See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222208703

Coussot, P. and M. Meunier. Recognition, classification, and

mechanical description of debris flows. Earth Science Review

Article  in  Earth-Science Reviews · June 1996

DOI: 10.1016/0012-8252(95)00065-8

CITATIONS READS

415 735

2 authors, including:

Philippe Coussot
Université Gustave Eiffel
292 PUBLICATIONS   11,641 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rheophysics Book View project

Yielding and Flow of Soft-Jammed Systems in Elongation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philippe Coussot on 11 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EARTH-SCIENCE

ELSEVIER Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227

Recognition, classification and mechanical description of debris

flows
P. Coussot *, M. Meunier
Cemagref, Division Protection contre les Erosions, B.P. 76 Domaine Uniuersitaire, 38402 St-Martin-d’H&es, France

Received 12 July 1995; accepted 8 December 1995

Abstract

Various types of flow or mass movement involving water and sediments occur on steep slopes in mountainous areas.
Among them, debris flows are peculiar events during which a large volume of a highly concentrated viscous water-debris
mixture flows through a stream channel. Throughout the world these phenomena cause considerable damage but remain
poorly understood although a basic knowledge is already available concerning their recognition and propagation.
Firstly, a synthesis of the useful practical criteria of recognition is proposed. Debris flows must be seen as intermediate
phenomena between hyperconcentrated flows (intense bed load transport) and landslides separated from them by sharp
transitions of some characteristics (celerity, deposit nature and flow type). Two parameters, solid fraction and material type,
thought to be appropriate for a sound and practical classification, are brought out, and the corresponding complete
classification of flow and mass movements in mountain areas is presented. Two extreme debris flow types are thus
distinguished: muddy debris flows and granular debris flows. A critical review of recent advances in debris flow dynamics is
then proposed. It is pointed out that adequate work must be carried out in the field of non-Newtonian fluid mechanics. In
particular, one fundamental rheological property of debris flow materials is the yield stress, which explains thick deposits on
steep slopes and can be inferred from field measurements. Furthermore it can be used to estimate viscous dissipation within
the bulk during flow. Relevant models predicting muddy debris flow dynamics are already available whereas further
progress is needed concerning granular flows.

1. Introduction tively difficult to distinguish one phenomenon from

another whereas each of them is easily recognized by
Various types of flow or mass movement involv- a specialist of the corresponding field. Because of
ing water and sediments occurring on steep slopes in their peculiar characteristics and because of a lack of
mountainous areas are cited in literature: flood, solid consensus on a specific classification, mudflows and
transport, hyperconcentrated flows, mudflows, debris debris flows remain little-known to the layperson
flows, Mars, granular flows, landslides, debris whereas, throughout the world, they remain a perma-
avalanches, etc. In some cases, it may appear rela- nent hazard in mountainous regions. The French
expression ‘‘lave torrentielle” typically covers the
range of peculiar subaerial events often called debris
* Corresponding author. Tel: + 33-76-762805; Fax: + 33-76- flows or mudflows during which a large volume of a
513803, email: philippe.coussot@cemagref.fr. viscous and highly concentrated water-debris mix-

0012-8252/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

.SSDI 0012-8252(95)00065-8
 ture forms, develops and flows along a stream-bed
(Demontzey, 1894; Thiby, 1914: Bernard, 1927:
Mougin, 1931; Sauret and Colas, 1986). In the fol-
lowing, we shall use the single term debris flow to
strictly cover this range.
The typical impressive characteristics of debris
flows have been well conveyed by Johnson and
Rodine (1984): “A wall of boulders, rocks of all
sizes, and oozing mud suddenly appear around the
bend in a canyon preceded by a thundrous roar. As
the boulder-choked wall passes, the channel remains
filled with a debris-laden torrent of mud and boul-
ders clanking and grinding together. The debris flows
across an alluvial fan, engulfing structures and cars
in its path, covering roads, fields and pastures with a
blanket of muck, and slowly coming to a stop as the
debris spreads in a lobate form with steep terminal
snout and margins.” This kind of phenomenon obvi-
ously occurs in mountainous regions, on different
scales throughout the world. In Scotland, no hillslope
flow deposits exceeding 500 m3 have been found
(Innes, 1983), whereas the total solid volume trans-
ported within the Jiangjia gully by mudflows can
reach 3-5 lo6 m3 every year (Li et al., 1983).
Typically these flows cause considerable damage
when they run out onto the alluvial fan and reach
inhabited zones (Takahashi, 1978, 1981, 1991; Innes,
1983; Johnson and Rodine, 1984). This justifies
major research efforts concerning their initiation,
propagation and stoppage, in an interdisplinary ap-
proach involving various specialities: geography, ge-
ology, geomorphology, rheology, fluid mechanics,
civil engineering, etc.
Debris flows or mudflows have been recognized
and studied by a number of authors (Takahashi,
1981; Li et al., 1983; Costa, 1984; Costa and
Williams, 1984; Johnson and Rodine, 1984; Davies,
1986; Pierson, 1986; Qian and Wan, 1986; O’Brien
and Julien, 1988; van Steijn, 1988; Meunier. 1991;
Whipple and Dunne, 1992) from different points of
views: field observations, flow characteristics, mate-
rial behavior, material components, etc. However,
there is not yet general agreement on classification
and flow modelling in literature. For example differ-
ent terms are used by geologists to describe the same
events (Innes, 19831, and very different approaches
to debris flow behaviour have been developed (Iver-
son and Denlinger, 198’7). Moreover, because these
flows involve a large solid fraction and partly behave
like a solid (they can remain static on a steep slope).
they are often classed as landslides by laypersons,
and because they flow in streams and partly behave
like liquid they are often classified as ordinary stream
tlows. Nevertheless, none of these approaches make
it possible to account for the whole range of debris
flow characteristics.
The aim of this paper is to review present knowl-
edge of debris flow recognition, classification and
propagation in order to provide basic useful tools for
practitioners, from geologists to engineers. In order
to distinguish sound criteria for debris flow distinc-
tion and recognition we first compare the field char-
acteristics of the main types of natural flows and
mass movements on steep slopes. This leads us to
propose a simple global classification of these move-
ments as a function of only two parameters: solid
fraction and material type. In the second section we
propose a critical review of present knowledge of
debris flow dynamics. Since we are dealing with
laminar-free surface flows of non-Newtonian fluids,
it is necessary, before flow modelling, to examine
the rheological properties of the materials under
consideration.
It is worth noticing that, since our aim is to
present a simplified, logical, overall view of debris
flow mechanisms in comparison with other phenom-
ena, we do not review in detail all possible terms and
processes, and we do not describe all possible debris
flow characteristics. The reader who wishes to go
deeper into these problems can refer to the refer-
ences quoted below. In the last place, note that we
are dealing with current events directly observable in
the field. Then, with a view of the recognition and
mechanical description of these phenomena, both
their processes and products must be analysed and
do not need to be clearly distinguished.
2. Classification of mass movements on mountain
slopes and situation of debris flows
The distinction and classification of subaerial
flows and mass movements occurring in stream
basins has long been necessary and a number of
classifications may be found in the literature (Bever-
age and Culbertson, 1964; Varnes, 1978; Hansen,
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/
1984; Bradley and McCutcheon, 1985; Pierson and
Costa, 1987; Sheko, 1988). The criteria used to
distinguish phenomena may vary from one author to
another: triggering mechanism, basin characteristics,
sediment composition, solid fraction, relative bed
roughness, velocity, duration, bed slope, material
behavior, physical processes during flow, etc. As
remarked by Bradley and McCutcheon (1985), these
classifications either contradict one another when
they are only based on quantitative criteria such as
velocity, relative submersion, solid fraction, etc., or
are incapable of covering all phenomena. When based
on the analysis of the material microstructure
other parameters related to flow characteristics,
classification is difficult to use in practice because
field observations carried out after the event do not
generally provide the corresponding information.
This is the case even for the very interesting classifi-
cation of Pierson and Costa (19871, which requires
knowledge of the deformation rate (expressed through
the mean velocity). More generally it is doubtful that
mechanical characteristics such as velocity, flow
depth or width, are relevant parameters for a classifi-
cation since they depend on boundary and initial
conditions and thus may easily vary from one event
to another or during the same event. Finally different
terms may be used to describe the same phenomena
depending on the scientific background of the au-
thors. This may complicate scientific exchanges and
slow down progress in this field.
2.1. Distinction between debris jlows and other mass
movements
Here we review the specific properties of debris
flows by comparing them to other flows and mass
movements. We shall mainly use the terms of flows
or mass movements as distinguished by Pierson and
Costa (1987) except for earthflow. In the following,
earthflow will be referred to as landslide, which is
thought to give a clearer idea of the most probable
physical processes involved.
2.1.1. Differences between debris jlows and normal
or hyperconcentrated stream jlows
2.1.1.1. Transient nature. Debris flows take the form
of strongly transient flows, often as almost periodic
surges (with a period of a few minutes) of heavily
Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227 211
debris-laden slurry separated by periods of relatively
low flow rate or zero flow (Johnson, 1970; Niyazov
and Degovets, 1975; Li et al., 1983; Davies, 1986).
A critical example is given by the Jiangjia Ravine
mudflows which, during 5 h in June 1966, occurred
in the form of 126 successive waves, with a volume
ranging from 655 and 24,600 m3, a mean material
density of 2220 kg/m3 (Li et al., 1983) and a
velocity ranging from 3 to 13 m/s. Different expla-
nations for this peculiar phenomenon have been pro-
posed in the literature (Engelund and Wan, 1984;
Davies, 1986; Trowbridge, 1987; Coussot, 1992;
or Wang et al., 1993): hydraulic instability (roll waves,
a Dressler and Pohle, 1953) typical of sufficiently
rapid flows of any fluid on steep slopes, peculiar
material behavior (minimum in flow curve, Coussot
et al., 1993) which may give rise to unstable flows,
and/or surges originated in pulsatile stream-bed ero-
sion and transport processes (bank ruptures, breaking
down of local dams, etc.). In comparison, few chan-
nelled water flows degenerate into roll waves under
some specific conditions (large Froude number, small
roughness and uniform channel) or sheetfloods over
the alluvial fan (Blair and McPherson, 1994). More-
over, the local flow intensity (discharge and flow
depth) of normal (ordinary) stream flows or hyper-
concentrated flows varies slowly in time and space,
with a characteristic time of the same order as
changes in hydrological conditions. From this point
of view, there is a sharp difference between current
stream flows and debris flows. Fundamentally, de-
bris flows are sharp transient phenomena.
2.1.1.2. Number of phases from a jluid mechanics
point of view. Within debris flow bulk the relative
velocity of two close elements (water or solid) is
small [see field observations of Pierson (1986), and
video-tapes of Costa and Williams (1984) and Valla
et al. (1981>], so that the whole mass apparently
undergoes very large and approximately continuous
deformations. Additionally the mechanical properties
of this mass do not change significantly during shear.
Thus debris flows involve a water-debris mixture
which, as a first approximation, can be considered as
a (one-phase) flow of a viscous fluid. On the con-
trary, within normal or hyperconcentrated stream
flows the mean velocity of the coarsest solid parti-
cles which are pushed and rolled on the bed (bed
212 P. Coussot, M. Meunier
load) significantly differs from that of the water-solid
suspension which flows around it (Smart and Jaeggi,
1983; Meunier, 1994; Coussot and Meunier, 1995).
The velocity profile of the coarsest particles in a
channel cross-section is, for example, quite different
from that of the surrounding water. This situation
may be observed for debris flows but the solid
fraction transported in this way remains negligible.
Indeed debris flow transport boulders whose diame-
ter goes up to a few meters and which generally
looks suspended in the mass [various explanations
for this phenomenon have been proposed (yield
stress, buoyancy, dispersive pressure, etc.) (see re-
view of Davies, 198611. Nevertheless some excep-
tionally large boulders are probably pushed or rolled
by the flow. A critical example is given by a stone
weighing about 3000 tons that was transported sev-
eral kilometers by a debris flow in Japan (Takahashi.
198 11. In addition note that we use the term “ hyper-
concentrated flow” for two-phase stream flows with
intense bed load transport whereas it seems to refer
to one-phase flows for Chinese researchers (Qian
and Wan, 1986).
2.1.1.3. Deposit structure. Debris flow deposits are
composed of the whole mass (including water just
after stoppage) and differ only slightly in form from
the stopped flow, even if they undergo slow settling
and draining after flow stoppage. Since debris flow
materials have a high density, are very viscous and
strongly sheared and mixed during flow, no specific
significant grain sieving appears within debris flow
deposits (Costa, 1984; Coussot, 1992). (However, in
many cases, the concentration of big boulders is
higher close to the surge front.) Debris flow deposits
contain a wide grain size distribution from clay to
large boulders (up to a few meters wide) (Johnson,
1970; Takahashi, 1981; Pierson, 1986; Phillips and
Davies, 1991; Coussot, 1992) generally with negligi-
ble grading or internal layer structures (Friedman et
al., 1992). On the contrary, solid deposits on the
same slopes (more than a few percent) that origi-
nated in other stream (normal and hyperconcen-
trated) flows, have generally been washed or sieved,
so that particular grain size ranges are found. The
coarsest solid fraction of these flow types generally
deposits first whereas the fine suspension flows away
as wash load before being deposited during flows on
/ Eurth-Science Reuiews 40 (1996) 209-227
smoother slopes or in local stagnation zones (Blair
and McPherson, 1994). Thus a sharp difference of
nature between debris flows and hyperconcentrated
flows appears not only during flow but also after
deposition: the former are essentially one-phase flows
whereas the latter are two-phase flows.
2. I. 1.4. Solidfraction range. It is also noticeable that
there is a jump in solid fraction between hypercon-
centrated flows (from 1 to 25%, in general) and
debris flows (from 50 to 90% in general). Note that
this jump does not exist between the one-phase
debris flow front and body and its two-phase hyper-
concentrated tail: for example, the channelized debris
flow on June 1983 in lower Rudd Canyon in Farm-
ington, Utah, turned out to be a hyperconcentrated
flow (loss of competence to suspend gravel and
turbulence onset) for a solid volume fraction be-
tween 46 and 53% (Pierson, 1985a). In order to
better understand the difference between these flows,
it appears interesting to seek a physical explanation
for this difference. For given solid material and flow
characteristics, there certainly exists a kind of con-
centration (percolation) threshold beyond which sed-
imentation becomes negligible. This threshold, which
could also take the form of a transition range, should
correspond to the appearance of a continuous inter-
acting network between solid particles (coarse and
fine) (Cf. Coussot and Piau, 1995a), which give rise
to material strength (or rigidity) (see Section 3.1.).
When the solid concentration of the mixture has
reached this critical value, we are essentially dealing
with a single-phase flow. The grain size distribution
and solid fraction of the flowing mixture will vary
slowly due to bottom and bank erosion and lateral
deposits (except if boundary conditions significantly
change but they are assumed to remain constant). On
the contrary, if the solid concentration is smaller than
the critical value, coarsest particles will fall or stay
close to the bottom. The mean solid fraction will
decrease, which will soon reduce the ability to trans-
port coarse solid particles in suspension (because of
a decrease of the material strength). Then a new
grain class will settle rapidly. This chain reaction
will go on until reaching a limit of solid concentra-
tion at which the flow is able to erode and push or
roll a critical amount of coarse particles of critical
size over the stream-bed. This situation finally corre-
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/
sponds to a stable hyperconcentrated flow. The above
reasonings provide an explanation for the jump in
concentration between hyperconcentrated flows and
debris flows: under given material- and flow-condi-
tions no stable flow with an intermediate concentra-
tion can exist. Thus the transition from one flow type
to another should require strong or continuous
changes in material or flow conditions.
2.1.2. Distinction between debris flows and land-
slides or debris avalanches
2.1.2.1. Velocity. In order to compare these phenom-
ena from a dynamic point of view let us consider the
mean velocity during the event when the movement
can be observed. For debris flows we do not take
into account the rest period after stoppage. For land-
slides we consider both the long active phase during
which slow earth motions (soil creep) can be recorded
and the possible sudden rapid motion due to large
fractures or slippages during which landslides may
reach a velocity comparable to that of debris flows
or debris avalanches. Debris avalanches are granular
mass movements that originate in rocky or granular
mass ruptures. From a general point of view, consid-
ering the large friction angle of granular masses, they
can move rapidly only on steep slopes, for otherwise
they would abruptly stop. Once again, it is important
to recall that we intend to represent general trends
and, for example, do not take into account large
debris avalanches which were observed to reach
surprising distances, [the body of rock that was
shaken loose from Shattered Peak, Alaska, by an
earthquake in 1964, extended over kilometers
(Sanders, 198111.On the basis of these assumptions,
there is generally a clear difference between the
velocity of debris flows (between 0.5 and 10 m/s)
(Sharp and Nobles, 1953; Johnson, 1970; Morton
and Campbell, 1974; Khang, 1980; Pierson, 1980;
Takahashi, 1981; Ishikawa, 1982; Hong et al., 1985;
Pierson, 1986; Khegai et al., 1992 also reports veloc-
ities up to 20 m/s>, that of landslides (less than few
centimeters per day) and that of debris (or rock)
avalanches (greater than 10 m/s) (Kobayashi, 1992;
Evans, 1993).
Within debris avalanches, according to most phys-
ical explanations of the flow process (Pierson and
Costa, 19871, the role of water, if there is any,
Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227 213
remains minor because grains dilate and the ratio of
water to air is small. On the contrary, water lubri-
cates some relative motion of the granular material
or is the vehicle of colloidal interactions between
clay particles in debris flows. It would be difficult to
find any other clear-out differences between these
two phenomena.
2.1.2.2. Motion type. Landslides essentially originate
in internal fractures (faults or slips) along specific
surfaces whereas locally some parts can be continu-
ously deformed. As a result, the bulk generally un-
dergoes relatively small deformations so that the
initial structure of the material may be partly ob-
served in the final deposit. The latter takes the form
of an agglomerate of more or less large pieces of
undeformed soil. The relative motion of these pieces
has been mainly caused by macroscopic fractures. A
similar feature characterizes submarines slides: strata
established back upslope may be observed within
slump deposits (Dott, 1963). On the contrary, it
clearly appears from debris flow deposits that the
initial structure of the material has been completely
broken and changed during flow without significant
macroscopic fault surfaces. Because they flow over
long distances, debris flows undergo extremely large
deformations. As already remarked, some landslides
may accelerate during the last motion phase and end
up significantly destructured. This is also true for
submarine slumps (Friedman et al., 1992). For exam-
ple a huge slump off the northwest African continen-
tal margin is thought to have become a debris flow
that covered an area of 30,000 km3 (Friedman et al.,
1992). In this particular case, the difference between
the material and deposits of debris flows and land-
slides can be slight. Nevertheless these two phenom-
ena may be clearly distinguished by considering that
debris flows take the form of rapid surges flowing
over long distances in stream channels whereas land-
slides occur on any steep slope and generally move
over relatively short distances. (However, in some
cases, debris flows originate in a landslide: see Sec-
tion 2.1.4.)
2.1.2.3. Deposit aspect. The morphologic features of
debris flow deposits have been reviewed by Johnson
and Rodine (1984): lobes, snout, lateral levees, me-
dial deposits in the channel and deeply incised chan-
214 P. Coussot, M. Mrunirr / Earth-Scirnce
nels. In streams, lateral levees are due to a fluid flow
depth decrease from the front to the tail of the surge:
in a given cross-section the lateral parts of the flow
are generally shallower (Johnson, 1970) than the
central part. Because of the fluid yield stress (see
definition in Section 3) the lateral parts will tend to
remain static when the flow force acting on them
decreases, i.e. when the local fluid discharge de-
creases, thus leaving lateral levees with a depth of
approximately less than 1 m. This observation has
been used by Johnson and Rodine (1984) to demon-
strate that a quasi-static approach to debris flow
(with a Coulomb model) is irrelevant and must be
replaced by a fluid mechanics approach. This phe-
nomenon is far less frequent with landslides but, if
observed, the levees have a much larger depth. With-
out going further into the details of the possible
behavior of the material composing landslides this at
least shows that their strengths are much greater than
those of debris flows (yield stress, see Section 3).
Other debris flow morphological characteristics (van
Steijn et al., 1988) are also due to specific flow
conditions associated with a high fluid yield stress
but they may be similar, though in general at a
different scale, to some landslide deposit characteris-
tics.
2.1.3. Brief compurison with submarine debris jlows
The structure of subaqueous deposits is generally
interpreted for distinguishing rapidly, gravity-dis-
placed deposits from those formed by the normal
bedded sequences of shale. A critical example is
given by oceanic grounds in eastern North America,
where “brecciolas” composed of rubble of carbon-
ate rocks (angular fragments up to 0.6 m thick and
2.4 m long) interstratified with dark-colored marine
shales formed during the Early Paleozoic times
(Rickard and Fisher, 1973). These brecciolas or other
peculiar deposits (Friedman et al., 1992; Hiscott and
Aksu, 1994) are interpreted as products of turbidity
currents, slides (or slumps) and debris flows. Con-
cerning these submarine phenomena an extensive
literature exists. Suggested classifications for exam-
ple rely on motion characteristics (inferred from
deposit aspect), sediment type and bed’s internal
structure (Dott, 1963; Prior and Coleman, 1984;
Ghibaudo, 1992). It is worth noticing that one of the
main distinctive point between submarine debris
Rwiews 40 (1996) 209-227
Rows and slides is similar to that between subaerial
debris flows and landslides, that is, the initial struc-
tures of the second one are partly kept during flow
(see Section 2.1.2.). In addition, turbidity currents
are turbulent suspensions of sediment in water while
submarine debris flows are assumed to be laminar
(Friedman et al., 1992). Turbidity currents are quite
different from subaerial hyperconcentrated flows in
that, for the latter, turbulence can also play a signifi-
cant role for particle support, but solid particles are
essentially dragged by water.
2.1.4. Specificities of the debris jZow initiation pro-
cess
In the following, we shall discuss the conditions
and process of debris flow triggering but we shall
not consider the conditions favourable to debris flow
activity. The reader is referred to Innes (1983) or
Sheko (1988) for some elements concerning the lat-
ter problem. From the literature it appears that two
main types of debris flow initiation processes may be
distinguished. The first one (Sheko, 1988) consists in
the progressive transition of a landslide into a debris
flow due to an energy increase following a slope
increase or due to a water supply. [A number of
submarine debris flows are thought to have started as
slumps (Friedman et al., 1992)]. This class can be
subdivided into two categories depending on the
origin of the sliding mass: deposits of granular mate-
rial accumulated in a zone after upstream erosion
(Azimi and Desvarreux, 1974) or waterlogged upper
layers of a slope or a bank. Criteria for motion
initiation of such masses are derived from soil me-
chanics (Sheko, 1988; Takahashi, 1991). A theoreti-
cal analysis of the initiation of debris flows under
roughly similar circumstances (debris accumulation
becoming unstable) was provided by Takahashi
(1981).
The second type of initiation process, which, from
our experience, is the most frequent in the French
Alps, essentially relies on a generalized erosion of
the surface of the stream basin. Moreover, according
to our initial definition (see Introduction), it should
be considered as the basic origin of debris flows,
since it is intimately linked to the stream hydrologi-
cal conditions. Generally, in the stream basin, no
specific sufficiently deep or large area of erosion can
be found which may have provided a significant
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/ Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227
fraction of the solid material of the debris flow. The
basin and the stream-bed are eroded in an almost
uniform way (Bossan, 1992). It is likely that debris
flows are due to the conjunction of small-scale bank
slides or collapses, bed erosion and solid transport
(Davies, 1986). In some cases, all these phenomena
can contribute to a chain reaction in the form of an
irreversible increase in solid concentration, due to a
progressive transition in transport and erosion capac-
ity of the flowing fluid (see Section 2.1.1.) (Sheko,
1988). When debris flows are formed, the nature of
stream erosion differs significantly from that of other
flows: debris flows rapidly scrape the bed. Since this
initiation process is closely associated to the way the
stream works, we anticipate that this is the most
common phenomena in many countries. This process
generally requires a long channel stream to erode
and mix a large solid volume with water. This is an
intermediate process between solid transport and
landslides but it is a critical development of solid
transport in the stream-bed. It is thus extremely hard
to predict its occurrence. Debris flow form under
rare, unknown, specific conditions: stream-bed and
bank erosion capacity, water discharge, slopes, etc.
These statements are in complete agreement with our
postulate of a threshold of solid fraction and flow
energy beyond which debris flow can form. More
generally, debris flows are probably non-linear phe-
nomena which, in some cases, can develop or not
under very slight changes in initial conditions.
Some other exceptional initiation processes have
been observed which took their origin in gully dam
breaks (Takahashi, 1981), moraine lake ruptures
(Lliboutry et al., 19771, ice avalanches (Plafker et
al., 197 1) or earthquakes (Solonenko, 1963). Further-
more, in some cases, a previously deposited debris
flow in the stream channel can be remobilized by
additional upstream material and then reach the allu-
vial fan (Meunier, 1987). Finally, lahars, which can
be defined as “volcanic mudflows or debris flows”
and whose apparent flow properties are very similar
to those of debris flows in streams, form in various
specific ways (see Pierson, 1986): water coming
either from the melting of snow or ice accumulated
on the volcanic cone, or from storms following
eruptions, or from heavy rainfalls, etc., mixes with
volcanic ashes and other debris. The typical lahars
that were triggered by 1980 Mount St. Helens erup-
215
tion, Washington, covered surprisingly long dis-
tances (80 km) (Major and Pierson, 1992) and de-
posited more than 14. lo6 m3 of material and were
the object of extensive measurements of flow charac-
teristics (Pierson, 1985b).
2.1 S. Commentaries
Debris flows appear to be an intermediate phe-
nomenon between hyperconcentrated stream flows
and landslides either from the point of view of their
initiation process or from the point of view of their
dynamic characteristics. Various differences have
been pointed out between debris flows and other
flows or mass movements. It is worth noticing that
those phenomena are generally separated by sharp
transitions in some characteristics: velocity (between
landslides and debris flows), motion of the solid
fraction, deposit aspects and flow nature. These re-
marks should help the field recognition of the differ-
ent phenomena.
2.2. Simple classification of mass movements as a
function of solid fraction and material type
To go further we wish to propose a simple classi-
fication of the main mass movements and flows
occurring on natural steep slopes. A French version
of this classification has already been presented in
the literature by Meunier (1991). As noted above, it
is rather difficult to find appropriate criteria. The
present scheme does not provide a complete, precise
solution to this problem but aims at giving a simple,
synthetic, conceptual view of flow and mass move-
ments in a single picture with approximately relevant
and practical criteria. The different phenomena are
separated on the basis of the composition of the
flowing material.
The first criterion is the solid fraction type. Refer-
ring to the markedly different behavior types of
cohesive clay particles, on one hand, and non-cohe-
sive pebbles in water on the other hand, we shall
consider two main lines of investigation: fine, cohe-
sive materials and coarse, cohesionless, granular ma-
terials. Because exact interaction processes within
the bulk are complex and partly unknown, they
cannot be separated exactly into clear different types.
Thus a strictly physical definition of the materials
corresponding to these two lines of investigation
216 P. Cou.wot. M. Meunirr/
cannot be given yet. However we may note that a
separation on the basis of such a criterion already
exists for other flows and mass movements:
_ In river hydraulics two types of solid transport
are usually distinguished depending on the way the
material is transported: suspension, when the solid
fraction is dispersed and flows with the water; bed
load, when the solid fraction essentially moves close
to the bed. The finest materials (clay and silt) are
generally considered to flow in suspension whereas
coarser particles move as bed load.
- Landslides generally contain a clay fraction
which ensures the cohesion of the bulk and prevails
in motion initiation. Debris avalanches, rapid granu-
lar flows or rockfalls contain a clay fraction which is
either negligible or plays a minor role in flow, the
main role being played by coarse particle interac-
tions. However, there is currently no real evidence of
these intuitive statements.
Our second criterion is the solid (volume or
weight) fraction. Classifications of flows and/or
mass movements on steep slopes based at least on
this criterion have been proposed by different au-
thors (Beverage and Culbertson, 1964; O’Brien,
Increasing solid fraction
Fig. I. Classification of mass movements on steep slopes as a function of solid fraction and material type.
Eurth-Science Rec~iews 40 (1996) 209-227
1986; Pierson and Costa, 1987). It has been recog-
nized that the sediment concentration globally in-
creases when the flow varies from pure water flow to
stream flow with solid transport, then to hypercon-
centrated flow, debris flow and landslides or debris
avalanches. A general strict distinction of these phe-
nomena according to this single criterion is neverthe-
less not possible. However, for a given solid material
and for given overall flow and bed characteristics,
considering the reasonings of Section 2.1.1.) it should
be possible to determine a solid fraction transition
range limiting hyperconcentrated flows from debris
flows and within which none of these flow types
would be stable.
Our classification is presented in Fig. 1 in the
form of an ellipse. The limits between the different
mass movements are only conceptual and qualitative.
In fact, they can vary slightly depending on the
specific boundary and initial conditions and specific
physical material properties. Coussot (1992) has pro-
posed criteria for some of these limits: the transition
from debris flows to landslides could correspond to
the critical solid fraction and material type in which
a fracture occurs after a sufficiently large deforma-
increasing water content
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier / Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227
tion; the transition from hyperconcentrated flows to
debris flows could correspond to a critical solid
fraction and material type for which settling is negli-
gible within the material during a given time. It is
worth noticing that these criteria, though approxima-
tive, subjective and empirical, reflect common ideas
concerning the main physical differences among hy-
perconcentrated flows, landslides and debris flows
(see Section 2.1.).
3. Debris flow propagation
We do not wish to be exhaustive but only to
propose a critical review of main advances in debris
flow propagation modelling with a view to practical
applications in the field ranging from geology to
engineering. Beyond the different possible ways pro-
posed in the literature we wish, at least, to show that,
fundamentally, debris flows constitute a peculiar
phenomenon whose propagation must be modelled
with specific tools found in non-Newtonian fluid
mechanics.
As a first step, a debris flow is a mass of a single
viscous material undergoing large homogeneous de-
formations without significant changes to its me-
chanical properties. From direct field observations
and estimations of the corresponding Reynolds num-
bers, it is apparent that we are generally dealing with
laminar flows. Thus soil mechanics tools commonly
used to describe the mechanical behaviour of land-
slides before and just after rupture or hydraulics
tools commonly used to describe water flow or
two-phase flows such as water + bed load are inade-
quate for the description of debris flow dynamics.
The appropriate tools must be found in fluid mechan-
ics. Then an additional difficulty appears: a single
parameter (viscosity) is insufficient to describe the
constitutive equation of these complex suspensions
in various flow conditions. Thus, in practice, for the
description of the flows of such fluids, the adequate
methodology consists in first determining the rheo-
logical behaviour (see for example Coleman et al.
(1966) or Barnes et al. (1989)) of the flowing mix-
ture. Afterwards the flow characteristics will be de-
termined analytically or numerically by solving flow
equations in which the constitutive equation has been
introduced, and by taking into account the particular
217
initial and boundary conditions (cf. for example
Batchelor, 1967; Middleton and Wilcock, 1994).
3.1. Rheology
3.1.1. General approach
For most materials, the general expression of the
constitutive equation in the form of a relationship
among stress tensor, strain rate tensor and time
(Truesdell, 1974) remains unknown. Generally, only
a few particular (possibly time-dependent) relation-
ships between some components of these tensors are
determined under particular conditions. As a first
approximation, one can have a good idea of the
characteristics of free surface flows by assuming
that, within these flow types, the fluid essentially
undergoes simple shear. In other words, to all intents
and purposes, fluid layers, in the form of parallel
planes, glide over one another (see for example
Coleman et al. (1966) for a more general definition
of simple shear). Under these conditions the extra-
stress (deviatoric stress) tensor (obtained after sub-
traction of the isotropic pressure term> can be written
as a function of three variables: tangential stress (7)
and first and second normal stress differences, all of
which can depend on time and shear rate (7). The
relationship among these variables is the constitutive
equation in simple shear flow. From a practical point
of view, it is nevertheless difficult to determine
normal stress differences. When time effects are
negligible, for the description of free surface flows,
one will generally use only the relationship linking r
and y in a steady state (flow curve), keeping in mind
that finite, reasonable normal stress differences could
slightly perturbate the flow (Coleman et al., 1966).
For a flow over an inclined plane, y is equal to
du/d y where u is the fluid velocity and y the
current height above plane. In the following, we
shall discuss only the form of the flow curve for
debris flows. (A detailed review and analysis of
possible behaviour types of mass movements and
more specifically of landslides was proposed by
Iverson, 1985.)
3.1.2. Rheological properties of debris flows
The direct determination of the behaviour of de-
bris flow material with the help of rheometers is
faced with the irretrievable problem that they gener-
218 P. Coussot, M. Meunivr /Earth-Science
ally contain particles of various sizes including big
boulders. Usual laboratory rotational rheometers can
test about 1 cm3 of material. In the recent years.
some large-scale rheometers were designed specifi-
cally for testing debris flow samples and they can
contain a volume of material in the order of 1 m’
(Phillips and Davies, 1991; Major and Pierson, 1992;
Coussot and Piau, 1995b). However if, for example,
the coarsest particle diameter is 1 m, an appropriate
coaxial cylinder rheometer would have (cf. Coussot
and Piau, 1995b) a diameter of at least 120 m, a gap
of 30 m and a depth of 300 m, and would contain at
least 4106 m3 of material. Obviously such an experi-
ment will not occur in the near future. In the mean-
time it is necessary to derive, extrapolate or estimate
the rheological behaviour of the whole mass by
indirect methods, involving theory and experiments
with fine materials or the fine fraction of debris
flows. In addition, from a general point of view,
rheometry with concentrated suspensions is a partic-
ularly difficult task. In order to obtain relevant re-
sults concerning the rheological properties of the
fluid, many precautions must be taken against dis-
turbing effects (wall slip, fracture, edge effects. set-
tling, etc.) and appropriate experimental procedures
must be used (Mewis and Spaull, 1976: Mewis.
1979; Magnin and Piau, 1987; Magnin and Piau.
1990; Coussot et al., 1993; Mas and Magnin, 1994).
Debris flow material belongs to the class of sus-
pensions. At present, in fundamental rheology, de-
spite the works of Einstein (19561, Batchelor (19701,
Batchelor and Green (1972) concerning dilute sus-
pensions of non-interacting particles in a Newtonian
fluid, relatively little is known about the relationship
between the suspension macroscopic behaviour and
their microstructure. For more concentrated or more
complex suspensions (see reviews of Mewis and
Spaull, 1976; Blanc, 1983; Kamal and Mutel, 1985;
Metzner, 1985; Utracki, 19881, semi-empirical mod-
els or speculative theoretical models prevail either
for concentrated suspensions of non-interacting parti-
cles (Frankel and Acrivos, 1967; Goddard, 1977;
Adler et al., 1985; Marrucci and Denn, 1985) or for
colloidal suspensions (Moore, 1959; Firth and
Hunter, 1976; Quemada, 1977; Hunter, 1982; Wilde-
muth and Williams, 1984; Dabak and Yucel, 1986;
Tsenoglou, 1990; Doraiswamy et al., 199 1; Coussot
et al., 1993). With debris flow material, the complex-
Rec,iews 40 (1996) 209-227
ity could scarcely be greater since the interactions at
a mesoscopic scale are various and complex. Clay
particles immersed in water give rise to colloidal
interactions, larger grains interact with one another
via solid frictions or collisions, clay particles and
grains interact via unknown processes and the solid
fraction is very high (Iverson and Denlinger, 19871.
Furthermore the relative importance of these interac-
tions is a priori unknown.
In the literature, work has taken two main courses.
The first one was initiated by Takahashi (19781 who
considered a debris flow material as a suspension of
force-free particles in a viscous fluid, undergoing
rapid flow. From this analysis Takahashi inferred the
possibility of applying the theory of Bagnold (1954)
concerning concentrated suspensions of uniform
force-free spheres in rapid flow. Bagnold’s model
assumes the existence of two regimes (macro-viscous
and inertial) which are obtained respectively when
energy dissipations are mainly due to interstitial fluid
shear or to momentum transfer via particle collisions.
Bagnold’s theory also showed that sheared layers of
cohesionless particles can undergo a dispersive pres-
sure resulting from collisional momentum transfer
perpendicularly to flow direction, and thus can move
away from the slope. The inertial regime has been
further developed within a three-dimensional
“kinetic” theory for dry rapid granular flows (Lun
et al., 1984; Savage, 1984; see review of Campbell,
1990). Weaknesses of the final mathematical model
of Takahashi (1981) have been reviewed by Iverson
and Denlinger (1987). Moreover, though scientifi-
cally satisfactory and widely used by geophysicists,
in fundamental rheology, Bagnold’s work has never
been seriously confirmed and some criticism can be
given to his data interpretations (Campbell, 1990;
Coussot and Piau, 1995a). Bagnold’s model may be
relevant to describe the behavior of extremely rapid
flows of dry masses of cohesionless particles, for
which it is clear that collisional effects prevail, but
should be considered as mainly speculative if used
for water-debris mixtures such as debris flow mate-
rials. Finally, because it does not consider the possi-
ble appearance of a continuous network of interact-
ing particles beyond a critical solid fraction at least
at low shear rates, the initial Bagnold theory is
unable to predict or give information about debris
flow yield stress whereas this appears to be one of
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/ Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227
the basic properties of natural events. Indeed, this
yield stress, which corresponds to a minimum shear
stress that needs to be overcome for flow to take
place, is at the origin of deep debris flow deposits
which are always observed sometimes even on steep
slopes.
On the basis of various field observations (John-
son, 1970; Coussot, 1992; Whipple and Dunne, 1992)
leading to the conclusion that one of the main char-
acteristics of debris flows is their yield stress, a
second class of work considered them as basically
viscoplastic fluids. Their yield stress, which may be
estimated from field measurements, is then associ-
ated to the clay particle interaction network which
forms through the material (M’Ewen and Pratt, 1957;
Michaels and Bolger, 1962; Firth and Hunter, 1976;
van Olphen, 1977; Coussot et al., 1993; Coussot and
Piau, 1994a) and must be broken for flow to take
place. Various flow curve models have been pro-
posed that were derived from experimental data ob-
tained with laboratory rheometers (Fei, 1982; Wan,
1982; Locat and Demers, 1988; O’Brien and Julien,
1988; Coussot and Piau, 1994a, 1995~; Wang et al.,
1994) on the fine fraction of debris flows or with
specific large-scale rheometers (Phillips and Davies,
199 1; Major and Pierson, 1992; Coussot and Piau,
1994b), from theoretical considerations (Chen, 1988;
Julien and Lan, 1991) or from field observations
(Fink et al., 1981; Johnson and Rodine, 1984; Pier-
son, 1986; Whipple and Dunne, 1992). The simplest
and most often used model is the Bingham model
(Bingham and Green, 1919), initially proposed for
debris flows by Johnson (1970) and Daido (1971). A
large number of works approximated rheometrical
data in simple shear using this model. Recent works
(Nguyen and Boger, 1983; Coussot and Piau, 1994a,
1995b, c; Atapattu et al., 1995; Coussot, 1995) have
proposed to use a more sophisticated one, the Her-
schel-Bulkley model (Herschel and Bulkley, 1926)
in order to take into account the shear-thinning be-
haviour of water-clay-grain mixtures or muds
(Michaels and Bolger, 1962; Locat and Demers,
1988; Major and Pierson, 1992; Wang et al., 1994)
also typical of most other concentrated suspension
types when studied in a wide shear rate range. This
model writes:
j=Oo7<7,;j#Oo7=7,+K~” (1)
219
where r is the shear stress magnitude, p the shear
rate magnitude, and rc, K and IZ are positive param-
eters. The Bingham model corresponds to Eq. (1)
with n = 1. For each model the only meaningful
physical parameter is rc, i.e. the yield stress (Coussot
and Piau, 1994a), which increases exponentially with
solid fraction within a very wide range. Additionally
there is a general rheological and structural similarity
between the different suspensions obtained with a
given solid material for different solid fractions
(Coussot, 1995).
Two very distinct approaches to debris flow be-
haviour have been proposed in the literature, which
may correspond to our separation of mass move-
ments owing to the material components (granular or
cohesive). Roughly similar separations were sug-
gested by Fairchild (1985) and Scott (1988) from
field observations of lahars. In the case of sub-
aqueous flows, Middleton and Hampton (1976) also
distinguished debris flow, for which the main sup-
porting force of sediments is the interstitial fluid
yield stress, from grain flow, for which grain-to-grain
interaction plays this role. This separation type also
holds good in the work of Coussot and Piau (1995a)
who plotted the various water-debris mixtures in a
diagram as a function of the solid fraction and the
ratio of silt-and-clay to total solid fraction and, with
allowance for settling and fracture limits (see Section
2.2.) proposed a rheological classification of
water-debris mixtures as a function of these two
parameters (see Fig. 2). These two criteria for a
classification are finally analogous to those of our
general classification (Fig. 1) and a very close corre-
spondence can be established between the different
areas of the two classifications. Two main debris
flow types were then clearly distinguished: on the
one hand, the “muddy debris flows” for which the
fine fraction (containing clay) is large enough (say
above 10%) for the fine particle-water mixture to
form an interstitial fluid which lubricates grain mo-
tions and imposes its behavior type on the whole
material; on the other hand, the “granular debris
flows” for which the fine particle fraction is low
enough for direct grain contacts to play a major role
on the mass behaviour. It is worth noticing that this
classification is a first approximation to reality and,
in particular, does not take into account the various
possible boundary conditions of the flows. Corre-
220 P. Coussot. M. Meunier/ Earth-Scirnw
sponding muddy debris flows, which are thought to
follow a Herschel-Bulkley model, mainly include
materials modelled until now with the help of the
Bingham model. For (concentrated) granular debris
flow material, so far mainly described with the help
of the model of Bagnold (1954), it appears that no
clear flow curve type could be proposed. It was
simply suggested, on the basis of experimental re-
sults on different concentrated granular material types
(Phillips and Davies, 1991; Coussot, 1992; Kytomaa
and Prasad, 1993; Coussot, 19941, that they could
exhibit a minimum in the flow curve. In fact, be-
cause of the peculiar characteristics of granular ma-
terials in various flow conditions (arching, dilatancy,
segregation, thixotropy, bistability, jamming, etc.)
(cf. the review of Savage, 19841, it is unlikely that
confined rheometrical tests can give a realistic idea
of the material behaviour during free surface flows.
This has, for example, motivated direct flow tests in
a large-scale channel (Iverson et al., 1992). More
works will be required to establish which process
should be taken into account to describe and explain
granular flow behaviour among collisions, Coulomb
friction, dilatancy, interstitial fluid flow, pore pres-
sure fluctuations, etc., at the different stages of the
flow.
Future work will probably give a more exact view
of the various behaviour types of water-debris mix-
100%
Bed load transport
(two-phase flows)
0%
Fine fraction (~0.04 mm) / Total solid
Fig. 2. Conceptual rheological classification of mass movements as a function of fine content and solid fraction. The exact limits between
the different parts of the diagram should be determined for each material and may slightly vary with flow characteristics. (from Coussot,
1992).
Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227
tures. However, from a practical point of view, it is
worth noticing that the rheological models which
involve a yield stress, which can be roughly esti-
mated from field measurements or rheometrical tests,
are fundamentally the best way of modelling debris
flow behaviour. Indeed, during flow, since these
fluids are suspensions with high yield stresses, vis-
cous dissipations are generally close to the viscous
dissipations computed by assuming that the shear
stress within the fluid is equal to the yield stress.
Furthermore any model which does not take into
account this yield stress, such as Newtonian or
power-law models, is incapable of predicting flow
stoppage whereas this is often the crucial point either
from a civil engineering or a geological point of
view. Roughly similar results have been obtained for
volcanic lava flows. Whereas initial works consid-
ered lavas as Newtonian fluids (Walker, 1967), re-
cent works proved that these materials exhibit a yield
stress which mainly decreases with temperature and
increases with silica content (Shaw et al., 1968;
Pinkerton and Sparks, 1978; McBimey and Murase,
1984). These results opened the way to relevant,
though quite approximative, numerical or analytical
models (see for example Danes, 1972; Dragoni.
1989). However, the effects of additional phenomena
such as degassing, crystals growth, crust formation,
thermal exchanges, etc., during lava flows, are still
Landslides
(viscoplasticflow
then rupture)
* Shear-
thinning
yield stress
fluids
100%
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/Ear?h-Science
to be explained, and the above approaches are insuf-
ficient.
3.2. Flow modelling
Any model which aims at predicting flow charac-
teristics for particular initial and boundary conditions
solves flow equations (in an integrated or local form)
along with an equation which refers more or less
directly to material viscosity and which expresses the
resistance of fluid against deformations: wall resis-
tance law, simple shear flow curve, three-dimen-
sional constitutive equation or internal viscous dissi-
pation rate. Then, one or fewer parameters, which
necessarily derive from fluid viscosity, are finally
introduced in the general fluid mechanics equations.
To get an idea of the importance of these ‘‘viscosity
parameters” for flow prediction, one simply needs to
imagine the great differences in velocity and flow
depth of steady water and honey flows through a
given channel cross-section for the same discharge.
Additionally, it is important to have a very clear
picture of the fluid behaviour type within the shear
rate range involved in the flow under study. If one
wants to predict fluid stoppage along with rapid fluid
flows, one has to determine the fluid behaviour
within the widest possible shear rate range in order
to obtain accurate predictions. These remarks should
preclude attempts to predict flow characteristics
without relevant presumptions concerning the fluid
behaviour type and without a good idea of the values
of the corresponding viscosity parameters (Bradley,
1988). In the case of debris flows, some works
overcome this difficulty by fitting parameters to
previous well-known events. However, this method
is relevant only if a realistic behaviour model is used
(Bradley and McCutcheon, 1985), which means that
separate rheometrical tests should be carried out at
least in order to determine the form of the behaviour.
The theoretical analysis of free surface flows for a
fluid of known constitutive equation (at least in
simple shear) relies on the set of equations that
include flow curve, mass conservation and momen-
tum balance. For instance, for a steady uniform flow
over an infinitely wide inclined plane, this last equa-
tion writes:
r=pg(h-y)sini (2)
Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227 221
where h is the local fluid thickness, g the gravity, p
the fluid density and i the plane slope. In this case
the flow rate and velocity distribution through a
cross-section can be found by integrating the set of
Eqs. (1) and (2) ( see for example Liu and Mei,
1989). Also note that the asymptotic flow depth
corresponding to static situation is reached when
r = r,, which, from Eq. (21, makes it possible to
roughly determine fluid yield stress from deposit
thickness (Johnson, 1970; Hiscott and James, 1985)
or form (Coussot et al., 1995).
Takahashi’s work has been extensively developed
towards engineering applications (Takahashi, 199 1)
via complex mathematical formulations. Though
these developments are remarkable because they
cover almost the whole range of problems encoun-
tered in the debris flow field and because they
probably provide some explanations for some pecu-
liar effects observed with granular flows (Iverson
and Denlinger, 1987), they are based on rheological
hypotheses which cannot be considered as reliable
(cf. Section 3.1.) and require the determination of a
coefficient by preliminary fitting. Progress is needed
concerning constitutive equations and flow proper-
ties of granular materials, either with or without a
liquid interstitial phase.
In the case of fine muddy debris flows (usually
called mudflows) we enter the complex field of
viscoplastic fluid flows (Bird et al., 1982). Research
has aimed essentially at providing theoretical rela-
tionships between free surface flow characteristics
and rheological properties and/or rough experimen-
tal confirmation (Paslay and Slibar, 1958; Howard,
1963; Ward and O’Brien, 1980; Naik, 1983; Trow-
bridge, 1987; Wang et al., 1993) or at describing the
transition from a laminar to a turbulent regime @hang
and Ren, 1982; Naik, 1983; Hanks, 1986). Particular
attention should be paid to the careful work of Liu
and Mei (1989) which provides an extensive (mainly
theoretical) study of the spreading of a thin layer of a
Bingham fluid on an inclined plane, and to that of
Rickenmann ( 1990) who carried out an original study
of the transport capacity of slurry flows. This type of
study might be useful for possible future work to
determine the mechanisms of transition from a two-
phase to a one-phase flow in streams. Nevertheless,
only recently systematic comparisons of rheological
predictions with various free surface flow properties
222 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/Earth-Science
were done (de Kee et al., 1990; Coussot, 1994;
Chilton and Gregory-Smith, 1995). The latter works
made it possible to be confident in the use of exist-
ing rheometrical measurements for free surface de-
bris flow prediction. Until now this verification has
concerned only fine suspensions. However it is rea-
sonable to extrapolate this conclusion to all homoge-
neous materials whose behaviour type is dictated by
the fine interstitial clay-water mixture.
Whether these materials (muddy debris f-lows) are
considered to follow a Herschel-Bulkley model or a
Bingham model, similarity laws to be used for a
small-scale model are readily found from the com-
plete set of flow equations. The usual Froude similar-
ity still holds but the Reynolds number must be
replaced by two numbers (for the above models)
involving fluid rheological parameters and flow
characteristics (Enos, 1977; Coussot, 1994). For ex-
ample, for flow through a wide open channel, three
relevant non-dimensional numbers governing this
flow are for example:
(3)
where V is the mean fluid velocity through a cross-
section and h the fluid depth. For n = I, H, corre-
sponds to the Bingham number. In order to ensure
similarity between two fluids flows at two different
scales, it appears rather easy to follow a “global”
similarity, for example by using a model fluid with
reduced rheological parameters (Coussot and Laigle,
1994).
Additionally it was proved (Coussot, 1994) that
gradually varying mudflows exhibit the same charac-
teristics (hydraulic jump, subcritical and supercritical
regimes, instability, etc.) as water flows. Transient
mudflow characteristics may also be predicted con-
sidering, as in usual hydraulics (Chow, 1959), that
the local wall friction is equal to that of the uniform
flow with the same local flow depth and discharge
(Laigle and Coussot, 1994, 1995). Like any yield
stress fluid, through a channel section reduction, the
characteristics of mudflows are quite different from
water flows: instead of eddy zones on both sides of
the entrance they form dead regions within which the
fluid remains static; at the exit, they leave lateral
Reviews 40 (19961209-227
regions which remain free of fluid (Coussot and
Meunier, 1994).
For muddy debris flows small-scale models in-
volving steady flows can at least be used to compare
the effect of different structures (checkdams, weirs,
etc.) built in streams (Coussot and Laigle, 1994;
SOGREAH, 1994). As soon as the material be-
haviour has been estimated, numerical models can
reasonably be developed (O’Brien et al., 1993; Laigle
and Coussot, 1994, 1995). Here the transient nature
of the flows is taken into account via the use of
St-Venant derived equations. When the viscosity pa-
rameters are adequate these models must be seen as
relatively good tools as long as one uses them for
studying natural flows within small spatial and tem-
poral scales. In particular the model of Laigle and
Coussot (1995) was proved to be capable of predict-
ing laboratory transient flows from independent
rheometrical tests without any additional fitting, un-
like the work of Takahashi (1991). Typically, we
recommend these models for prediction of the extent
of runout on the alluvial fan. Indeed the bouldery
front, which develops at the front of a channelled
debris flow, has a limited volume and thus should
play a minor role when the front width has signifi-
cantly increased. Moreover, erosion should be negli-
gible over a relatively short distance.
For a complete and more exact prediction of
channelled natural flows over long distances, either
using a small-scale, analytical or numerical model,
important unsolved problems remain: the behaviour
and role of the bouldery front, the initial conditions
(hydrogram) and the role of erosion, lateral deposits
and large boulders dispersed in the bulk. This state-
ment has for example motivated experimental studies
involving model granular materials flowing on a
conveyor belt (Davies, 1990) which were able to
reproduce these phenomena but the question of the
similarity of these laboratory flows with natural
events remains open.
4. Conclusions
Debris flows are complex phenomena which are
not yet well known. Their initiation is still not
predictable. The material involved exhibit complex
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier / Earth-Science
properties and varies a priori from one flow to
another. However, despite these difficulties, it is
possible to distinguish some basic useful knowledge
concerning their recognition, classification and me-
chanical properties.
Debris flows must be seen as intermediate phe-
nomena between hyperconcentrated stream flows and
landslides separated from them by sharp behaviour
transitions, which make it possible to recognize them
or their deposits in the field. As a consequence too,
their dynamics cannot be treated by usual hydraulic
or soils mechanics tools. Their propagation must be
studied within the field of non-Newtonian fluid me-
chanics. Their fundamental rheological property is
their yield stress which explains the form that de-
posits take in the field and can be inferred from field
measurements. Additionally it can be used to provide
an estimation of viscous dissipations during flow.
For the description of debris flow dynamics with
common tools (analytical, numerical or small-scale
models) very good knowledge of material behavior
and initial and boundary conditions is required. Con-
cerning muddy debris flows the present knowledge
makes it possible to obtain a reasonable idea of
debris flow runout zones. Concerning granular flows
the existing knowledge is insufficient and should be
developed intensively in the future, maybe on new
bases.
Acknowledgements
The “Region RhGne-Alpes” and “P61e
Grenoblois d’Etudes et de Recherches sur les Risques
Naturels” support is gratefully acknowledged. G.V.
Middleton, J.E. Sanders and an anonymous referee
helped us improving an earlier version of this paper.
References
Adler, P.M., Zuzovsky, M. and Brenner, H., 1985. Spatially
periodic suspensions of convex particles in linear shear flows.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 11: 387-417.
Atapattu, D.D., Chhabra, R.P. and Uhlherr, P.H.T., 1995. Creep-
ing sphere motion in Herschel-Bulkley fluids: flow field and
drag. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech., 59: 245-265.
Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227 223
Azimi, C. and Desvarreux, P., 1974. A study of one special type
of mudflow in the French Alps. Q. J. Eng. Geol., 7: 329-338.
Bagnold, R.A., 1954. Experiments on a gravity free dispersion of
large solid spheres in a Newtonian fluid under shear. Proc. R.
Sot. London, A 225: 49-63.
Barnes, H.A., Hutton, J.F. and Walters, K., 1989. An Introduction
to Rheology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Batchelor, G.K., 1967. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cam-
bridge University Press, 615 pp.
Batchelor, G.K., 1970. The stress system in a suspension of force
free particles. J. Fluid Mech., 41: 545-570.
Batchelor, G.K. and Green, J.T., 1972. The determination of the
bulk stress in a suspension of spherical particles to order c2. J.
Fluid Mech., 56: 401-427.
Bernard, C.J.M., 1927. Cours de Restauration des Montagnes.
Ecole Nationale des Eaux et For&s, Nancy.
Beverage, J.P. and Culhertson, J.K., 1964. Hyperconcentrations of
suspended sediment. J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 90: 117-126.
Bingham, E.C. and Green, H., 1919. Paint, a plastic material and
not a viscous liquid; the measurement of its mobility and yield
value. Proc. Am. Sot. Test. Mater., 19: 640-664.
Bird, R.B., Dai, G.C. and Yarusso, B.J., 1982. The rheology and
flow of viscoplastic materials. Rev. Chem. Eng., 1: l-70.
Blair, T.C. and McPherson, J.G., 1994. Alluvial fans and their
natural distinction from rivers based on morphology, hydraulic
processes, sedimentary processes, and facies assemblages, J.
Sediment. Res., 3: 450-489.
Blanc, R., 1983. Hydrodynamics and Rheology of Colloids.
Colloi’des et Interfaces, Ecole d’ete, Aussois, Les Editions de
Physique, Les Ulis (France). (in French)
Bossan, E., 1992. Analysis of Debris Flow Initiation in French
Alps. Cemagref, Intern. Rep. (in French)
Bradley, J.B., 1988. Kinematic properties of mudflows on Mt. St.
Helens - Discussion. J. Hydraul. Eng., 114: 1538-1539.
Bradley, J.B. and McCutcheon, S.C., 1985. The effects of high
sediment concentration on transport processes and flow phe-
nomena. Int. Symp. Erosion, Debris Flow and Disaster Preven-
tion, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 219-225.
Campbell, C.S., 1990. Rapid granular flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid
Mech., 22: 57-92.
Chen, C.-L., 1988. General solutions for viscoplastic debris flow.
J. Hydraul. Eng., 114: 259-282.
Chilton, R. and Gregory-Smith, D., 1995. Steady, laminar, flow of
concentrated mud suspensions in open channel - Discussion.
J. Hydraul. Res., 33: 412-413.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open-channel Hydraulics. Civil Engineering
Series. MC Graw-Hill, New York.
Coleman, B.D., Markowitz, H. and Noll, W., 1966. Viscometric
Flows of Non-Newtonian Fluids. Springer, Berlin.
Costa, J.E., 1984. Physical geomorphology of debris flows. In:
J.E. Costa and P.J. Fleisher (Editors), Developments and
Applications of Geomorphology. Springer, Berlin, pp. 268-
317.
Costa, J.E. and Williams, G.P., 1984. Debris-flow dynamics
(videotape). U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep., 84-6606, 22.5
min.
Coussot, P., 1992. Rheology of Debris Flows - Study of Con-
centrated Dispersions and Suspensions. Ph.D. Thesis. INPG.
Grenoble, France. (in French)
Coussot, P.. 1994. Steady, laminar. flow of concentrated mud
suspensions in open channel. J. Hydraul. Res.. 32: S3S-559.
Coussot, P., 1995. Structural similarity and transition from Newto-
nian to non-Newtonian behavior for water-clay suspensions.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 74: 3971-3974.
Coussot. P. and Laigle, D., 1994. Study of debris flows m
similarity with natural events. Houille Blanche, 3: 44-49. (in
French)
Coussot, P. and Meunier, M.. 1994. Mudtlow dynamics. Interna-
tional Workshop on Floods and Inundations related to Large
Earth Movements. IAHR. Trent, Italy, A7.
Coussot, P. and Meunier, M., 1995. Experimental study of debris
flows - Discussion -. J. Hydraul. Eng., 121: 438-439.
Coussot, P. and Piau, J.-M.. 1994a. On the behdviour of fine mud
suspensions. Rheol. Acta, 33: 175-184.
Coussot, P. and Piau, J.-M., 1994b. Rheology of highly concen-
trated suspensions of coarse particles. Cah. Rhtol. (J. French
Rheol. Group), XIII: 266-277. (in French)
Coussot, P. and Piau, J.-M., 199Sa. Rheological and flow charac-
teristics of water-debris mixtures. Submitted to Eng. Geol.
Coussot, P. and Piau, J.-M., 1995b. A large-scale field coaxial
cylinder rheometer for the study of the rheology of natural
coarse suspensions. J. Rheol., 39: lOS-124.
Coussot, P. and Piau, J.-M.. 1995~. The effects of an addition o!
force-free particles on the rheological properties of fine sus-
pensions. Can. Geotechn. J., 32: 263-270.
Coussot, P.. Leonov, A.1. and Piau, J.-M., 1993. Rheology ot
concentrated dispersed systems in a low molecular weight
matrix. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech., 46: 179-217.
Coussot, P., Proust, S. and Ancey, C., 1995. Rheological mterpre-
tation of deposits of yield stress fluids. Submitted to J. Non-
Newt. Fluid Mech.
Dabak, T. and Yucel, 0.. 1986. Shear viscosity behavior of high11
concentrated suspensions. Rheol. Acta, 25: 527-533.
Daido, A., 1971. On the occurence of mud-debris flow. Disaster
Prevention Res. Inst. Bull., Kyoto Univ., 2 I : 13% 169.
Danes, Z.F.. 1972. Dynamics of lava flows. J. Geophys. Res.. 77.
1430- 1432.
Davies, T.R.H.. 1986. Large debris flows: A macro-viscous phe-
nomenon. Acta Mech.. 63: 161-178.
Davies, T.R.H., 1990. Debris-flow surges - Experimental simu-
lation. J. Hydrol. (New Zealand), 29: 1X-46.
De Kee, D., Chhabra, R.P., Powley, M.B. and Roy, S., 1990.
Flow of viscoplastic fluids on an inclined plane: Evaluation of
yield stress. Chem. Eng. Commun., 96: 229-239.
Demontzey, P., 1894. L’Extinction des Torrents en France par Ic
Reboisement. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.
Doraiswamy, D., A.N. Mujumdar, I. Tsao, A.N. Beris. S.C.
Danforth and A.B. Metzner, 1991. The Cox-Merz rule ex-
tended: a rheological model for concentrated suspensions and
other materials with a yield stress. J. Rheol., 35: 647-685.
Dott, R.H., 1963. Dynamics of subaqueous gravity depositional
processes. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 47: 104-128.
Dragoni, M., 1989. A dynamical model of lava flows cooling by
radiation. Bull. Volcanol., 51: 88-95.
Dressler, R.F. and Pohle, F.V.. 1953. Resistance effects on hy-
draulic instability. Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 6: 93-96.
Einstein, A., 1956. Investigation of the Brownian Movement.
Dover, New York, p. 49 [English translation of Ann. Physik.
19: 286 (1906) and 34: 591 (1911)].
Engelund, R. and Wan, Z., 1984. Instability of Hyperconcentrated
flow. J. Hydraul. Eng., I IO: 219-233.
Enos, P.. 1977. Flow regimes in debris flow. Sedimentology, 24:
133-142.
Evans, S.G., 1993. The field documentation of highly mobile rock
and debris avalanches in the Canadian Cordillera. Pierre Beghin
International Workshop on rapid gravitational mass move-
men&, Cemagref, Grenoble.
Fairchild, L.H., 1985. Lahars at Mount St. Helens. Ph.D. Thesis.
Univ. Washington, Seattle.
Fe). X., 1982. Viscosity of the fluid with hyperconcentration
coefficient rigidity. J. Hydraul. Eng. (China), 3: 57-63. (in
Chinese)
Fink, J.H., Malin, M.C.. D’Alli, R.E. and Greenley, R., 1981.
Rheological properties of mudflows associated with the spring
I980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens volcano, Washington.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 8: 43-46.
Firth, B.A. and Hunter, R.J., 1976. Flow properties of coagulated
suspensions. J. Colloid Interface Sci., 57: 248-275.
Frankel. N.A. and Acrivos, A., 1967. On the viscosity of a
concentrated suspension of solid spheres. Chem. Eng. Sci., 22:
847-853.
Friedman, G.M., Sanders, J.E. and Kopaska-Merkel, D.C., 1992.
Principles of sedimentary deposits. Stratigraphy and sedimen-
tology. Macmillan, New York.
Ghibaudo, G.. 1992. Subaqueous sediment gravity tlow deposits:
practical criteria for their field description and classification.
Sedimentology. 39: 423-454.
Goddard, J.D.. 1977. An elastohydrodynamic theory for the rheol-
ogy of concentrated suspensions of deformable particles. J.
Non-Newt. Fluid Mech., 2: 169-189.
Hank.\. R.W.. 1986. Principles of slurry pipeline hydraulics. In:
N.P. Cherimissinoff (Editor), Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechan-
ics. Gulf Publishing Company, London, Ch. 6, pp. 213-276.
Hansen, M.J., 1984. Strategies for classification of landslides. In:
D. Brunsden and D.B. Prior (Editors). Slope Instability. Wiley,
New York, Ch. I.
Herschel, W.H. and Bulkley, R., 1926. Gber die viskosit’t und
ElastizitP van Solen. Am. Sot. Test. Mater., 26: 621-633.
Hiscott. R.N. and Aksu, A.E., 1994. Submarine debris flows and
continental slope evolution in front of quaternary ice sheets.
Baffin Bay, Canadian Arctic. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 78:
445-460.
Hiscott, R.N. and James, N.P., 1985. Carbonate debris flows, Cow
head group, western Newfoundland. J. Sediment. Petrol., 55:
735-745.
Hong, X.Y., Wang, L.X., Zhu, J.C., Sun, B.P., Wang, Q.T. and
Xiao, H.M., 1985. The debris flow in Han Yu torrent of Mi
Yun county of Beijing. In: Int. Symp. Erosion, Debris Flows
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/Earth-Science
and Disaster Prevention, Sept. 3-5, 1985, Tsukuba, Japan, pp.
191-193.
Howard, C.D.D., 1963. Flow of clay-water suspensions. J. Hydr.
Div. ASCE, HY5: 89-97.
Hunter, R.J., 1982. The flow behavior of coagulated colloidal
suspensions. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 17: 197-211.
Innes, J.L., 1983. Debris flows. Progr. Phys. Geogr., 7: 469-501.
Ishikawa, 1982. Movements of debris flows. Techn. Mem. PWRI,
1872, Japan.
Iverson, R.M., 1985. A constitutive equation for mass-movement
behavior. J. Geol., 93: 143-160.
Iverson, R.M. and Denlinger, R.P., 1987. The physics of debris
flows - a conceptual assesment. In: Proc. Corvallis Symp.
Erosion and Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim. IAHS Pub].,
165: 155-165.
Iverson, R.M., Costa, J.E. and LaHusen, R.G., 1992. Debris-flow
Flume at H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest - Oregon. Water
Fact Sheet, U.S. Geol. Surv., Open-file Rep., 92-483.
Johnson, A.M., 1970. Physical Processes in Geology. Freeman,
Cooper, San Francisco.
Johnson, A.M. and Rodine, J.R., 1984. Debris flow. In: D.
Brunsden and D.B. Prior (Editors), Slope Instability. Wiley,
New York, Ch. 8.
Julien, P.Y. and Lan, Y., 1991. Rheology of hyperconcentrations.
J. Hydraul. Eng., 117: 346-353.
Kamal, M.R. and Mute], A., 1985. Rheological properties of
suspensions in Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. J. Poly-
mer Eng., 5: 293-382.
Khang. Z., 1980. Motion Characteristics of Debris Flow at Jiangjia
Gully, Yunnan Province, China. Int. Res. Training Center
Erosion and Sedimentation Rep., China, 40 pp.
Khegai, A.Y., Popov, N.V., Plekhanov, P.A. and V.A.
Keremkulov, 1992. Experiments at the Chemolgan debris-flow
testing ground, Kazakhstan. Landslides News, 6: 27-28.
Kobayashi, Y., 1992. Travel Dynamics of Large Debris
Avalanches, vol. 2. Interpraevent, Bern, pp. 275-284.
Kytomaa, H.K. and Prasad, D., 1993. Transition from quasi-static
to rate dependent shearing of concentrated suspensions. In:
Thornton (Editor), Powders and Grains. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 281-287.
Laigle, D. and Coussot, P., 1994. Numerical simulation of debris
flows. Houille Blanche, 3: 50-56. (in French)
Laigle, D. and Coussot, P., 1995. Numerical modelling of mud-
flows. submitted to J. Hydraul. Eng.
Li, J., Yuan, J., Bi, C., Luo, D., 1983. The main features of the
mudflow in Jiang-Jia Ravine. Z. Geomorphol., 27: 325-341.
Liu, K.F. and Mei, C.C., 1989. Slow spreading of a sheet of
Bingham fluid on an inclined plane. J. Fluid Mech., 207:
505-529.
Lliboutry, L., Morales, A.B., Pautre, A. and Schneider, B., 1977.
Glaciological problems set by the control of dangerous lakes
in Cordillera Blanca (Peru). J. Glacial., 18: 239-290.
Locat, J. and Demers, D., 1988. Viscosity, yield stress, remolded
strength, and liquidity index relationships for sensitive clays.
Can. Geotech. J., 25: 799-806.
Lun, C.K.K., Savage, S.B., Jeffrey, D.J., Chepumiy, N., 1984.
Kinetic theories for granular flow: inelastic particles in Cou-
Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227 225
ette flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general flowfield.
J. Fluid Mech., 140: 223-256.
M’Ewen, M.B. and Pratt, M.I., 1957. The gelation of montmoril-
lonite. Part I: The formation of a structural framework in sols
of Wyoming bentonite. Trans. Faraday SIX., 53: 535-547.
Magnin, A. and Piau, J.M., 1987. Shear rheometry of fluids with a
yield stress. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech., 23: 91-106.
Magnin, A. and Piau, J.M., 1990. Cone-and-plate rheometry of
yield stress fluids. Study of an aqueous gel. J. Non-Newt.
Fluid Mech., 36: 85-108.
Major, J.J. and Pierson, T.C., 1992. Debris flow rheology: Experi-
mental analysis of fine-grained slurries. Water Resour. Res.,
28: 841-857.
Marrucci, G. and Denn, M.M. 1985. On the viscosity of a
concentrated suspension of solid spheres. Rheol. Acta, 24:
3 17-320.
Mas, R. and Magnin, A., 1994. Rheology of colloidal suspensions:
Case of lubricating greases. J. Rheol., 38: 889-908.
McBimey, R. and Murase, T., 1984. Rheological properties of
magmas. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 12: 337-357.
Metzner, A.B., 1985. Rheology of suspensions in polymeric liq-
uids. J. Rheol., 29: 739-775.
Meunier, M., 1987. The 24-8-87 Debris Flow in Modane, French
Alps. Note d’Information Technique ONF-RTM, Cemagref,
20 pp. (in French)
Meunier, M., 1991. Stream hydraulics. Collection Etudes, S&e
Montagne (I). Cemagref, France. (in French)
Meunier, M., 1994. Progress in knowledge and methods for
studying torrential phenomena. Houille Blanche, 3: 25-31. (in
French)
Mewis, J., 1979. Thixotropy - A genera1 review. J. Non-Newt.
Fluid Mech., 6: I-20.
Mewis, J. and Spaull, A.J.B. 1976. Rheology of concentrated
dispersions. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 6: 173-200.
Michaels, A.S. and Bolger, J.C., 1962. The plastic flow behavior
of flocculated kaolin suspensions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam.,
1: 153-162.
Middleton, G.V. and Hampton, M.A., 1976. Subaqueous sediment
transport and deposition by sediment gravity flows. In: D.J.
Stanley and D.J.P. Swift (Editors), Marine Sediment Transport
and Environment Management, vol. 11. Wiley, New York, pp.
197-218.
Middleton, G.V. and Wilcock, P.R., 1994. Mechanics in the Earth
and Environmental Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 459
PP.
Moore, F., 1959. The rheology of ceramic slips and bodies. Trans.
Br. Ceram. Sot., 58: 470-484.
Morton, D.M. and Campbell, R.H., 1974. Spring mudflows at
Wrightwood, Southern California. Q. J. Eng. Geol., 7: 377-
384.
Mougin, P., 1931. La Restauration des Alpes. Imprimerie Na-
tionale, Paris.
Naik, B., 1983. Mechanics of Mudflow treated as the Flow of a
Bingham Fluid. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State Univ.
Nguyen, Q.D. and D.V. Boger, 1983. Yield stress measurement
for concentrated suspensions. J. Rheol., 27: 321-349.
Niyazov, B.S. and Degovets, A.S., 1975. Estimation of the param-
 eters of catastrophic mudflows in the basins of the lesser and
greater Almatinka Rivers. Sov. Hydrol.. 2: 75-80.
O’Brien, J.S., 1986. Physical Processes, Rheology and Modelmg
of Mud Flows. Ph. D. Thesis. Colorado State University. Fort
Collins.
O’Brien, J.S. and Julien, P.Y.. 1988. Laboratory nnalysih of
mudflows properties. J. Hydraul. Eng., I 14: 8777887.
O’Brien, J.S., Julien, P.Y. and Fullerton, W.T., 1993. Two-dimen-
sional water flood and mudflow simulation. J. Hydraul. Enp..
I 19: 244-26 I.
Paslay, P.R. and Slibar. A.. 1958. Flow of an incompressible
viscoplastic layer on an inclined plane. Trans. Sot. Rheol.. 11:
2.55-262.
Phillips, C.J. and Davies. T.R.H.. 1991. Determining rheological
parameters of debris flow material. Geomorphology. 4: IO1
I IO.
Pierson, T.C., 1980. Erosion and deposition by debris flows at Mt.
Thomas. North Canterbury, New Zealand. Earth Surf. Pro
cesses, 5: 227-247.
Pierson. T.C.. 1985a. Effects of slurry composition on debris flow
dynamics, Rudd Canyon, Utah. In: Proc. Specialty Conf. Utah
State Univ.. Logan, Utah, pp. 132-152.
Pierson, T.C., 1985b. Initiation and flow behavior of the I980
Pine Creek and Muddy River lahars. Mount St. Helens. Wash-
ington. Geol. Sot. Am. Bull.. 96: 1056-1069.
Pierson, T.C.. 1986. Flow behavior of channelized debris flow\.
Mount St. Helens, Washington. In: A.D. Abrahams (Editors).
Hillslope Processes. Allen and Unwin, Boston, pp. 269-296.
Pierson, T.C. and Costa, J.E., 1987. A rheologic classification of
subaerial sediment-water flows. Rev. Eng. Geol.. VII: I - 12.
Pinkerton, H. and Sparks, R.S.J., 1978. Field measurements of the
rheology of lava. Nature, 276: 3X3-384.
Plafker, G., Ericksen, G.E. and Concha. J.F., 1971. Geological
aspects of the May 31, 1971, Peru earthquake. Bull. Seismol.
Sot. Am., 61: 543-578.
Prior, D.B. and Coleman J.M., 1984. Submarine slope instability.
In: D. Brunsden and D.B. Prior (Editors), Slope Instability.
Wiley, New York, Ch. IO.
Qian, N. and Wan, Z., 1986. A critical review of the research on
the hyperconcentrated flow in China. Int. Res. Training Centre
on Erosion and Sedimentation Publ.. China.
Quemada, D.. 1977. Rheology of concentrated disperse systems
and minimum energy dissipation principle - 1. Viscosity-
concentration relationship. Rheol. Acta, 16: X2-Y4.
Rickard, L.V. and Fisher. D.W., 1973. Middle Ordovician No--
manskill formation, eastern New York: age, stratigraphic. and
structural position. Am. J. Sci., 273: 580-590.
Rickenmann, D., 1990. Bedload transport capacity of slurry flows
at steep slopes. Mitt. Versuchsanstalt Wasserbau, Hydra.
Glaziol. Eidgeniissischen. Technischen Hochschule. Zurich,
103.
Sanders, J.E., 1981. Principles of Physical Geology. Wiley, New
York.
Sauret, B. and Colas, G., 1986. Mudflows and Debris Flows.
CETE, Aix-en-Provence, 44 pp. (in French)
Savage, S.B., 1984. The mechanics of rapid granular flows. Adv.
Appl. Mech., 24: 289-366.
Scott, K.M., 1988. Origins, behavior, and sedimentology of lahars
and lahar-runout flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz river system.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1447-4.
Sharp. R.P. and Nobles, L.H., 1953. Mudflow at Wrightwood.
Southern California. Bull. Geol. Sot. Am., 64: 547-560.
Shaw, H.R., Wright, T.L., Peck, D.L. and Okamura, R., 1968. The
viscosity of basaltic magma: an analysis of field measurements
m Makaopuhi lava lake, Hawaii. Am. J. Sci., 266: 225-264.
Sheko. A.I.. 1988. Mudflows. In: Landslides and Mudflows (vol.
I ). Ch. 3. UNESCO-UNEP, Moscow, USSR, pp. 54-74.
Smart. G.M. and Jaeggi. M.. 1983. Sediment Transport on Steep
Slopes. Mitt. Versuchanstdlt Wasserbau, Hydrol. Glariol..
ETH, Zurich, 64, I91 pp.
SOGREAH Ingtnierie, 1994. Study of Debris Flows and Deposits.
Etude effectute dans le cadre du Contrat de plan Etat-Region
RhGne-Alpes, SOGREAH, Grenoble. (in French)
Solonenko, V.P., 1963. Mudflow activity in the pleistoseist region
of catastrophic earthquakes. Bull. Moscow Sot. Nature Work-
ers Geol., 2: 1333 140.
Takahashi. T., 1978. Mechanical characteristics of debris flow. 1.
Hydraul. Div., 104: 1153-l 169.
Takahashi. T.. 1981. Debris flow. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 13:
57-77.
Takahashi. T.. 1991. Debris Flow. IAHR Monograph Series.
Balkema. Rotterdam.
ThiCry. E.. 1914. Restauration des Montagnes. Librairie Polytech-
nique Ch. B&anger, Paris.
Trowbridge, J.H., 1987. Instability of concentrated free surface
flows. J. Geophys. Res., 92 (C9): 9523-9530.
Truesdell, C., 1974. Introduction a la Mecanique Rationnelle des
Milieux Continus. Masson, Paris,
T\enoglou. C.. 1990. Scaling concepts in suspension rheology. J.
Rheol., 34: 15-24.
lltracki, L.A. 1988. The rheology of two-phase flows. In: A.A.
Collyer and D.W. Clegg (Editors). Rheometrical Measure-
ment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Ch. IS.
Valla, F., Perinet, F. and van Effenterre, C.. 1981. The Ravoire
debris flow, Bourg-Saint-Maurice, French Alps, April 198 1,
(video-tape), Cemagref, Grenoble, France, 20 min. (in French)
van Olphen, H., 1977. Introduction to Clay Colloid Chemistry.
Wiley, New York, 2nd ed.
1 an Steijn. H., 1988. Debris flows involved in the development of
Pleistocene stratified slope deposits. Z. Geomorphol. N. F., 71:
45-58.
van Steijn, H., de Ruig, J. and Hoozemans, F., 1988. Morphologi-
cal and mechanical aspects of debris flows in parts of the
French Alps. Z. Geomorphool., 32: 143-161.
Vames, D.J.. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. In:
Landslides Analysis and Control. National Academy of Sci-
ences, Washington, D.C. Transp. Res. Board Spec. Rep., 176:
I l-33.
Walker, G.P.L., 1967. Thickness and viscosity of Etnean lavaa.
Nature, 213: 484-485.
Wan, Z., 1982. Bed Material Movement in Hyperconcentrated
Flow. Ser. Pap.. 31. Inst. Hydrodyn. Hydraul. Eng., Tech.
Univ. Denmark.
Wang, Z., Larsen, P. and Xiang, W., 1994. Rheological properties
 P. Coussot, M. Meunier/ Earth-Science Reviews 40 (1996) 209-227 227

Philippe Coussot is a researcher in

of sediment suspensions and their implications. J. Hydraul.
Cemagref (Grenoble) (a laboratory for
Res., 32: 560-580.
engineering in environment and agricul-
Wang, Z., Lin, B., Zhang, X., 1993. Instability of non-Newtonian
ture). He received high degrees in
open channel flow. In: W. Kron (Editor), Contributions to
physics and mathematics from Ecole
Non-stationary Sediment Transport. I.H.W., Univ. Karlsruhe,
Polytechnique (Paris) in 1987. Then he
Germany, pp. l-23.
worked on debris flows towards his
Ward, T.J. and O’Brien, J.S., 1980. Flume Mechanics of Mud
Ph.D. both in Cemagref and in the Lab-
Flows. Completion Rep. Natl. Sci. Found. Res. Initiation. Fort
oratory of Rheology. He received his
Collins, Colorado.
Ph.D. in Mechanics from the Institut
Whipple, K. and Dunne, T., 1992. The influence of debris-flow
National Polytechnique de Grenoble in
rheology on fan morphology, Owens Valley, California. Geol.
1992. His works mainly concern both
Sot. Am. Bull., 104: 887-900.
the theoretical aspects of the rheology and flow characteristics of
Wildemuth, C.R. and Williams, M.C., 1984. Viscosity of suspen-
debris flow or concentrated suspensions and the protection against
sions modeled with a shear-dependent maximum packing frac-
debris flow damages from a civil engineering point of view.
tion. Rheol. Acta, 23: 627-635.
Zhang, H. and Ren, Z., 1982. Discussion on law of resistance of
hyperconcentration flow in open channel. Sci. Sin., A XXV:
1332-1342.

Maurice Meunier is the head of a re-

search unity working on stream erosion
and hydraulics at Cemagref in Grenoble
(France). He received high degrees in
physics, mathematics from the Ecole
Polytechnique (Paris) in 1965 and in
agricultural and environmental science
from the Ecole Nationale du Genie Ru-
ral des Eaux et For&s in 1967. He has
been working in various fields of hy-
draulics in France and Africa. For ten
years he has focused on solid transport,
erosion and debris flows in mountain streams and has formed a
team and developed various unique experimental equipments for
studying these problems.

View publication stats