TXT-tool 3.386-1.1: Two-Dimensional Debris-Flow Modelling and Topographic Data

  • Jošt Sodnik
  • Matjaž Mikoš


Two-dimensional (2-D) debris-flow mathematical modeling is a useful und widely used tool when assessing debris-flow hazard. A high accuracy for 2-D model input parameters is essential for obtaining acceptable simulation results, especially for potential debris flows without a recent history of activity. The numerical grid in the debris-flow transport area is usually generated from available topographic data. In Slovenia, DEM5 and DEM12.5 are publicly available data. However, the morphological accuracy of those datasets is questionable because of their development methods and their low resolution. A better solution is using LiDAR-derived data with their higher resolution and a lot of options for further improvements using different methods and algorithms. 2-D debris-flow simulation results using LiDAR data, compared to less accurate DEMs, are more accurate and more useful for debris-flow hazard mapping. The modelled debris-flow depths and velocities are more accurate and better follow field conditions. Although using high-resolution topographic data results in much longer computational time, this shouldn’t be a problem for potential debris flows. For debris-flow endangered and populated torrential fans, modelling of the influence of built structures on flow is important. With adequate numerical modelling of such structures the obtained simulation results are more meaningful, with better expressed local flow conditions. Comparisons using publicly available topographic data sets also show that higher resolution (DEM5 vs. DEM12.5) doesn’t always mean better morphologic accuracy.


Debris flows Digital elevation model Hazard assessment LiDAR Mathematical modeling Topographical data 


  1. Balmforth NJ, Craster RV (2001) Geophysical aspects of non-Newtonian fluid mechanics. In: Balmforth NJ, Provenzal A (eds) Geomorphological fluid mechanics, Lecture notes in physics, vol 582. Springer, Berlin, pp 34–51. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45670-8_2
  2. Cesca M, d’Agostino V (2008) Comparison between Flo-2D and RAMMS in debris flow modelling: a case study in the Dolomites. In: De Wrachien D, Brebbia CA, Lenzi MA (eds) International conference on monitoring, simulation, prevention and remediation of dense and debris flow II. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 197–206Google Scholar
  3. 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. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:2(121)Google Scholar
  4. Mikoš M, Fazarinc R, Majes B, Rajar R, Žagar D, Krzyk M, Hojnik T, Četina M (2006) Numerical simulation of debris flows triggered from the Strug rock fall source area, W Slovenia. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. O’Brien J (2011) FLO-2D reference manual, version 2009. Accessed 6 June 2011
  6. Petje U, Ribičič M, Mikoš M (2005) Computer simulation of stone falls and rockfalls = Računalniško simuliranje skalnih odlomov in podorov. Acta geographica Slovenica 45(2):93–120. Accessed 31 July 2017
  7. Podobnikar T (2005) Production of integrated digital terrain model from multiple datasets of different quality. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19:69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Podobnikar T (2008) High-quality data for enhancement of the terrain model of Slovenia. Geodetski Vestnik 52(4):834–853Google Scholar
  9. Podobnikar T (2010) DEM production/updating based on environmental variables modeling and conflation of data sources. J Civ Eng Arch 4(11):33–44Google Scholar
  10. Rusjan S, Kobold M, Mikoš M (2009) Characteristics of the extreme rainfall event and consequent flash floods in W Slovenia in September 2007. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:947–956. doi: 10.5194/nhess-9-947-2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sodnik J, Petje U, Mikoš M (2009) Terrain topography and debris flow modelling. Geodetski Vestnik 53(2):305–318Google Scholar
  12. Sodnik J, Mikoš M (2010) Modeling of a debris flow from the Hrenovec torrential watershed above the village of Kropa. Acta Geogr Slovenica 50(1):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sodnik J, Petje U, Četina M, Mikoš M (2010) On how terrain topography and rheological properties influence modeling of debris flow run-out distances—case study of the Sava Dolinka Valley, NW Slovenia, Interpraevent 2010, Conference proceedings, 283–292Google Scholar
  14. Sodnik J, Podobnikar T, Mikoš M (2012) Using Lidar data for debris flow modelling. Interpraevent 2012, Conference proceedings, 573–583.
  15. Sodnik J, Podobnikar T, Petje U, Mikoš M (2013a) Topographic data and numerical debris flow modeling. In: Margottini C, Canuti P, Sassa K (eds) Landslide Science and Practice, Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg, pp. 573–578Google Scholar
  16. Sodnik J, Vrečko A, Podobnikar T, Mikoš M (2013b) Digital terrain models and mathematical modelling of debris flows. Geodetski Vestnik 56(4):826–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tempos d.o.o.LjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil and Geodetic EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations