A study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity

Debris flow velocities are commonly back-calculated from superelevation events which require subjective estimates of radii of curvature of bends in the debris flow channel or predicted using flow equations that require the selection of appropriate rheological models and material property inputs. This research investigated difficulties associated with the use of these conventional velocity estimation methods. Radii of curvature estimates were found to vary with the extent of the channel investigated and with the scale of the media used, and back-calculated velocities varied among different investigated locations along a channel. Distinct populations of Bingham properties were found to exist between those measured by laboratory tests and those back-calculated from field data; thus, laboratory-obtained values would not be representative of field-scale debris flow behavior. To avoid these difficulties with conventional methods, a new preliminary velocity estimation method is presented that statistically relates flow velocity to the channel slope and the flow depth. This method presents ranges of reasonable velocity predictions based on 30 previously measured velocities.

[1]  M. Jakob.  A size classification for debris flows , 2005 .

[2]  L. Jackson,et al.  Cathedral Mountain debris flows, Canada , 1989 .

[3]  M. Jakob,et al.  Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phenomena , 2005 .

[4]  Jacques Locat,et al.  Normalized Rheological Behaviour of Fine Muds and Their Flow Properties in a Pseudoplastic Regime , 1997 .

[5]  R. Iverson,et al.  U. S. Geological Survey , 1967, Radiocarbon.

[6]  L. Jackson.  A catastrophic glacial outburst flood (jökulhlaup) mechanism for debris flow generation at the Spiral Tunnels, Kicking Horse River basin, British Columbia , 1979 .

[7]  J. Costa,et al.  Developments and applications of geomorphology , 1984 .

[8]  Jeffry E Moll,et al.  REDUCING LOW-VOLUME ROAD IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT: SUCCESS IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE , 1993 .

[9]  Oldrich Hungr,et al.  An unusually large debris flow at Hummingbird Creek, Mara Lake, British Columbia , 2000 .

[10]  V. T. Chow.  Open-channel hydraulics , 1959 .

[11]  Tamotsu Takahashi,et al.  What is debris flow , 2007 .

[12]  Subhash C. Jain,et al.  Open-Channel Flow , 2000 .

[13]  S. Zhang,et al.  Measurement of debris-flow surface characteristics through closerange photogrammetry , 2003 .

[14]  J. Major,et al.  Debris-flow deposition: Effects of pore-fluid pressure and friction concentrated at flow margins , 1999 .

[15]  Thomas C. Pierson,et al.  A rheologic classification of subaerial sediment-water flows , 1987 .

[16]  D. Mcclung,et al.  Superelevation of flowing avalanches around curved channel bends , 2001 .

[17]  G. Wieczorek,et al.  Calibration of numerical models for small debris flows in Yosemite Valley, California, USA , 2005 .

[18]  A. Mercer,et al.  Design of dykes to protect against debris flows at Port Alice, British Columbia , 1979 .

[19]  John E. Costa,et al.  Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flows , 1984 .

[20]  William Z. Savage,et al.  A model for the plastic flow of landslides , 1986 .

[21]  D. F. VanDine,et al.  Debris flows and debris torrents in the Southern Canadian Cordillera , 1985 .

[22]  J. Major,et al.  Debris flow against obstacles and bends; dynamics and deposits , 1994 .

[23]  Comparison of Debris Flow Modelling Approaches , 1997 .

[24]  Lorenzo Marchi,et al.  Debris Flow Monitoring Activities in an Instrumented Watershed on the Italian Alps , 1997 .

[25]  Cheng-Lung Chen.  Comprehensive review of debris flow modeling concepts in Japan , 1987 .

[26]  S. Wells,et al.  Fire-Related Sedimentation Events on Alluvial Fans, Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. , 1997 .

[27]  Xiao-qing Chen,et al.  Jiangjia Ravine debris flows in south-western China , 2005 .

[28]  Barbara Zanuttigh,et al.  Systematic comparison of debris-flow laws at the Illgraben torrent, Switzerland , 2003 .

[29]  Richard M. Iverson,et al.  The debris-flow rheology myth , 2003 .

[30]  G. Williams.  River meanders and channel size , 1986 .

[31]  Matthias Jakob,et al.  Two Debris Flows with Anomalously High Magnitude , 1997 .

[32]  R. P. Jordan.  Debris flows in the southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia : dynamic behaviour and physical properties , 1995 .

[33]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  Proceedings of the third international conference on Genetic algorithms , 1989 .

[34]  David V. Boger,et al.  A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurement , 1996 .

[35]  John E. Costa,et al.  Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitigation , 1987 .

[36]  S. Wood,et al.  Fire, storms, and erosional events in the Idaho batholith , 2001 .

[37]  Dieter Rickenmann,et al.  Empirical Relationships for Debris Flows , 1999 .

[38]  Chen Chen-lung,et al.  DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARDS MITIGATION: MECHANICS, PREDICTION, AND ASSESSMENT , 2007 .

[39]  R. Apmann.  ESTIMATING DISCHARGE FROM SUPERELEVATION IN BENDS , 1973 .

[40]  R. Curry.  OBSERVATION OF ALPINE MUDFLOWS IN THE TENMILE RANGE, CENTRAL COLORADO , 1966 .

[41]  W. Dietrich,et al.  The importance of hollows in debris flow studies; Examples from Marin County, California , 1987 .

[42]  Oldrich Hungr,et al.  Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures , 1984 .

[43]  Thomas C. Pierson,et al.  Initiation and flow behavior of the 1980 Pine Creek and Muddy River lahars, Mount St. Helens, Washington , 1985 .

[44]  P. Santi.  1988 Student Professional Paper: Graduate Division: The Kinematics of Debris Flow Transport down a Canyon , 1989 .

[45]  C. H. Edwards,et al.  Calculus and Analytic Geometry , 1982 .