FORECASTING RUNOUT OF ROCK AND DEBRIS AVALANCHES

  • R.M. IVERSON
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 49)

Abstract

Physically based mathematical models and statistically based empirical equations each may provide useful means of forecasting runout of rock and debris avalanches. This paper compares the foundations, strengths, and limitations of a physically based model and a statistically based forecasting method, both of which were developed to predict runout across three-dimensional topography. The chief advantage of the physically based model results from its ties to physical conservation laws and well-tested axioms of soil and rock mechanics, such as the Coulomb friction rule and effective-stress principle. The output of this model provides detailed information about the dynamics of avalanche runout, at the expense of high demands for accurate input data, numerical computation, and experimental testing. In comparison, the statistical method requires relatively modest computation and no input data except identification of prospective avalanche source areas and a range of postulated avalanche volumes. Like the physically based model, the statistical method yields maps of predicted runout, but it provides no information on runout dynamics. Although the two methods differ significantly in their structure and objectives, insights gained from one method can aid refinement of the other.

Keywords

Debris Flow Hazard Zone Rock Avalanche Debris Avalanche Inundation Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dade, W.B., and Huppert, H.E. (1998) Long-runout rockfalls, Geology 26, 803–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davies, T.R.H. (1982) Spreading of rock avalanche debris by mechanical fluidization, Rock Mech. 15, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denlinger, R.P., and Iverson, R.M. (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across threedimensional terrain: 2. Numerical predictions and experimental tests, J. Geophys. Res. 106 B, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray, J.M.N.T.,Wieland, M., and Hutter, K. (1999) Gravity driven free surface flow of granular avalanches over complex basal topography, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A. 455, 1841–1874.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heim, A. (1932) Bergsturz und Menschenleben, Fretz and Wasmuth, Zürich.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hungr, O. (1990) Mobility of rock avalanches, Report of the National Research Center for Disaster Prevention (Japan) 46, 11–19.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hungr, O. (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows, and avalanches, Can. Geotech. J. 32, 610–623.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hutchinson, J.N. (1986) A sliding-consolidation model for flow slides, Can. Geotech. J. 23, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iverson, R.M. (1997) The physics of debris flows, Rev. Geophys. 35, 245–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iverson, R.M. (2003) How should mathematical models of geomorphic processes be judged? in P.R. Wilcock and R.M. Iverson (eds.) Prediction in Geomorphology, Geophys. Monograph 135, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iverson, R.M., and Denlinger, R.P. (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across threedimensional terrain: 1. Coulomb mixture theory, J. Geophys. Res. 106 B, 537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iverson, R.M. Schilling, S.P., and Vallance, J.W. (1998) Objective delineation of lahar-inundation hazard zones, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 110, 972–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iverson, R.M., and Vallance, J.W. (2001) New views of granular mass flows, Geology 29, 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilburn, C.R.J., and Sørensen, S-A. (1998) Runout lengths of struzstroms: the control of initial conditions and of fragment dynamics, J. Geophys. Res. 103 B, 17877–17884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legros, F. (2002) The mobility of long-runout landslides, Eng. Geol. 63, 301–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li Tianchi (1983) A mathematical model for predicting the extent of a major rockfall, Ziets. Geomorph. 27, 473–482.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reid, M.E., Sisson, T.W., and Brien, D.L. (2001) Volcano collapse promoted by hydrothermal alteration and edifice shape, Mount Rainier, Washington, Geology 29, 779–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savage, S.B., and Hutter, K. (1989) The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough incline, J. Fluid Mech. 199, 177–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savage, S.B., and Hutter, K. (1991) The dynamics of avalanches of granular materials from initiation to runout, Part I. analysis, Acta Mechanica 86, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schilling, S.P. (1998) LAHARZ: GIS programs for automated delineation of lahar hazard zones, U.S. Geol. Sur. Open-file Rep. 98–638.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vallance, J.W., and Scott, K.M. (1997) The Osceola mudflow from Mount Rainier: sedimentology and hazards implications of a huge clay-rich debris flow, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 109, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vreugdenhil, C.B. (1994) Numerical Methods for Shallow-Water Flow, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.M. IVERSON
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey 1300 SE Cardinal Ct. #100VancouverUSA

Personalised recommendations