Determining rheological parameters of debris flow material

Phillips, Chris; Davies, Timothy R. H.

doi:10.1016/0169-555x(91)90022-3

Cited by 144 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of simple stress-strain relations (e.g., Bingham, Herschel Bulkley model), laboratory experiments have been conducted to derive material parameters for highly concentrated grain-fluid mixtures (e.g., Phillips and Davies, 1991;Major and Pierson, 1992;Contreras and Davies, 2000;. However, direct application of the results is complicated because scaled experiments together with the simple flow resistance models do not themselves represent full mixture dynamics of a real scale debris-flow (Iverson, 1997(Iverson, , 2003Ancey, 2006;Kaitna et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling debris-flow runout patterns on two alpine fans with different dynamic simulation models

Schraml

Thomschitz

McArdell

et al. 2015

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Predicting potential deposition areas of future debris-flow events is important for engineering hazard assessment in alpine regions. To this end, numerical simulation models are commonly used tools. However, knowledge of appropriate model parameters is essential but often not available. In this study we use two numerical simulation models, RAMMS-DF (rapid mass movement system-debris-flow) and DAN3D (dynamic analysis of landslides in three dimensions), to back-calculate two well-documented debris-flow events in Austria and to compare the range and sensitivity of input parameters for the Voellmy flow model. All simulations are based on the same digital elevation models and similar boundary conditions. Our results show that observed deposition patterns are best matched with a parameter set of µ [-] and ξ [m s −2 ], ranging between 0.07 to 0.11 and 200 to 300 m s −2 , respectively, for RAMMS-DF, and between 0.07 to 0.08 and 300 to 400 m s −2 , respectively, for DAN3D. Sensitivity analysis shows a higher sensitivity of model parameters for the DAN3D model than for the RAMMS-DF model. This contributes to the evaluation of realistic model parameters for simulation of debris-flows in steep mountain catchments and highlights the sensitivity of the models.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling debris-flow runout patterns on two alpine fans with different dynamic simulation models

Schraml

Thomschitz

McArdell

et al. 2015

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Les sédiments des coulées de débris sont soutenus par la résistance de la matrice, la pression de dispersion et la flottabilité (MIDDLETON, 1993). Les coulées de débris sont capables de transporter des sédiments de toutes tailles en raison de plusieurs mécanismes de soutien des sédi-ments, la densité de la matrice, la pression de dispersion, la flottabilité, et la densité du fluide (PHILLIPS & DAVIES, 1991 ;MIDDLETON, 1993). Le contact grain-grain est fréquent dans les coulées de débris et la concentration des sédiments est élevée (50 à 90 %) en général (COUSSOT & MEU-NIER, 1996).…”

Section: 4b) Caractéristiques Et Mécanisme Des éCoulements Gravitaunclassified

Palynologie et environnements des sédiments du Dévonien de Saïda (Algérie nord occidentale)

Bougara¹,

Steemans²,

Hérissé³

et al. 2017

Carnets Geol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a sedimentological point of view, the Devonian sedimentary units of the Tiffrit Massif are linked to a gravitational deposition controlled by sea level rise and significant subsidence. Facies seems to change along an East-West axis. The particle size, the nature of the facies, and their extreme variability over short distances indicate a slope apron environment of deposition. The lithological, sedimentological and environmental characteristics of the studied system are consistent with deposition in an active tectonic margin setting.

show abstract

“…. d'ecoulement + Fraction de lave torrentielle < 120 mm [28] • Fraction de lave torrentielle < 35 mm [28]• Fraction fine de lave torrentielle « 0,074 mm) + sable [12] Fluides à seuil .A Fraction fine de lave torrentielle « 0,074 mm) + sable [9] …”

Section: Laves Torrentielles Granulairesunclassified

“…Les mélanges qui nous concernent font en effet partie de la grande classe des fluides à seuil qui posent de nombreux problèmes expé-rimentaux [26][27] et font encore l'objet de quelques débats conceptuels dans le domaine de la rhéologie. Par ailleurs quelques rhéomètres de grande taille ont été construits dans le monde dans le but de tester des mélanges plus grossiers, mais, bien qu'ils aient déjà fourni quelques résul-tats intéressants, leur utilisation représente encore une opé-ration lourde, coûteuse et complexe [9,18,28]. Enfin diverses méthodes de détermination approximative des descriptions qui vont suivre mais cela nous conduirait à une analyse trop complexe.…”

Section: Détermination Des Paramètres Rhéologiquesunclassified

Rhéologie des laves torrentielles

Coussot¹

1994

La Houille Blanche

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining rheological parameters of debris flow material

Cited by 144 publications

References 19 publications

Modeling debris-flow runout patterns on two alpine fans with different dynamic simulation models

Modeling debris-flow runout patterns on two alpine fans with different dynamic simulation models

Palynologie et environnements des sédiments du Dévonien de Saïda (Algérie nord occidentale)

Rhéologie des laves torrentielles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About