulitz. Am Soc Mech Eng New York I:151
Shukry A (1950) FIow around bends in an open flume. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 115:751–779
Stethem C (2013) Avalanches. In: Bobrowsky PT (ed) Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht
Tai YC, Noelle S, Gray JMNT, Hutter K (2002) Shock-capturing and front-tracking methods for granular avalanches. J Comput Phys 175:269–301
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
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
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01333-1