Assessment of dynamic impact force of debris flow in mountain torrent based on characteristics of debris flow

  • Man-Il Kim
  • Jae-Hwan Kwak
  • Byung-Sik KimEmail author
Original Article


Landslides and debris flows that occur around residential areas are considered, globally, as significant disasters that cause damage to human life and property. With terrain slope defining the flow characteristics of debris flows, flow depth, flow velocity, and impact force vary by time and distance. In particular, when a structure is located in the flow path of debris flows, the flow characteristics of debris flows vary by terrain slope and direction angle. To simulate the flow characteristics of these debris flows, the simulation results obtained by FLO-2D were analyzed with six-stage conditions for the research area. In the analysis, the flow depth, flow velocity, and impact force were estimated on the basis of the outlet of the research area in the presence and absence of structure(s) at certain distances. With this, the variation of the impact force in accordance with the variation of the flow depth of the debris flows was highly similar to the simulation results obtained by FLO-2D, when the correction index (α) of the suggested dynamic impact force equation was 0.3–0.4. There were sections where the estimated value of the impact force was overestimated near the outlet, and it was judged that the fixed values of the terrain factors (width, roughness coefficient, slope, etc.) caused the impact force to be overestimated. However, the correlation analysis showed that the correlation index was above the normal ranges in the suggested dynamic impact force equation for debris flows with the application of the terrain factors.


Debris flow Impact force Flow depth Correlation index (αOutlet 



This research was supported by a grant [MOIS-DP-2015-05] through the Disaster and Safety Management Institute funded by Ministry of Public Safety and Security of the Korean government.


  1. Armanini A (1997) On the dynamic impact of debris flows. In: Armanini A, Masanori M (eds) Recent developments on debris flows. Lecture notes in earth sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 208–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang KS (2013) Mt. Umyeon Landslides and Gangnam Flood—Disaster of a massive torrent in 2011. Natural Science BookGoogle Scholar
  3. Berti M, Genevois R, Simoni A, Tecca PR (1999) Field observations of a debris flow event in the Dolomites. Geomorphology 29(3–4):265–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertolo P, Wieczorek GF (2005) Calibration of numerical models for small debris flows in Yosemite Valley, California, USA. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(6):993–1001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugnion L, McArdell BW, Bartelt P, Wendeler C (2011) Measurements of hillslope debris flow impact pressure on obstacles. Landslides 9(2):179–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Četina M, Rajar R, Hojnik T, Zakrajšek M, Krzyk M, Mikoš M (2006) Case study: numerical simulations of debris flow below Stože, Slovenia. J Hydraul Eng 132(2):121–130. Scholar
  7. Chae BG, Liu KF, Kim MI (2010) A case study for simulation of a debris flow with DEBRIS-2D at Inje, Korea. J Eng Geol 20(3):231–242Google Scholar
  8. Chen JC, Chuang MR (2014) Discharge of landslide-induced debris flows: case studies of Typhoon Morakot in southern Taiwan. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 14:1719–1730. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen J-C, Jan C-D, Lee M-H (2008) Reliability analysis of design discharge for mountainous gully flow. J Hydraul Res 46(6):835–838. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. DeNatale J, Iverson R, Major J, LaHusen R, Fiegel G, Duffy J (1999) Experimental testing of flexible barriers for containment of debris flows. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–205Google Scholar
  12. Egli T (2005) Wegleitung Objektschutz gegen gravitative naturgefahren. Vereinigung Kantonaler Feuerversicherungen (VKF), Bern,. Kapitel 5 Murgänge, pp. 77–87 (in German)Google Scholar
  13. Han Z, Chen G, Li Y, Tang C, Xu L, He Y, Huang X, Wang W (2015) Numerical simulation of debris-flow behavior incorporating a dynamic method for estimating the entrainment. Eng Geol 190:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holland PG (2016) Encyclopedia of hydrology and water resources part of the series encyclopedia of earth science, pp 475–475Google Scholar
  15. Hu K, Wei F, Li Y (2011) Real-time measurement and preliminary analysis of debris-flow impact force at Jiangjia Ravine, China. Earth Surf Process Landf 36(9):1268–1278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu KH, Cui P, Zhang JQ (2012) Characteristics of damage to buildings by debris flows on 7 August 2010 in Zhouqu, Western China. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2209–2217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hübl J, Holzinger G (2003) Entwicklung von Grundlagen zur Dimensionierung kronenoffener Bauwerke für die Geschiebebewirtschaftung in Wildbächen: Kleinmassstäbliche Modellversuche zur Wirkung von Murbrechern. WLS Report 50 Band 3, Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering (in German)Google Scholar
  18. Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D, Kaitna R, Scheidl C (2009) Debris flow impact estimation. In: Popovska C, Jovanovski M (eds) Eleventh international symposium on water management and hydraulic engineering, pp 137–148Google Scholar
  19. Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris flow torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21(4):663–677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jang CD, Yoon YH, Jun KW (2011) Numerical simulation on debris flow disaster area using Kanako-1D. Crisis Emerg Manag Theory Praxis 7(6):205–214Google Scholar
  21. Julien PY, O’Brien JS (1997) Selected notes on debris flow dynamics. In: Armanini A, Michiue M (eds) Recent developments on debris flows. Lecture notes in earth sciences, vol. 64 Springer, Berlin, pp 144–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kherkheulidze I (1969) Estimation of basic characteristics of mudflows (“sel”). In: Floods and their computation, vol. 2. International Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication, Leningrad, pp 940–948Google Scholar
  23. KIGAM (Korea Research Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources) (1979) Explanatory text of the geological map of the Pyeongchang and Yeongweol Sheet (scale 1:50,000), p 19Google Scholar
  24. Kim SE, Paik JC, Kim KS (2013) Run-out modeling of debris flows in Mt. Umyeon using FLO-2D. J Korean Soc Civil Eng 33(3):965–974 (in Korean with English abstract). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. König U (2006) Real scale debris flow tests in the Schesatobel-Valley. Master’s thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  26. Li J, Luo D (1997) The formation and characteristics of mudflow and flood in the mountain area of the Dachao River and its prevention. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie NF 25:470–484Google Scholar
  27. Li M-H, Sung R-T, Dong J-J, Lee C-T, Chen C-C (2011) The formation and breaching of a short-lived landslide dam at Hsiaolin Village, Taiwan—part II: simulation of debris flow with landslide dam breach. Eng Geol 123(1–2):60–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichtenhahn C (1973) Die Berechnung von Sperren in Beton und Eisenbeton. In: Kolloquium über Wildbachsperren, Mitteilungen der Forstlichen Bundesanstalt Wien. Heft 102:91–127 (in German)Google Scholar
  29. Lin ML, Wang KL, Huang JJ (2005) Debris flow runoff simulation and verification-case study of Chen-You-Lan Watershed, Taiwan. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(3):439–445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mizuyama T (1979) Computational method and some considerations on impulsive force of debris flow acting on Sabo dams. J Jpn Soc Eros Control Eng 112:40–43Google Scholar
  31. MLIT (Ministry of Land Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2007) Manual of technical standard for establishing Sabo master plan for debris flow and driftwood. Accessed 26 Jan 2018
  32. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) (2009) River design criteria, KWRA, pp 463–476Google Scholar
  33. Moriguchi S, Borja RI, Yashima A, Sawada K (2009) Estimating the impact force generated by granular flow on a rigid obstruction. Acta Geotech 4(1):57–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okuda S, Okunishi K, Suwa H (1980) Observation of debris flow at Kamikamihori Valley of Mt. Yakedake. In: Okuda S, Suzuki T, Hirano K, Okunishi M, Suwa H (eds) Third Meeting of IGU Commission on Field Experiments in Geomorphology, Japan, 116–139Google Scholar
  35. Pirulli M, Pastor M (2012) Numerical study on the entrainment of bed material into rapid landslides. Geotechnique 62:959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quan Luna B, Blahut J, van Westen CJ, Sterlacchini S, van Asch TWJ, Akbas SO (2011) The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2047–2060. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):121–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scotton P, Deganutti A (1997) Phreatic line and dynamic impact in laboratory debris flow experiments. In: Chen CL (ed) Proceedings of the 1st. international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 777–786Google Scholar
  39. Shieh C-L, Ting C-H, Pan H-W (2008) Impulsive force of debris flow on a curved dam. Int J Sediment Res 23(2):149–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiberghien D, Laigle D, Naaim M, Thibert E, Ousset F (2007) Experimental investigation of inter-action between mudflow and obstacle. Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment. In: 4th international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation, Chengdu, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  41. VanDine DF (1996) Debris flow control structures for forest engineering, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Working Paper 22/1996, Victoria, BC, p 75Google Scholar
  42. Watanabe M, Ikeya H (1981) Investigation and analysis of volcanic mud flows on Mount Sakurajima, Japan. Eros Sediment Trans Meas 33:245–256Google Scholar
  43. Wei F, Yang H, Hu K, Chernomorets S (2012) Measuring internal velocity of debris flows by temporally correlated shear forces. J Earth Sci 23(3):373–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wendeler C, Volkwein A (2015) Laboratory tests for the optimization of mesh size for flexible debris-flow barriers. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:2597–2604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wendeler C, Volkwein A, Denk M, Roth A, Wartmann S (2007) Field measurements used for numerical modelling of flexible debris flow barriers. In: Chen CL, Major JJ (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation mechanics, prediction and assessment. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 681–687Google Scholar
  46. Zhang S (1993a) A study on the impact force of debris-flow. Proc Natl Sci Counc A 16(1):32–39Google Scholar
  47. Zhang S (1993b) A comprehensive approach to the observation and prevention of debris flows in china. Nat Hazards 7(1):1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Engineering Research InstituteNational Forestry Cooperative FederationDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Urban and Environmental Disaster Prevention EngineeringKangwon National UniversitySamcheokRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations