4 views

- FEA 107 Validation Experiment.docx
- FEM Project Report Group13
- b17_exam_2015_aug
- MPI 6.0 Materials
- finitos
- pipe-fea 2
- Easily Made Errors in FEA 1
- 39. Vibration Analysis of Curved Composite Beams Using Hierarchical FEM
- A Finite Element for the Vibration Analysis of Timeshenko Beams
- MIT2_29F11_lect_27
- Trefftz-Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Time-Harmonic Wave Problems
- Hexahedral and Tetrahedral Element Study
- Concrete Material Science
- 03.pdf
- BT03016FU
- Assignment 1
- What Do Engineers and Architects Need to Know About FEM
- a-g
- Advance Geophysical and Mechanics
- Circumferential Joint Analysis in Aircraft Structure

You are on page 1of 15

Engineering Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

dimensional terrain

⁎

Hong-Xin Chen, Jin Li, Shi-Jin Feng , Hong-Yu Gao, Dong-Mei Zhang

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092,

China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Debris ﬂows are rapid gravity-driven ﬂows of sediment-water mixture, which can be greatly destructive due to

Debris ﬂow its huge volume, high velocity and large impact force. Check dam is essential protective structure for controlling

Check dam debris ﬂow. However, it is a challenging work to assess the interactions between debris ﬂow and check dam,

Destruction especially when involving complex topography and dam destruction. A numerical method was developed in this

Fluid-structure interaction

study to investigate the interactions between debris ﬂow and check dam on three-dimensional terrain. The debris

Stava tailings dam

ﬂow and check dam were simulated by Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method and Finite Element

Method (FEM), respectively. The method was validated by a dam break problem and a granular ﬂow ﬂume test.

An actual debris ﬂow event originated from failure of tailings dams on 19 July 1985 in Stava, Italy was simulated

as an example. The results indicate that the proposed method is a practical tool to simulate the runout char-

acteristics of debris ﬂow (e.g., ﬂow velocity, ﬂow depth, impact area) and interactions between debris ﬂow and

check dam (e.g., impact force, destruction of check dam, interception by check dam). Given similar total dam

volume, increasing the number of dams will improve the hazard mitigation eﬀect. Moreover, it is recommended

to construct dams in downstream area with straight channel. This study will contribute to a better understanding

of the ﬂow-structure interaction and is helpful for rational design of check dams.

1. Introduction ﬂow and check dam is a challenging work, due to the complicated

runout characteristics of debris ﬂow and the diﬃculty in accurately

Debris ﬂows are rapid gravity-driven ﬂows of sediment-water mix- describing the impact on check dam especially when involving complex

ture, which can be greatly destructive due to its huge volume, high topography and dam destruction.

velocity and large impact force, which can pose great danger to the The runout characteristics of debris ﬂow have been comprehen-

downstream people and infrastructure. For example, a giant cata- sively investigated by ﬁeld investigation (e.g., Tang et al., 2011; Xu

strophic debris ﬂow attacked Zhouqu, China, destroying or dama- et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2012, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014; Fan et al.,

ging > 5500 buildings and causing 1765 fatalities (Tang et al., 2011). 2018), experimental test (e.g., Iverson et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2013,

Similar tragedies caused by debris ﬂow have been reported by nu- 2015), and numerical simulation (e.g., McDougall and Hungr, 2004;

merous researchers (e.g., Chandler and Tosatti, 1995; Revellino et al., Pastor et al., 2009; Luna et al., 2012; Chen and Zhang, 2015; Gao et al.,

2004; Xu et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2015; Ouyang 2016; Zhang and Matsushima, 2016; Chen et al., 2017; Ouyang et al.,

et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2018). 2017; Shen et al., 2017; Braun et al., 2018) in the past decades, mainly

In order to mitigate the hazard, protective structures, such as check focusing on the variation of ﬂow depth, ﬂow velocity, inundation area

dam (Shieh et al., 2007; Mizuyama, 2008; Liu et al., 2017), ﬂexible and runout distance. These works provide basis for further studying the

barrier (Wendeler et al., 2007; Leonardi et al., 2016), deposition basin ﬂow-structure interactions. Impact force of debris ﬂow is an important

(Zollinger, 1985), are installed at diﬀerent positions along the potential index for the design of protective structure. Several laboratory ﬂume

ﬂow path. Among those, check dam is the most widely used, which has tests have been carried to get the impact force of debris ﬂow (Jiang and

to be rationally designed to resist the dynamic force caused by debris Towhata, 2013; Scheidl et al., 2013; Cui et al., 2015; Song et al., 2017;

ﬂow. However, reliable evaluation of the interactions between debris Zhou et al., 2018). However, the tested barriers were rigid and the

⁎

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: chenhongxin@tongji.edu.cn (H.-X. Chen), 1150102@tongji.edu.cn (J. Li), fsjgly@tongji.edu.cn (S.-J. Feng),

1630533@tongji.edu.cn (H.-Y. Gao), dmzhang@tongji.edu.cn (D.-M. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.02.001

Received 15 August 2018; Received in revised form 26 January 2019; Accepted 2 February 2019

Available online 06 February 2019

0013-7952/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

N

⎛ σi

αβ σ jαβ ⎞ ∂Wij F

normally simplify the topography, but the boundary eﬀect and size = ∑ mj ⎜ + + i

dt ρi2 ρj2 ⎟ ∂x iβ mi (2)

eﬀect may signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the test results. So some ﬁeld tests j=1 ⎝ ⎠

have been conducted to obtain valuable in-situ data, such as at Ill- where the subscript i represents the concerned particle and the sub-

graben torrent in Switzerland (Wendeler et al., 2007) and Jiangjia script j represents a neighbor particle in the inﬂuence domain; t is the

Ravine in China (Hu et al., 2011). But it is quite diﬃcult and dangerous time; N is the total number of particles within the inﬂuence domain of

to get real-time record of impact force during the debris ﬂow (Dai et al., the particle i; m and ρ are the mass and density of the particle, re-

2017). spectively; σ is the stress tensor of the particle; Wij = W(xi-xj, h) is the

Therefore, numerical simulation is adopted by some researchers to smoothing Kernel function and h is the smoothing length determining

study the ﬂow-dam interactions. For example, Remaître et al. (2008) the inﬂuence domain of the smoothing function; vij is the relative ve-

adopted a one dimensional model to assess the inﬂuence of check dams locity vector between particles i and j; the superscripts α and β represent

on debris ﬂow runout intensity; Kwan et al. (2015) conducted a staged the coordinate directions; F denotes the external forces such as gravity,

debris mobility analysis that accounts for the eﬀects of multiple check basal friction, and interaction forces with check dam, which are simply

dams; Dai et al. (2017) developed a numerical model using the SPH applied to the particles without using any SPH approximation.

method to investigate the impact force of debris ﬂow. Although the

above works can simulate the interactions between debris ﬂow and

2.2. Flow resistance

check dam at catchment scale, the destruction process can not be

modeled since the structure is assumed to be unbreakable. In fact, check

The concerned resistance to debris ﬂow movement includes two

dams can be seriously damaged or even destroyed by debris ﬂow, which

parts in this study. The ﬁrst one is basal friction at the interface between

has been widely observed in ﬁeld (Remaître et al., 2008; Tang et al.,

debris ﬂow and ground surface, which is characterized by coeﬃcient of

2011; Xu et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2015). The destruction may in turn

friction between debris ﬂow and ground and evaluated by Mohr-

substantially alter the runout characteristics of debris ﬂow.

Coulomb model. The basal friction is one of the external forces in Eq.

The objective of this study is to investigate the interactions between

(2). The second one is the internal ﬂow resistance in debris ﬂow ma-

debris ﬂow and check dam on three-dimensional terrain using numer-

terial, which is controlled by the adopted material model. There are

ical method, especially the destruction of check dam. The proposed

about 140 material models in LS-DYNA (Hallquist, 2006), and the fol-

method is ﬁrstly validated by a dam-break problem and a ﬂume test. A

lowing two ones are suitable for simulating ﬂow materials.

debris ﬂow originated from tailings dam failure on 19 July 1985 in Italy

The ﬁrst one is the null material (*MAT_NULL), which has no yield

was then simulated as a case study. Three scenarios were concerned,

stress and behaves in a ﬂuid-like manner. In this model, the internal

namely, with no check dam, with rigid check dam(s), and with de-

ﬂow resistance is characterized by viscous shear stress, which can be

structible check dam(s). This study will contribute to a better under-

deﬁned as follows:

standing of the ﬂow-structure interaction and is helpful for rational

design of check dams. σ αβ = 2με αβ

̇ (3)

2. Methodology viscous stress serves as one of the interaction forces between diﬀerent

particles in Eq. (2), which resists the movement of particles.

LS-DYNA is a powerful numerical platform developed by Livermore The other material model is the elastic-plastic hydrodynamic ma-

Software Technology Corporation (Hallquist, 2006), which has been terial (*MAT_ELASTIC_PLASTIC_HYDRO, abbreviated as MEPH), which

successfully applied to simulate debris ﬂow runout processes (e.g., represents a continuous medium having both ﬂuid properties and

Konuk et al., 2006; Kwan et al., 2015; Koo, 2017; Koo et al., 2017), elastoplastic solid properties. The MEPH model is applicable for a

seismic response of structures (Ding et al., 2006; Lee and Chang, 2012) variety of materials, including those showing pressure dependent yield

and blasting-induced response of soil and rock (Ma and An, 2008; An behaviors (Hallquist, 2006), thus it can be used for representing debris

et al., 2011). Due to its capability of describing dynamic and high ﬂow with high solid concentration. In this model, the internal ﬂow

strain-rate problems, it was adopted to simulate the movement of debris resistance is characterized by yield stress σy. In a time step, a trial value

ﬂow and destruction of check dams in this study. Considering the fea- of deviatoric stress is computed ﬁrst:

tures of debris ﬂow and check dam, the debris ﬂow was modeled using

the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method, and the other snαβ+ 1 = snαβ + Rαβ + 2Gε αβ

̇ dt (4)

elements were modeled using the Finite Element Method (FEM). where the superscript ‘-’ denotes a trial value; the subscript n denotes

the time step; sn is the deviatoric stress at the n-th time step; R is the

2.1. SPH method rotation matrix containing the corotational basis vectors (Hallquist,

2006); G is the shear modulus.

SPH is a meshless method deﬁned by a number of particles with a A trial value of eﬀective stress is then calculated as

ﬁeld around them. The main advantage of SPH method over classical 3 0.5

CFD methods is that a numerical grid is not needed, which helps to s = ⎛ snαβ+ 1 snαβ+ 1 ⎞

⎝2 ⎠ (5)

avoid the limitations of mesh tangling encountered in extreme de-

formation scenarios especially when coupled with the ﬁnite element If s is smaller than the yield stress, the material falls into elastic state

method. and the plastic strain increment is zero. If s exceeds the yield stress,

In SPH method framework, the computational domain is discretized plastic strain increment occurs, and the yield stress is updated as

into numerous particles on which the governing equations are solved. (σy )n + 1 = (σy )n + Eh Δε p (6)

In this study, Navier-Stokes equations were adopted as the governing

equations for debris ﬂow movement, which can be written as a set of where Eh is the plastic hardening modulus; Δεp is the plastic strain in-

equations in the form of particle approximation as follows: crement. The trial stress will be scaled back to the yield surface, and the

updated deviatoric stress is

N

dρi ∂Wij

= ∑ mj vijβ (σy )n + 1

dt j=1 ∂x iβ (1) snαβ+ 1 = snαβ+ 1

s (7)

49

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

The stress tensor of the particle in Eq. (2) is then updated as direction, the automatic contact module is adopted. Apart from the

normal contact force, frictional force also exists at the interface, which

σnαβ+ 1 = snαβ+ 1 − pn + 1 δ αβ (8) is assessed based on the coeﬃcient of friction. On one hand, the in-

where p is the pressure; δ is the Kronecker delta. teraction forces may deform the check dam; on the other hand, the

It should be noted that an equation of state (EOS) should be adopted interaction forces will serve as external forces in Eq. (2), changing the

to compute the pressure term in both material models. The widely used movement of debris ﬂow.

Gruneisen EOS is chosen in this study:

γ0

2.4. Structure destruction

p=

ρ0 C 2θ ⎡1 + 1 −

⎣ ( 2 )θ − a 2

θ⎤

2 ⎦

+ (γ0 + aθ) E

θ2 θ3

2 The destruction of check dam is considered through element erosion

⎡1 − (S1 − 1) θ − S2 θ + 1 − S3 (θ + 1)2 ⎤

⎣ ⎦ (9) algorithm. An illustration of the destruction is shown in Fig. 1b. Debris

ﬂow impacts the check dam, and stress state changes in elements of

p = ρ0 C 2θ + (γ0 + aθ) E (10) check dam. Once the changes develop to a certain extent, element

where p is the pressure; ρ0 is the initial density; C is the intercept of the erosion occurs. Several failure criteria are available in the platform,

curve corresponding to the adiabatic speed of sound; S1, S2 and S3 are including critical pressure, critical principal stress, critical principal

the ﬁtting coeﬃcients; γ0 is the Gruneisen coeﬃcient; a is the volume strain and so on, one or more of them could be selected as needed and

correction coeﬃcient to γ0; θ = 1/V–1, where V is the relative volume, they work independently (Hallquist, 2006). In this study, critical prin-

θ > 0 for compressed state, θ < 0 for expanded state; E is the internal cipal strain was adopted:

energy per initial volume. Eq. (9) is for compressed state, and Eq. (10) is ε1 ≥ εf (13)

for expanded state. It allows a precise propagation of the pressure wave

in a computationally eﬃcient manner. where ε1 is the maximum principal strain; εf is the principal strain at

failure.

2.3. Fluid-structure interactions If Eq. (13) is satisﬁed, the element would be deleted from calcula-

tion. The deletion process is irreversible, which means that the deleted

When debris ﬂow contacts check dam, interactions occur between element would not be involved in the later calculation while the other

them (Fig. 1). In order to simulate the interactions, coupling between normal elements still work. This makes contact between SPH particles

the FEM elements (check dam) and the SPH particles (debris ﬂow) is and check dam elements continue. So the check dam would be damaged

realized by using contact algorithm. The penalty method is chosen as if some elements are removed or even destroyed if most elements are

the contact algorithm to evaluate the interactions. In this method, removed. Therefore, the method is applicable for simulating the de-

debris ﬂow consisting of a set of SPH particles is designated as the slave struction process of check dam. Although the destruction process is

nodes, and the surface of check dam is designated as the master surface simpliﬁed and failure elements are deleted instead of being cracked or

(Fig. 1a). At each time step, the slave nodes are checked to see whether separated, it can also reﬂect structure destruction to a certain extent.

they penetrate into the master surface. If penetration occurs, an inter-

face contact force is introduced: 2.5. Solution procedures

F = kl (11)

An illustration of the calculation program in this paper is shown in

where k is the contact stiﬀness and l is the penetration depth. This is Fig. 2. In a debris ﬂow-check dam interaction problem, the ground and

physically equivalent to placing an interface spring between the pene- check dams are built using FEM, and debris ﬂow mixture is simulated

trating nodes and the contact surface (see Fig. 1a). The contact stiﬀness using SPH particles which are assigned with initial properties such as

is calculated as density, location and velocity.

αKA2 m ⎫ In each time step, a neighbor list for each particle is created ﬁrst

k = max ⎧ , SOFSCL based on the smoothing length; then the neighbor particles are sorted

⎨

⎩ V 2∆t 2 ⎬

⎭ (12)

and the density, strain rate, pressure and stress of each particle are

where α is a scale factor; K is the bulk modulus of check dam, which is calculated based on Eq. (1) and material model; afterwards, the particle

calculated based on the material properties; A is the area of master force is evaluated. When the SPH particles touch the check dam ele-

surface; V is the volume of check dam element; SOFSCL is the scale ments as shown in Fig. 1a, interactions occur between them following

factor for the Soft Constraint Penalty Formulation; m is the nodal mass the principle introduced in Section 2.3. For the SPH particles, the ac-

and Δt is the time step. Since it is diﬃcult to determine the contact celeration can be calculated based on the particle force and external

50

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

(a)

(b)

10

8

Water depth (m)

Gabutti Point 1

MacCormack Point 1

2 Point 2 in this paper

Gabutti Point 2

MacCormack Point 2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

Fig. 3. (a) Water depth at 7.5 s after the dam breached computed by the present method; (b) comparison of the computed water depth between the present method

and two numerical schemes reported by Fennema and Chaudhry (1990).

forces based on Eq. (2), and the velocity and position can be then up- adopted for time integration to ensure numerical stability.

dated. For the check dam elements, given the interaction forces, the

dynamic equation is formulated. On the basis of the constructed stiﬀ-

ness matrix and mass matrix, the displacement can be solved, and the 3. Model validation

strain and stress can be then obtained. If the element does not fail, it

remains working. Otherwise, the element is deleted, and the stiﬀness 3.1. Test 1: dam break

matrix and mass matrix will be changed correspondingly in the next

time step. The classical Courant-Friedrich-Lewy (CFL) condition is A dam break problem reported by Fennema and Chaudhry (1990)

was adopted here to test the performance of the method in simulating

51

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Table 1 reservoir water was 10 m, and that of the tail water was 5 m. The re-

Adopted parameters for numerical simulation. servoir water was initially retained by a dam. At t = 0, the dam was

Parameter Meaning Value Reference assumed to fail instantaneously and the breach width was 75 m. The

water was modeled using MAT_NULL, which is perfect to model water-

Parameters of Gruneisen EOS like ﬂuid, with a density of 1000 kg/m3 and a dynamic viscosity of

C (m/s) Sound speed 1480 Liu et al. (2003)

0.001 Pa·s. The initial spacing of SPH particles was 1.25 m. The adopted

S1 Fitting coeﬃcient 2.56 Liu et al. (2003)

S2 Fitting coeﬃcient 1.986 Liu et al. (2003)

parameters for Gruneisen EOS are summarized in Table 1. The com-

S3 Fitting coeﬃcient 1.2268 Liu et al. (2003) puted surface proﬁle of water at 7.5 s after the dam breached is shown

γ0 Gruneisen coeﬃcient 0.5 Liu et al. (2003) in Fig. 3a, which was almost the same as that reported by Fennema and

a Volume correction coeﬃcient 0 Liu et al. (2003) Chaudhry (1990). Two points (Points 1 and 2 in Fig. 3a) were selected

Parameters of contact to further investigate the variation of water depth. The comparison

μ1 Coeﬃcient of friction between debris 0.045 between the present method and two numerical schemes reported by

ﬂow and ground

Fennema and Chaudhry (1990) is shown in Fig. 3b, there was slight

μ2 Coeﬃcient of friction between debris 0.045

ﬂow and check dam diﬀerence at the beginning but the results agreed reasonably well later.

α Scale factor for the interface stiﬀness 0.1 Hallquist (2006) The reason for the diﬀerence may be that Fennema and Chaudhry

SOFSCL Scale factor for the Soft Constraint 0.1 Hallquist (2007) (1990) adopted depth-averaged shallow water equation and ﬁnite dif-

Penalty Formulation ference method, while this study conducted three-dimensional simula-

tion using SPH method.

three-dimensional ﬂow, which is illustrated in Fig. 3a. The computa-

tional domain was a channel with a length of 200 m and a width of

200 m. The boundary was assumed to be frictionless. The depth of the

(a)

(b)

500

F1 (This paper)

F2 (This paper)

F3 (This paper)

400

F1 (Jiang and Towhata, 2013)

Impact force (N/m)

F3 (Jiang and Towhata, 2013)

300

200

100

0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic diagram of the ﬂume test; (b) comparison of impact forces on the rigid wall.

52

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Fig. 5. Comparison of ﬂow paths and ﬁnal deposition zones between the ﬁeld investigation and numerical simulation, and locations of hypothetical check dams.

Fig. 6. Runout process of the debris ﬂow: (a) time = 30 s; (b) time = 100 s; (c) time = 300 s; (d) time = 500 s.

3.2. Test 2: ﬂow impact on rigid wall MAT_NULL. Since it was a dry ﬂow, the dynamic viscosity was assumed

to be zero. The friction angles between the particles and the base, the

The granular ﬂow ﬂume test conducted by Jiang and Towhata retaining wall and the side wall were 25°, 21° and 15°, respectively

(2013) was adopted to validate the performance of the present method (Jiang and Towhata, 2013), which were adopted in the simulation. The

in simulating the interaction between debris ﬂow and barrier. The side comparison of impact forces is shown in Fig. 4b. The results overall

view of the test apparatus is shown in Fig. 4a. The length, the width and showed good agreement between the simulation results and the test

the height of the ﬂume were 2.63, 0.3 and 0.35 m, respectively. A rigid data.

wall perpendicular to the ﬂume base was installed at the end of the

ﬂume, and the impact force was measured by load cells on the wall. A

sliding mass composed of limestone gravel was initially retained at the

entrance of the ﬂume, with a density of 1378 kg/m3. The initial spacing

of SPH particles was 0.02 m. The granular ﬂow was also modeled with

53

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

This paper

Stava tailings dams on 19 July 1985

Takahashi (2007)

30

4.1. The debris ﬂow event

Flow velocity (m/s)

25

A destructive debris ﬂow was triggered by the collapse of tailings

20

dams in Stava (northern Italy) on 19 July 1985, which has been con-

cretely investigated in the past decades through ﬁeld survey, inter-

15

pretation of aerial images, and numerical simulation (e.g., Muramoto

et al., 1986; Chandler and Tosatti, 1995; Luino and De Graﬀ, 2012;

10

Pirulli et al., 2017). Two ﬂuorite tailings dams were built on a slope, at

5 elevation ranging from 1330 to 1380 m. The upper dam collapsed ﬁrst

and then the lower dam subsequently fell down. The tailings rushed out

0 immediately, then ﬂowed downstream along the Stava Valley and ﬁ-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 nally deposited at the Avisio River (Fig. 5), traveling over 4.2 km. The

Distance (m) runout path and impact area of the debris ﬂow were determined

through ﬁeld survey and interpretation of aerial images. According to

Fig. 7. Comparison of ﬂow velocity proﬁles. the survey after this event, 185,000 m3 sandy tailings and silty tailings

with a bulk density of 1900 kg/m3 (Chandler and Tosatti, 1995) and a

Table 2 volumetric sediment concentration of 0.476 (Takahashi, 2007) were

Summary of interactions between debris ﬂow and check dam(s) without con- released. Most houses in Stava Valley and 47 buildings along the stream

sidering dam destruction. in Tesero were destroyed and 268 people were killed (Muramoto et al.,

Case Location H (m) Vd (m3) Fmax (N) λm Qmax T (s) 1986).

(m3/s) The event was simulated in this study since the information, espe-

cially the digital terrain, is public and detailed, making it possible for

Base case None None None None None 969 162

other interested researchers to follow up. Although no check dam ex-

1 1 10 2500 4.11 × 108 23.8% 937 206

2 1 15 4500 5.24 × 108 46.3% 890 222 isted in the event, some hypothetical check dams were adopted to in-

3 1 20 7000 6.02 × 108 78.5% 609 243 vestigate the runout characteristics of debris ﬂow and the ﬂow-dam

4 5 10 1500 1.29 × 108 46.8% 672 206 interactions. Close check dam, which is one of the most widely used

5 5 15 3000 1.66 × 108 76.5% 406 228 check dams, was adopted in this study. Totally three scenarios were

6 9 10 2000 7.78 × 107 78.6% 422 253

7 9 15 3750 9.62 × 107 92.4% 375 291

simulated, including the scenario with no check dam (actual scenario),

8 1, 2 10 5000 1–4.20 × 108 74.6% 469 247 scenario with the assumed rigid check dam(s) (not destructible) and

2–1.38 × 108 scenario with the assumed concrete check dam(s) (destructible).

9 1, 2, 3 7.5 5062.5 1–3.50 × 108 96.5% 102 273

2–1.40 × 108

4.2. Runout characteristics of the debris ﬂow with no check dam

3–7.07 × 107

10 4, 5 10 3000 4–1.76 × 108 85.1% 219 285

5–6.08 × 107 Digital elevation data with a spatial resolution of 1 m was ﬁrstly

11 4, 5, 6 7.5 3187.5 4–1.53 × 108 96.1% 37 425 downloaded from the GIS web of Trentino Geocartographic Portal of

5–5.56 × 107 the Autonomous Province of Trento. Considering the computational

6–3.70 × 107

12 8, 9 10 4000 8–9.75 × 107 100% – –

domain is large, a too small cell size will lead to enormous computa-

9–2.23 × 107 tional cost, so a digital elevation ﬁle with a spatial resolution of 10 m

13 7, 8, 9 7.5 3937.5 7–7.33 × 107 100% – – was obtained from the original data in ArcGIS.

8–5.54 × 107 The Stava Valley did not suﬀer from signiﬁcant erosion (Pirulli

9–9.67 × 106

et al., 2017), so erosion process was not considered in this study and the

14 1, 5, 9 7.5 3937.5 1–3.46 × 108 97.3% 4 508

5–7.42 × 107 ground was modeled with rigid shell elements. The rushing out tailings

9–3.05 × 107 were reconstructed by 11,119 SPH particles with an initial particle

spacing of 2.5 m. The tailings were assumed to be released instantly.

Note: H is the height of check dam; Vd is the volume of check dam(s); Fmax is the The mixture of silt, sand and water was modeled by the MEPH model

maximum impact force on check dam; λm is the mitigation ratio; Qmax is the with an average density of 1900 kg/m3. Major and Pierson (1992)

maximum discharge at the observation point; T is the arrival time of debris ﬂow

presented a series of experimental data of yield stress for ﬁne-grained

at the observation point.

slurries, which were similar to the debris ﬂow material in this event. So

the data was adopted to estimate the yield stress of debris ﬂow in this

6.0x108

Location 1, H = 10 m (Case 1) study. Considering Cv was 0.476 in this event, the yield stress was de-

Location 1, H = 15 m (Case 2) termined as 40 Pa. The shear modulus of debris ﬂow was taken as

Location 5, H = 10 m (Case 4) 6 MPa, which is the typical value for debris ﬂow reported by Koo

Location 5, H = 15 m (Case 5)

Impact force (N)

4.0x108 (2017). In fact, we found that the simulation results were not sensitive

Location 9, H = 10 m (Case 6)

Location 9, H = 15 m (Case 7) to the shear modulus, which was also reported by Koo (2017). The

plastic hardening modulus was taken as zero for simplicity, otherwise

2.0x108 the yield stress would increase to a greatly high level since the de-

formation during the debris ﬂow movement was extremely large. As

mentioned in Section 2.2, coeﬃcient of friction is another important

0.0

parameter for evaluating ﬂow resistance. Since there was no available

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 data for the contact friction between the debris ﬂow and the ground

Time (s) (μ1) in this event, the coeﬃcient of friction was determined as 0.045

based on back analysis. The relatively low value of μ1 is mainly at-

Fig. 8. Evolution of impact force on single check dam at diﬀerent locations.

tributed to the high ﬁne content of the debris ﬂow material. The low

54

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Fig. 9. Interaction between debris ﬂow and check dam of Case 2: (a) time = 52 s; (b) time = 55 s; (c) time = 59 s.

permeability may cause large excess pore water pressure at the base, estimate debris ﬂow velocity in ﬁeld survey (Hungr et al., 1984;

which can signiﬁcantly reduce the ﬂow resistance. The adopted para- Hürlimann et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2014). In this study, the velocity of

meters of Gruneisen EOS and the other contact parameters are sum- SPH particles was monitored and output directly and the average ﬂow

marized in Table 1. velocity of debris ﬂow front was calculated. The comparison of ﬂow

The runout process of debris ﬂow was simulated, as shown in Fig. 6. velocity proﬁles between the simulation result and the data reported by

The tailings dam collapsed, rushed out, and then ﬂowed downward to Takahashi (2007) is shown in Fig. 7, which agreed reasonably well,

the Stava Valley in a short period (30 s). The ﬂow velocity has reached a except for the beginning part. There are two reasons for the diﬀerence.

very high level, making it greatly destructive. Afterwards, the mass One reason is that the tailings were released instantaneously in the si-

ﬂowed along the channel (Fig. 6b), forming a long strip of ﬂow with a mulation, which was slightly diﬀerent from the real scenario as afore-

high-speed front and a low-speed tail. The debris ﬂow moved with a mentioned. Takahashi (2007) estimated the duration of the failure

decreasing speed and ﬁnally deposited at the conﬂuence area between process by applying the Ritter's dam collapse function and reported that

the Stava Valley and the Avisio River (Fig. 6d). The comparison of ﬂow the total volume of debris ﬂow was released for about 13.2 s. Another

paths and ﬁnal deposition zones between the ﬁeld data (Muramoto reason is that there were numerous trees near the tailings dam. Luino

et al., 1986) and the simulation result is shown in Fig. 5. Good agree- and De Graﬀ (2012) reported that hundreds of tall trees (spruce and

ment can be observed. larch) were literally cut down just above the roots, which would greatly

Apart from the impact area, ﬂow velocity is also an important index reduce the debris ﬂow velocity. But this factor was diﬃcult to be

for evaluating the runout characteristics of debris ﬂow. Two months considered in the simulation. The above results reveal that the present

after the event, Takahashi and his colleagues did the ﬁeld survey. They method can well simulate debris ﬂow at catchment scale and the

found obvious diﬀerence in ﬂood marks between one on the left bank adopted parameters are reasonable.

and the other on the right bank, the level diﬀerence is called super-

elevation. This is the eﬀect of centrifugal force. The cross-sectional 4.3. Runout characteristics of the debris ﬂow considering the inﬂuence of

average velocity of debris ﬂow was estimated using the phenomenon of check dam

super-elevation and the detailed information is enclosed in Takahashi

(2007). In fact, the super-elevation method has been widely adopted to In this part, the inﬂuence of check dam was investigated and rigid

55

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Fig. 10. Interaction between debris ﬂow and check dam of Case 7: (a) time = 125 s; (b) time = 127 s; (c) time = 131 s; (d) time = 135 s.

check dams were adopted. Hypothetical check dam(s) were set along noted that the dam height decreased with increasing dam number at the

the ﬂow path before the debris ﬂow occurred. In order to evaluate the same area in order to make the diﬀerent cases have similar dam scale,

mitigation eﬀect of check dams considering various heights, numbers which is beneﬁcial for comparison. For simplicity, the thickness of all

and locations, totally 14 cases were simulated as summarized in the dams was set as 5 m. In the downstream area, an observation point

Table 2, and the locations of the check dams are shown in Fig. 5. Nine was selected to assess the arrival time and ﬂow discharge of debris ﬂow

possible locations were selected, which were distributed almost evenly. (Fig. 5).

Cases 1–7 considered single check dam set at diﬀerent locations (up- The simulation results are also summarized in Table 2, including the

stream, midstream, downstream) with various heights (10, 15, 20 m). maximum impact force on check dam, the mitigation ratio of check

Cases 8–14 considered multiple (two or three) check dams. It should be dam, the maximum ﬂow discharge and arrival time of debris ﬂow at the

56

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

40 reached the check dam and interacted intensely (Fig. 9a). After inter-

Case 2 acting with check dam, the velocity of the upper ﬂow part was still

Check dam at Location 1

Case 5 large. Then the debris ﬂow ran up signiﬁcantly (Fig. 9b), some of the

Case 7 material ﬂew over the dam and kept traveling, some was retained by

30 Check dam at Location 5

the dam and turned back (Fig. 9c). The huge impact force was domi-

Flow velocity (m/s)

nated by the dynamic pressure. For Case 7, the velocity of debris ﬂow

Check dam at Location 9 H = 15 m was not so large. The debris ﬂow had slowed down before reaching the

20

dam (Fig. 10a), and the run-up phenomenon was not evident (Fig. 10b).

85 s Then the material stopped behind the check dam (Fig. 10c) and gra-

dually ﬁlled up the reservoir (Fig. 10d), thus the impact force gradually

increased (see Fig. 8) and the stable value was attributed to the hy-

10 drostatic pressure.

Fig. 11 shows the evolution of debris ﬂow velocity considering

diﬀerent dam locations. The ﬂow velocity dropped suddenly when

debris ﬂow reached check dam, and then rose gradually after a certain

0 period of time. It took more time for debris ﬂow moving over down-

0 100 200 300 400

stream check dam, leading to larger arrival time (see Table 2). For

Time (s) example, the ﬂow mass spent about 85 s to recover the ﬂow velocity at

Location 9 (Case 7). As a result, the arrival time in Case 7 was up to

Fig. 11. Variation of frontal velocity of debris ﬂow with time for diﬀerence

cases.

291 s, and the observed maximum ﬂow discharge was 375 m3/s, which

was monitored according to the number of passing particles per unit

time. Compared with the base case, the aﬀected people would have

observation point. The results indicate that the impact force increased about two more minutes to ﬂee away and the intensity of debris ﬂow

with increasing dam height but decreased with increasing distance would be reduced by approximately 60% in terms of ﬂow discharge.

between the source area and the check dam. Fig. 8 shows the variation Mitigation ratio, which is deﬁned as the ratio of the sediment vo-

of impact force on single check dam with time at diﬀerent locations. At lume retained by check dam to the total debris ﬂow volume, is the most

Location 1, the impact force on the check dam with a height of 15 m direct parameter reﬂecting the control function of check dam(s). It can

(Case 2) reached the maximum value of 5.24 × 108 N at about 50 s and be expected that the mitigation ratio increased with increasing dam

then decreased rapidly, followed by a smaller second peak before height as shown in Table 2 since the destruction of dam was not con-

reaching a stable value of about 1.0 × 108 N. A similar curve appeared sidered. In addition, the mitigation ratio increased with the increase of

for check dam at the same location with a height of 10 m (Case 1), distance between the source area and the check dam. As shown in

which only had a maximum value of 4.11 × 108 N. The peaks of the Table 2, the debris ﬂow intensity showed a decreasing trend with in-

curves for Location 5 (Cases 4 and 5) were much smaller but no second creasing dam number. For example, the mitigation ratios of Case 5,

peak appeared. It is noteworthy that the eventual stable values for Case 10 and Case 11 were 76.5%, 85.1% and 96.1%, respectively, while

Locations 1 and 5 with the same dam height were almost the same. As the dam scales were similar (about 3000 m3). Similar rules were also

for Location 9 (Cases 6 and 7), the impact force increased gradually found at the other locations. Therefore, multiple barriers were more

with time and no obvious peak appeared. eﬀective because the energy gain of debris ﬂow during overﬂows was

The detailed impact process is shown in Figs. 9 and 10 to further limited (Kwan et al., 2015). In particular, the mitigation ratios in Cases

investigate the interactions. For Case 2, the high-speed debris ﬂow 12 and 13 were up to 100%, which means the debris ﬂow was totally

Fig. 12. Comparison of ﬁnal deposition zones among typical cases: (a) base case with no check dam; (b) Case 1 with one upstream check dam; (c) Case 13 with three

downstream check dams.

57

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Fig. 13. Inﬂuence of super-elevation: (a) check dam constructed at Location 1; (b) check dam constructed at 200 m upstream from Location 1.

Table 3 controlled by the check dams. Fig. 12 shows a comparison of the ﬁnal

Summary of interactions between debris ﬂow and check dam(s) considering deposition zones among three typical cases. The debris ﬂow was com-

dam destruction. pleted intercepted by the three dams (Case 13), forming a large sedi-

Case Location H (m) εf λR (%) λm (%) Qmax (m3/s) T (s) mentary area at the Stava Valley, while much debris ﬂow reached the

Avisio River when there was no check dam (base case) or one upstream

15 9 15 0.1 35.1 0 750 195 check dam (Case 1).

16 9 15 0.2 18.8 3.0 656 239

In addition, debris ﬂow sometimes shows a super-elevation phe-

17 9 15 0.3 2.9 0 813 269

18 1 15 0.2 6.5 1.2 984 199 nomenon when it goes through the curved channel at high speed. It is

19 5 15 0.2 40 31.9 688 210 relatively diﬃcult to predict the debris ﬂow path at the bend. In the

20 1, 2, 3 7.5 0.2 1–10 0 1094 198 Stava event, debris ﬂow drastically changed the direction before en-

2–0 tering the Stava Valley. A check dam was assumed to be constructed at

3–6.7

21 4, 5, 6 7.5 0.2 4–7.6 47.8 500 235

the turning point, about 200 m upstream from Location 1 in order to

5–0.8 investigate the inﬂuence of super-elevation. As shown in Fig. 13a, the

6–100 check dam can eﬀectively intercept the debris ﬂow if it was located at

22 7, 8, 9 7.5 0.2 7–1.5 99.4 5 304 Location 1; however, in Fig. 13b considerable debris ﬂow easily ﬂowed

8–100

over the check dam on the right hand side due to super-elevation. So it

9–100

23 1, 5, 9 7.5 0.2 1–4.8 52.5 359 334 is suggested to construct check dams at straight channel for avoiding

5–3.8 super-elevation.

9–44.9

Note: εf is the principal strain of check dam material at failure; λR is the ratio of 4.4. Destruction of check dam

remaining check dam.

dams were assumed to be made of concrete, which was modeled by

Fig. 14. Moment of check dam being destroyed considering diﬀerent dam strengths: (a) εf = 0.1 in Case 15; (b) εf = 0.2 in Case 16; (c) εf = 0.3 in Case 17.

58

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Fig. 15. Destruction process of check dam in Case 18: (a) time = 50 s; (b) time = 51 s; (c) time = 52 s; (d) time = 53 s.

Fig. 16. Residual structure of check dams in diﬀerent cases: (a) Case 20; (b) Case 21; (c) Case 22.

MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE (Continuous Surface Cap Model, which is ab- ratios were all close to zero in these three cases. In Cases 18–23, εf was

breviated as CSCM here). The model is appropriate for predicting the 0.2. The destruction process of Case 18 was taken as an example to

dynamic performance of concrete used in safety structures (Murray further understand the failure mechanism, as shown in Fig. 15. In

et al., 2007). The density and unconﬁned compressive strength of the Fig. 15a, the debris ﬂow material has interacted with the check dam,

concrete were 2500 kg/m3 and 38.5 MPa, respectively, which are the mainly in the lower part where the principal strain had reached very

design parameters of C60 concrete. In this part, totally 9 cases were high level. In Fig. 15b, the principal strain further increased. In Fig. 15c,

simulated and are summarized in Table 3. some elements had reached the critical state and were deleted from the

The inﬂuence of dam strength in terms of diﬀerent εf was considered simulation. Finally, the whole dam was totally destroyed as shown in

in Cases 15–17. Considering the inﬂuence of steel and the purpose of Fig. 15d. Comparing Cases 16, 18 and 19, downstream check dam also

parametric study, a larger range of εf (0.1–0.3) was adopted in this led to larger arrival time, which was the same as the scenario without

study compared with the value reported by Murray et al. (2007). With considering dam destruction.

the increase of dam strength, the ratio of remaining check dam de- Situations with multiple check dams were more complicated. When

creased but the arrival time increased. The moment of check dam being the check dams were constructed at upstream area (Case 20 in

destroyed in these cases is shown in Fig. 14. In Case 15, the check dam Fig. 16a), the three check dams were completely destroyed. However,

was destroyed instantaneously due to its low strength. The debris ﬂow the dam at Location 6 in Case 21 (Fig. 16b) as well as those at Locations

ﬂowed through the break quickly and 35.1% of the dam remained 8 and 9 in Case 22 (Fig. 16c) still partially or completely remained after

(Fig. 14a). The high-strength dam blocked debris ﬂow for a longer being impacted. The mitigation ratio in Case 22 reached 99.4%, which

period, but the dam collapsed as a whole because of the higher integrity achieved excellent performance. Therefore, even if the destruction of

(Case 17 in Fig. 14c). The medium strength case (Case 16) was in be- check dam was considered, multiple check dams were favorable for

tween Case 15 and Case 17. Due to the dam destruction, the mitigation hazard mitigation and it is recommended to construct the dams in

59

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

8

(a) Location 1 - Rigid (b) 1.6x10 Location 1 - CSCM

3.0x108 Location 2 - Rigid Location 2 - CSCM

Location 3 - Rigid Location 3 - CSCM

1.2x108

Impact force (N)

Case 9 Case 20

2.0x108

8.0x107

1.0x108

4.0x107

0.0 0.0

40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 120

Time (s) Time (s)

8 8

(c)1.6x10 Location 4 - Rigid (d)1.2x10 Location 4 - CSCM

Location 5 - Rigid Location 5 - CSCM

Location 6 - Rigid Location 6 - CSCM

1.2x108 9.0x107

Impact force (N)

Case 11 Case 21

8.0x107 6.0x107

4.0x107 3.0x107

0.0 0.0

70 105 140 175 70 105 140 175

Time (s) Time (s)

8 8

(e)1.0x10 Location 7 - Rigid

(f) 1.0x10 Location 7 - CSCM

Location 8 - Rigid Location 8 - CSCM

Location 9 - Rigid Location 9 - CSCM

7.5x107 7.5x107

Impact force (N)

Case 13 Case 22

5.0x107 5.0x107

2.5x107 2.5x107

0.0 0.0

100 150 200 250 300 100 125 150 175 200

Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 17. Variation of impact force with time considering multiple check dams: (a) upstream dams with rigid material (Case 9); (b) upstream dams considering

destruction (Case 20); (c) midstream dams with rigid material (Case 11); (d) midstream dams considering destruction (Case 21); (e) downstream dams with rigid

material (Case 13); (f) downstream dams considering destruction (Case 22).

downstream area. Table 3). Therefore, the distance between check dams should not be too

The impact forces in this section were compared with those in cases long. It is obvious that the check dam design in Case 22 was still the

without considering destruction (Fig. 17). It is obvious that in the same most eﬀective in Table 3. The debris ﬂow was almost completely con-

region, the impact force on the ﬁrst two check dams (Locations 1, 2, 4, trolled by the check dams in this case, even though dam destruction was

5, 7, 8) considering dam destruction was smaller than that without considered.

considering dam destruction except Location 8. The rule for the last

check dam (Locations 3, 6, 9) was contrary. The reason is as follows. If 5. Limitations of the method

the ﬁrst two dams were rigid, they sustained most impact energy. On

the contrary, the ﬁrst two dams were damaged or even destroyed if The method is able to simulate interactions between debris ﬂow and

destructible dam material was used, it can be expected that the last dam check dam considering the destruction process. Although some pre-

would bear more impact energy compared with the scenario without liminary results were obtained, the method has the following limita-

considering dam destruction. Moreover, for rigid check dams, the im- tions due to the simplifying assumptions.

pact force exerted on upstream dam was generally larger than that on

downstream one (Fig. 17a, c, e), which was not valid for destructible (1) The debris ﬂow mixture was simpliﬁed as a single-phase ﬂuid and

check dams (Fig. 17b, d, f). modeled by MEPH, which can not well account for the viscous ef-

In the above analysis, the check dams were located at upstream or fect. More suitable material models should be implemented through

midstream or downstream area. In Case 14 and Case 23, three check secondary development.

dams were constructed at upstream area (Location 1), midstream area (2) The destructible check dams were modeled by concrete material,

(Location 5), downstream area (Location 9), respectively. The control and the dam conﬁguration was relatively simple. Future work is

function was still acceptable if destruction was ignored (Case 14). But if needed to study the more detailed destruction process of dam by

the destruction was considered (Case 23), the ﬁrst two check dams were adopting more realistic check dam, which will contribute to a better

severely damaged and the mitigation ratio was only 52.5% (see understanding of the failure mechanism.

60

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

(3) In this study, the simulation was only based on the case of Stava Cui, P., Zeng, C., Lei, Y., 2015. Experimental analysis on the impact force of viscous debris

tailings dam failure. The method should be applied to more ex- ﬂow. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 40 (12), 1644–1655.

Dai, Z., Huang, Y., Cheng, H., Xu, Q., 2017. SPH model for ﬂuid-structure interaction and

amples in the future to investigate the inﬂuence of topography, its application to debris ﬂow impact estimation. Landslides 14 (3), 917–928.

which will be substantially helpful to the rational planning of check Ding, J.H., Jin, X.L., Guo, Y.Z., Li, G.G., 2006. Numerical simulation for large-scale

dams in engineering practice. seismic response analysis of immersed tunnel. Eng. Struct. 28 (10), 1367–1377.

Fan, R.L., Zhang, L.M., Wang, H.J., Fan, X.M., 2018. Evolution of debris ﬂow activities in

Gaojiagou Ravine during 2008–2016 after the Wenchuan earthquake. Eng. Geol. 235,

6. Summary and conclusions 1–10.

Fennema, R.J., Chaudhry, M.H., 1990. Explicit methods for 2-D transient free surface

ﬂows. J. Hydraul. Eng. 116 (8), 1013–1034.

A numerical method was developed to investigate the interactions Gao, L., Zhang, L.M., Chen, H.X., Shen, P., 2016. Simulating debris ﬂow mobility in urban

between debris ﬂow and check dam in this paper. The debris ﬂow and settings. Eng. Geol. 214, 67–78.

check dam were simulated by SPH method and FEM, respectively. The Hallquist, J.O., 2006. LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology

Corporation, USA.

method was eﬀectively validated by a dam break problem and a

Hallquist, J.O., 2007. LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual. Livermore Software Technology

granular ﬂow ﬂume test. An actual debris ﬂow event originated from Corporation, USA.

failure of tailings dams on 19 July 1985 in Stava, Italy was simulated as Hu, K., Wei, F., Li, Y., 2011. Real-time measurement and preliminary analysis of debris-

an example, three diﬀerent scenarios were considered. Some major ﬂow impact force at Jiangjia Ravine, China. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 36 (9),

1268–1278.

conclusions are drawn as follows. Hungr, O., Morgan, G.C., Kellerhals, R., 1984. Quantitative analysis of debris torrent

hazards for design of remedial measures. Can. Geotech. J. 21 (4), 663–677.

(1) The proposed method is a practical tool to investigate ﬂuid-struc- Hürlimann, M., Rickenmann, D., Graf, C., 2003. Field and monitoring data of debris-ﬂow

events in the Swiss Alps. Can. Geotech. J. 40 (1), 161–175.

ture interaction. The runout characteristics of debris ﬂow (e.g., ﬂow Iverson, R.M., Reid, M.E., Logan, M., LaHusen, R.G., Godt, J.W., Griswold, J.P., 2011.

velocity, ﬂow depth, impact area) and interactions between debris Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-ﬂow entrainment of wet bed

ﬂow and check dam (e.g., impact force, destruction of check dam, sediment. Nat. Geosci. 4 (2), 116–121.

Jiang, Y.J., Towhata, I., 2013. Experimental study of dry granular ﬂow and impact be-

interception by check dam) can be well simulated. havior against a rigid retaining wall. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 46 (4), 713–729.

(2) In upstream area, the debris ﬂow generally moved at high speed, Konuk, I., Yu, S., Evgin, E., 2006. Application of the ALE FE method to debris ﬂows. WIT

the ﬂow-dam interaction was quite intense. The peak impact force Trans. Ecol. Environ. 90, 47–57.

Koo, R.C.H., 2017. 3D debris mobility assessment using LS-DYNA. In: GEO Report No.

on check dam was obvious and the huge impact force was domi- 325. Geotechnical Engineering Oﬃce, Hong Kong.

nated by dynamic pressure. On the contrary, in downstream area, Koo, R.C.H., Kwan, J.S., Lam, C., Goodwin, G.R., Choi, C.E., Ng, C.W.W., Pun, W.K., 2017.

debris ﬂow moved at relatively small speed, the impact was much Back-analysis of geophysical ﬂows using three-dimensional runout model. Can.

Geotech. J. 55 (8), 1081–1094.

weaker and the reservoir behind dam was ﬁlled gradually if the

Kwan, J.S.H., Koo, R.C.H., Ng, C.W.W., 2015. Landslide mobility analysis for design of

dam was not destroyed. multiple debris-resisting barriers. Can. Geotech. J. 52 (9), 1345–1359.

(3) Debris ﬂow hazard was eﬀectively controlled by check dams, which Lee, K.Z.Z., Chang, N.Y., 2012. Predictive modeling on seismic performances of geosyn-

signiﬁcantly reduced the ﬂow velocity, intercepted debris ﬂow and thetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotext. Geomembr. 35, 25–40.

Leonardi, A., Wittel, F.K., Mendoza, M., Vetter, R., Herrmann, H.J., 2016. Particle-ﬂuid-

increased the arrival time at the downstream area. No matter for structure interaction for debris ﬂow impact on ﬂexible barriers. Comput.-Aided Civil

rigid or destructible check dam, multiple check dams were favor- Infrastruct. Eng. 31 (5), 323–333.

able for hazard mitigation and it is recommended to construct the Liu, M.B., Liu, G.R., Lam, K.Y., Zong, Z., 2003. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics for

numerical simulation of underwater explosion. Comput. Mech. 30 (2), 106–118.

dams in downstream area, but the distance between check dams Liu, F.Z., Xu, Q., Dong, X.J., Yu, B., Frost, J.D., Li, H.J., 2017. Design and performance of

should not be too long. Moreover, it is recommended to construct a novel multi-function debris ﬂow mitigation system in Wenjia Gully, Sichuan.

check dams at straight channel to avoid super-elevation. Landslides 14 (6), 2089–2104.

Luino, F., De Graﬀ, J.V., 2012. The Stava mudﬂow of 19 July 1985 (Northern Italy): a

disaster that eﬀective regulation might have prevented. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Acknowledgments 12 (4), 1029–1044.

Luna, B.Q., Remaître, A., Van Asch, T.W., Malet, J.P., Van Westen, C.J., 2012. Analysis of

debris ﬂow behavior with a one dimensional run-out model incorporating entrain-

The majority of the work described in this paper was supported by

ment. Eng. Geol. 128, 63–75.

the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Ma, G.W., An, X.M., 2008. Numerical simulation of blasting-induced rock fractures. Int. J.

Grant No. 2017YFC0804602, National Natural Science Foundation of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 45 (6), 966–975.

Major, J.J., Pierson, T.C., 1992. Debris ﬂow rheology: experimental analysis of ﬁne-

China under Grant No. 41602288, the Shanghai Chenguang Scheme,

grained slurries. Water Resour. Res. 28 (3), 841–857.

the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, and the McDougall, S., Hungr, O., 2004. A model for the analysis of rapid landslide motion across

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors three-dimensional terrain. Can. Geotech. J. 41 (6), 1084–1097.

would like to acknowledge all these sources of ﬁnancial support and Mizuyama, T., 2008. Structural countermeasures for debris ﬂow disasters. Int. J. Erosion

Control Eng. 1 (2), 38–43.

express the most sincere gratitude. Muramoto, Y., Uno, T., Takahashi, T., 1986. Investigation of the Collapse of the Tailings

Dam at Stava in the Northern Italy: Annuals DPRI 29A. pp. 19–52 (in Japanese).

References Murray, Y.D., Abu-Odeh, A.Y., Bligh, R.P., 2007. Evaluation of LS-DYNA Concrete

Material Model 159 (No. FHWA-HRT-05-063). Federal Highway Administration,

McLean, VA.

An, J., Tuan, C.Y., Cheeseman, B.A., Gazonas, G.A., 2011. Simulation of soil behavior Ouyang, C., Zhou, K., Xu, Q., Yin, J., Peng, D., Wang, D., Li, W., 2017. Dynamic analysis

under blast loading. Int. J. Geomech. 11 (4), 323–334. and numerical modeling of the 2015 catastrophic landslide of the construction waste

Braun, A., Cuomo, S., Petrosino, S., Wang, X., Zhang, L., 2018. Numerical SPH analysis of landﬁll at Guangming, Shenzhen, China. Landslides 14 (2), 705–718.

debris ﬂow run-out and related river damming scenarios for a local case study in SW Pastor, M., Haddad, B., Sorbino, G., Cuomo, S., Drempetic, V., 2009. A depth-integrated,

China. Landslides 15 (3), 535–550. coupled SPH model for ﬂow-like landslides and related phenomena. Int. J. Numer.

Chandler, R.J., Tosatti, G., 1995. The Stava tailings dams failure, Italy, July 1985. Proc. Anal. Methods Geomech. 33 (2), 143–172.

Instit. Civil Eng. Geotech. Eng. 113, 67–79. Pirulli, M., Barbero, M., Marchelli, M., Scavia, C., 2017. The failure of the Stava Valley

Chen, X., Cui, P., You, Y., Chen, J., Li, D., 2015. Engineering measures for debris ﬂow tailings dams (Northern Italy): numerical analysis of the ﬂow dynamics and rheolo-

hazard mitigation in the Wenchuan earthquake area. Eng. Geol. 194, 73–85. gical properties. Geoenviron. Disasters 4 (3), 1–15.

Chen, H.X., Zhang, L.M., 2015. EDDA 1.0: integrated simulation of debris ﬂow erosion, Remaître, A., Van Asch, T.W., Malet, J.P., Maquaire, O., 2008. Inﬂuence of check dams on

deposition and property changes. Geosci. Model Dev. 8 (3), 829–844. debris-ﬂow run-out intensity. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 8 (6), 1403–1416.

Chen, H.X., Zhang, L.M., Chang, D.S., Zhang, S., 2012. Mechanisms and runout char- Revellino, P., Hungr, O., Guadagno, F.M., Evans, S.G., 2004. Velocity and runout simu-

acteristics of the rainfall-triggered debris ﬂow in Xiaojiagou in Sichuan Province, lation of destructive debris ﬂows and debris avalanches in pyroclastic deposits,

China. Nat. Hazards 62 (3), 1037–1057. Campania region, Italy. Environ. Geol. 45 (3), 295–311.

Chen, H.X., Zhang, L.M., Gao, L., Yuan, Q., Lu, T., Xiang, B., Zhuang, W.L., 2017. Scheidl, C., Chiari, M., Kaitna, R., Müllegger, M., Krawtschuk, A., Zimmermann, T.,

Simulation of interactions among multiple debris ﬂows. Landslides 14 (2), 595–615. Proske, D., 2013. Analysing debris-ﬂow impact models, based on a small scale

Chen, H.X., Zhang, L.M., Zhang, S., 2014. Evolution of debris ﬂow properties and physical modelling approach. Surv. Geophys. 34 (1), 121–140.

interactions in debris-ﬂow mixtures in the Wenchuan earthquake zone. Eng. Geol. Shen, P., Zhang, L.M., Chen, H.X., Gao, L., 2017. Role of vegetation restoration in miti-

182, 136–147. gating hillslope erosion and debris ﬂows. Eng. Geol. 216, 122–133.

61

H.-X. Chen et al. Engineering Geology 251 (2019) 48–62

Shieh, C.L., Guh, Y.R., Wang, S.Q., 2007. The application of range of variability approach ﬂows after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12,

to the assessment of a check dam on riverine habitat alteration. Environ. Geol. 52 (3), 201–216.

427–435. Zhang, N., Matsushima, T., 2016. Simulation of rainfall-induced debris ﬂow considering

Song, D., Ng, C.W.W., Choi, C.E., Zhou, G.G.D., Kwan, J.S., Koo, R.C.H., 2017. Inﬂuence material entrainment. Eng. Geol. 214, 107–115.

of debris ﬂow solid fraction on rigid barrier impact. Can. Geotech. J. 54 (10), Zhang, S., Zhang, L.M., Chen, H.X., 2014. Relationships among three repeated large-scale

1421–1434. debris ﬂows at Pubugou Ravine in the Wenchuan earthquake zone. Can. Geotech. J.

Takahashi, T., 2007. Debris Flow: Mechanics, Prediction and Countermeasures. Taylor & 51 (9), 951–965.

Francis Group, London, UK. Zhou, G.G.D., Cui, P., Chen, H.Y., Zhu, X.H., Tang, J.B., Sun, Q.C., 2013. Experimental

Tang, C., Rengers, N.V., Van Asch, T.W., Yang, Y.H., Wang, G.F., 2011. Triggering con- study on cascading landslide dam failures by upstream ﬂows. Landslides 10 (5),

ditions and depositional characteristics of a disastrous debris ﬂow event in Zhouqu 633–643.

city, Gansu Province, northwestern China. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (11), Zhou, G.G.D., Cui, P., Tang, J.B., Chen, H.Y., Zou, Q., Sun, Q.C., 2015. Experimental study

2903–2912. on the triggering mechanisms and kinematic properties of large debris ﬂows in

Wei, R., Zeng, Q., Davies, T., Yuan, G., Wang, K., Xue, X., Yin, Q., 2018. Geohazard Wenjia Gully. Eng. Geol. 194, 52–61.

cascade and mechanism of large debris ﬂows in Tianmo gully, SE Tibetan Plateau and Zhou, G.G.D., Song, D., Choi, C.E., Pasuto, A., Sun, Q.C., Dai, D.F., 2018. Surge impact

implications to hazard monitoring. Eng. Geol. 233, 172–182. behavior of granular ﬂows: eﬀects of water content. Landslides 15 (4), 695–709.

Wendeler, C., Volkwein, A., Roth, A., Denk, M., Wartmann, S., 2007. Field measurements Zollinger, F., 1985. Debris detention basins in the European Alps. In: International

and numerical modelling of ﬂexible debris ﬂow barriers. In: Debris-Flow Hazards Symposium on Erosion, Debris Flow and Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba, Japan, pp.

Mitig. Mech. Predict. Assess. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 681–687. 433–438.

Xu, Q., Zhang, S., Li, W.L., Van Asch, T.W., 2012. The 13 August 2010 catastrophic debris

62

- FEA 107 Validation Experiment.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- FEM Project Report Group13Uploaded bynimishk92
- b17_exam_2015_augUploaded byGicu
- MPI 6.0 MaterialsUploaded bygoutam_trip_acharjee
- finitosUploaded byVictor Jesus Rios
- pipe-fea 2Uploaded bymariomato
- Easily Made Errors in FEA 1Uploaded bydarkwing888
- 39. Vibration Analysis of Curved Composite Beams Using Hierarchical FEMUploaded byMidhun Subru
- A Finite Element for the Vibration Analysis of Timeshenko BeamsUploaded byPavan Kishore
- MIT2_29F11_lect_27Uploaded bycostpop
- Trefftz-Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Time-Harmonic Wave ProblemsUploaded bykinny1974
- Hexahedral and Tetrahedral Element StudyUploaded bylpararasasingam91
- Concrete Material ScienceUploaded byjoaonunes.405443
- 03.pdfUploaded byMahdi Elgolli
- BT03016FUUploaded byshira
- Assignment 1Uploaded byKhawaja Noman Bashir
- What Do Engineers and Architects Need to Know About FEMUploaded byvp989
- a-gUploaded byAhsan Sattar
- Advance Geophysical and MechanicsUploaded byLaura Pinzon
- Circumferential Joint Analysis in Aircraft StructureUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- AMM.321-324.1757Uploaded byJohn Doe
- IFEM.Ch01Uploaded byMohammed Essam Shatnawi
- m Tech. Design Mnnit2010Uploaded byambujsharma08
- AnchUploaded byP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- Concrete Construction Article PDF_ Welded Splices of Reinforcing Bars (1)Uploaded bymrnaeem
- 15783.pdfUploaded byEduardo Salomao
- ch1.docxUploaded byKimtaetaetatav V
- The_CST.pdfUploaded byk krishna chaitanya
- FemUploaded byarjun
- Plaxis-Mum-Plaxisbai-Course-2012.pdfUploaded byMohamedAbdelnasser

- jurnalUploaded byaprilia_nurhayati_18
- overton2005 (No.13).pdfUploaded byaprilia_nurhayati_18
- Panduan SosekUploaded byijal_rizal
- [Thomas a. McMahon, Russel G. Mein] Reservoir Capa(BookFi)Uploaded byaprilia_nurhayati_18
- BIJ-10149.pdfUploaded byaprilia_nurhayati_18
- Manual on Estimation Of Probable Maximum PrecipitationUploaded byShashika Iresh

- STRENGTH OF MATERIALS -I Civil EngineeringUploaded byvenkat chunduru
- Taller de Fluidos de PerforaciónUploaded byWilliam Joel Moran Mogollon
- LUBRICACIONUploaded byOrlando Lara
- Contribution Towards Determination of the Optimal ShipUploaded byc rk
- Softening Point TestUploaded byarif
- Influence of Viscosity on Fluid Pressure in Hydroforming Deep Drawing ProcessUploaded byIAEME Publication
- 3M-Novec-7600-InfoUploaded byadrrine
- External flowsUploaded bySüleyman Birgi
- Basra LightUploaded byShahzaibUsman
- Aeronautics - Fluid Dynamics - Level 3 (Flow Equations)Uploaded byFrank Cifuentes
- Chapter 1.pptxUploaded bybadviolenceisbad
- Lorenz NavierUploaded bychrissbans
- D 5481 - 04 _RDU0ODE_Uploaded byWinston Callender
- DCR-HC23 24 26 35 L3 v1.0Uploaded byIsrael Ugalde
- AnalyseUploaded byNidouDaoud
- Important Aspects in Road ConstructionUploaded bykavi_prakash6992
- Thermo ScientificUploaded byTaeng Soshi
- 2016-01-0899-A Study of Axle Fluid Viscosity and Friction Impact on Axle EfficiencyUploaded byPiao
- Lumped Parameter Leakoff ModelUploaded byamramazon88
- Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids From Their CompositionUploaded byL Guillermo Rueda
- Chapter 6Uploaded byAmirulDaniel Sabri
- TDS-737 Carbopol 676 PolymerUploaded bySimon Rodrigo Rizo Gonzalez
- GATE 2007.pdfUploaded byVammsy Manikanta Sai
- Quiz2004 SolUploaded byOwen Sanchez
- EP1306449B1Uploaded byzweisteine777
- THERMAL PROCESSES FOR HEAVY OIL RECOVERY.pdfUploaded byPatriciaAmorin
- H.K. Moffatt- Six Lectures on General Fluid Dynamics and Two on Hydromagnetic Dynamo TheoryUploaded byOsdfm
- 106 1 CompletedUploaded byAnonymous Gm0GpN
- MaterialogyUploaded byrajraj3550
- An Overview of the Viscosity Grading System Adopted in India for Paving BitumenUploaded byProf. Prithvi Singh Kandhal

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.