Advertisement

Experimental analysis of open check dams and protection bars against debris flows and driftwood

  • Giulia RossiEmail author
  • Aronne Armanini
Original Article
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

The paper addresses the influence of intense sediment transport (bed load and debris flow) on the efficiency of the structures aimed at the interception of wood logs. In the literature different devices designed to intercept woods are proposed: steel barriers, net barriers, check dam with steel bars positioned in the opening. In this paper we firstly define some fundamental dimensionless parameter governing the phenomenon, in order to determine a rational criterion to evaluate the efficiency of the different kind of devices. In particular, we deepen the interaction between slit check dams and driftwood, in both bed load and debris flow conditions. Starting from the results of this first analysis, we propose some arrangements of steel bars be installed in the check dam. Through a laboratory experimental investigation, by now conduced in simplified conditions (i.e. spherical mono-dispersed sediments), we define some criteria to obtain the best design parameters for the bars, that is their optimal disposition and spacing, in function of the logs characteristics (mainly the lengths). We investigate also the influence of different lengths of the transported woods, finding a general criterion to evaluate an overall length representing the logs ensemble.

Keywords

Driftwood Open check dam Hyper-concentrated flows Ramps devices 

List of symbols

\(B_c\)

Channel width (L)

\(B_f\)

Width of the slit check dam opening (L)

\(B_r\)

Spacing among the bars (L)

C

Solid concentration (–)

Fr

Froude number (–)

\(L_w\)

Wood cylinders length (L)

\(L_{w,av}\)

Weighted average length in presence of woods of different lengths (L)

\(n_w\)

Number of woods (–)

\(N_r\)

Number of ramps (–)

\(R_w\)

Length ratio (–)

s

Ramps thickness (L)

\(\tilde{T}\)

Dimensionless time (–)

\(T_c\)

Clogging time (T)

\(T_{cs}\)

Clogging time for the sediments upstream of the check dam (T)

\(T_{cw}\)

Clogging time for the woods (T)

TE

Trapping efficiency (–)

\(\alpha \)

Channel slope (\(^{\circ }\))

\(\alpha _s\)

Inclination of the ramps with respect to the vertical (\(^{\circ }\))

\(\lambda _r\)

Ratio between the spacing of the ramps and the length of the wood cylinders (–)

\(\varLambda _C\)

Covering factor (–)

\(\phi \)

Friction angle of sediments (\(^{\circ }\))

\(\varPhi _{w,DR}\)

Number of woods passing because of the delayed release (\({\hbox {T}}^{-1}\))

\(\varPhi _{w,i}\)

Incoming number of woods in the unit time from upstream (\({\hbox {T}}^{-1}\))

\(\varPhi _{w,p}\)

Number of woods passing through the check dam in the unit time (\({\hbox {T}}^{-1}\))

\(\varPhi _{w,t}\)

Trapped quantity of driftwood in the unit time (\({\hbox {T}}^{-1}\))

\(\rho _s\)

Density of the sediments (\({\hbox {M L}}^{-3}\))

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially carried out in the frame of the collaborative international consortium, STEEP STREAMS, under the ERA-NET Cofund WaterWorks 2014 Call. The ERA-NET is an integral part of the 2015 Joint Activities developed by the Water Challenges for a Changing World Joint Programme Initiative (Water JPI). The authors are grateful to Debora Gasperi, who made a great contribution to the work during the course of her Master thesis. The authors would thank the Technicians of the Hydraulic Laboratory of the University of Trento, Andrea Bampi, Lorenzo Forti, Fabio Sartori and Paolo Scarfiello, for their valuable support during the experimental work.

Supplementary material

10652_2019_9714_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 28 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Armanini A (2018) Mathematical models of riverbed evolution. In: Principles of river hydraulics. Springer, Cham, Berlin, pp 131–172Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armanini A, Dellagiacoma F, Ferrari L (1991) From the check dam to the development of functional check dams. In: Di Armanini S (ed) Fluvial hydraulics of mountain regions. Lecture notes on Earth sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armanini A, Fraccarollo L, Larcher M (2006) Debris flow. In: Anderson MG (ed) Encyclopedia of hydrological sciences. Wiley, London, pp 2173–2186.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0470848944.hsa149 (Chap. 142)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armanini A, Larcher M (2001) Rational criterion for designing opening of slit-check dam. J Hydraul Eng 127(2):94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:2(94) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bezzola GR (2006) Schwemmholz: Probleme und Lösungsansätze. Eigenverlag der Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie. ETH-Zentrum, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braudrick CA, Grant GE (2001) Transport and deposition of large woody debris in streams: a flume experiment. Geomorphology 41(4):263–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00058-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braudrick CA, Grant GE, Ishikawa Y, Ikeda H (1997) Dynamics of wood transport in streams: a flume experiment. Earth Surf Process Landf J Br Geomorphol Group 22(7):669–683.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199707)22:7<669::AID-ESP740>3.0.CO;2-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comiti F, Lucía A, Rickenmann D (2016) Large wood recruitment and transport during large floods: a review. Geomorphology 269:23–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Agostino V, Degetto M, Righetti M (2000) Experimental investigation on open check dam for coarse woody debris control. Dynamics of water and sediments in mountain basins. Quad Idron Montana 20:201–212Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furlan P, Pfister M, Matos J, Amado C, Schleiss AJ (2018) Experimental repetitions and blockage of large stems at ogee crested spillways with piers. J Hydraul Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2018.1478897 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ishikawa N, Shibuya H, Katsuki S, Mizuyama T (2014) Protective steel structures against wooden debris hazards. In: Proceeding of the 6th international conference on the protection of structures against hazards conference, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35(3):245–296.  https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kasai S, Ohgi Y, Mizoguchi I, Matsuda A, Aramaki H, Tanami M (1996) Structural characteristics of wood-debris entrapment facilities. In: Proceedings of interpraevent conferenceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mazzorana B, Hübl J, Zischg A, Largiader A (2011) Modelling woody material transport and deposition in alpine rivers. Nat Hazards 56(2):425–449.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9492-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ngi FS, Ngi KL, Rickenmann D, Holub M (2008) Recommendations and best practice. Deliverable D2.3 of the project: IRASMOS-Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass MovementsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piton G, Recking A (2015) Design of sediment traps with open check dams: a review—part II: woody debris. J Hydraul Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001049 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piton G, Recking A (2015) Design of sediment traps with open check dams. I: hydraulic and deposition processes. J Hydraul Eng 142(2):04015045.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rimböck A (2004) Design of rope net barriers for woody debris entrapment. introduction of a design concept. In: Proceeding of the international symposium interpraevent, pp 265–276Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rimböck A, Strobl T (2002) Loads on rope net constructions for woody debris entrapment in torrents. In: International congress “interpraevent”, pp 797–807Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudolf-Miklau F, Hübl J (2010) Managing risks related to drift wood (woody debris). In: Proceedings of the international conference interprävent, pp 868–878Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruiz-Villanueva V, Piégay H, Gurnell AM, Marston RA, Stoffel M (2016) Recent advances quantifying the large wood dynamics in river basins: new methods and remaining challenges. Rev Geophys 54(3):611–652.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schalko I, Schmocker L, Weitbrecht V, Boes RM (2018) Hazards due to large wood accumulations: local scour and backwater rise. In: E3S web of conferences, vol 40. EDP Sciences, New York, p 02003.  https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184002003
  23. 23.
    Schmocker L, Weitbrecht V (2013) Driftwood: risk analysis and engineering measures. J Hydraul Eng 139(7):683–695.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shibuya H, Katsuki S, Ohsumi H, Ishikawa N, Mizuyama T (2010) Experimental study on woody debris trap performance of drift wood capturing structure. J Jpn Soc Eros Control Eng 63(3):34–41Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shima J, Moriyama H, Kokuryo H, Ishikawa N, Mizuyama T (2016) Prevention and mitigation of debris flow hazards by using steel open-type sabo dams. Int J Eros Control Eng 9(3):135–144.  https://doi.org/10.13101/ijece.9.135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shrestha BB, Nakagawa H, Kawaike K, Baba Y, Zhang H (2012) Driftwood deposition from debris flows at slit-check dams and fans. Nat Hazards 61(2):577–602.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9939-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Takahashi T (2014) Debris flow: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uchiogi T, Shima J, Tajima H, Ishikawa Y (1996) Design methods for wood-debris entrapment. In: Proceedings international symposium interpraevent Garmisch Partenkirchen, vol 5, pp 279–288Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DICAMUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations