This article was downloaded by: [200.87.111.

21]
On: 25 April 2014, At: 14:49
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hydraulic Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Granular flows driven by gravity

a
Aronne Armanini
a
CUDAM-Department of Civil , Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of
Trento , Trento, via Mesiano, 77, I-38100 , Trento , Italy
Published online: 20 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Aronne Armanini (2013) Granular flows driven by gravity, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 51:2,
111-120, DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2013.788080

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2013.788080

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013), pp. 111–120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2013.788080
© 2013 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research

Vision paper

Granular flows driven by gravity

ARONNE ARMANINI (IAHR Member), Professor, CUDAM-Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering,
University of Trento, Trento, via Mesiano, 77, I-38100 Trento, Italy.
Email: aronne.armanini@ing.unitn.it, aronne.armanini@unitn.it

ABSTRACT
Two-phase fluids, consisting of solid particles in water or in the air, are present in many fields of hydraulics and specifically in the
morpho-hydrodynamics of rivers and mountain streams. In particular, when these mixtures contain a high concentration of sediments, as in debris
flows or in snow avalanches, they must be treated with the methods of granular fluid mechanics. Most recent theories of granular fluid mechanics,
applied to the two-phase flows driven by gravity, are discussed first. Then some of the many unsolved issues on which presumably the research effort
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014

will focus in the forthcoming years will be identified and outlined.

Keywords: Debris flow; granular flow mechanics; sediment transport; two-phase flow

1 Introduction
Although the mixing of water and sediments characterizes the
morphology and dynamics of all water streams regardless of
their size, we utilize different tools and conceptual methods to
deal with the dynamics of these mixtures. These flows, in fact,
present very different behaviours, depending on the sediment
concentrations. Even with reference to rivers characterized by
relatively small volumetric concentrations (<∼ 10−2 ), we gen-
erally discern between bed load and suspended load and treat
these phenomena with different approaches. In a recent keynote
lecture to Riverflow 2010, Stephen Coleman observed that in
general for the suspended load we use an Eulerian approach,
while for the bed transport we adopt the Lagrangian point of
view. As long as the problem is confined to fluvial sediment
transport, which is characterized by relatively low concentra-
tions, the question of sediment transport has been addressed
with a variety of formulas and ad hoc theories, albeit with sub-
stantially different methods and approaches. When we consider
regimes with much higher particle concentrations, such as debris
flows, these approaches are completely unsuitable. Recently,
the renewed interest in hyperconcentrated flows, and in partic-
ular the social pressure exerted by the increasing frequency of
catastrophic events of debris flows and snow avalanches, has
motivated the scientific community to search for a deeper under-
standing of the mechanism of interaction between liquid and
solid phases of geophysical flows.
Debris and mud flows are phenomena which have been known
for a long time to engineers in charge of mountain stream
restoration, but the first attempts at systematic framing of these
phenomena were more or less empirical descriptions and clas-
sifications without any physical basis. Nowadays there are still
a great number of classifications (Jakob 2005). Oldrich Hungr,
one of the main experts on these phenomena, in his recent book
“Debris-flow hazard and related phenomena” (Jakob and Hungr
2005), identified at least 10 types of debris flows. Tamotsu
Takahashi, in his monograph “Debris flow” (Takahashi 1991),
identified four types and gives a specific rheology to each of
them. In any of these classifications the rheological relationship
should be, unfortunately, known a priori.
From a physical point of view it is, then, an urgent task to make
available new convincing conceptual and numerical tools, based
on physical principles, to predict the hazard induced by these
catastrophic events and to optimize the strategy of defence. A
particularly promising approach is based on the hypothesis that
debris flow could be viewed as a hyper-concentrated flow formed
by two fluids. One is the interstitial fluid, which follows the laws
of fluid mechanics, and the other is the granular fluid, represented
by the solid phase, also with its specific rheological relationships.
The scientific literature on granular fluids is abundant, espe-
cially on the industrial aspects of these fluids. The industries of
pharmaceuticals, plastics, food and concrete frequently employ
conceptual models that can be reasonably ascribed to the area
of granular fluid mechanics. In civil engineering, in addition to

Revision received 18 March 2013/Open for discussion until 30 October 2013.

ISSN 0022-1686 print/ISSN 1814-2079 online

http://www.tandfonline.com
111
 112 A. Armanini Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)

debris flows, snow and debris avalanches also fall into this cat- 2 Rheology of granular flows
egory. Few, but significant, are also the attempts to frame bed
load and suspended load as granular flows. 2.1 Theoretical frameworks and approximations
In this paper we will primarily focus on the hydrodynamic
The theory of dispersive pressure, proposed by Bagnold (1954),
approach to granular flows. The approaches based on the molec-
was probably the first conceptual approach to the mechanics of
ular dynamics simulations will not be considered as well as
granular flows. Although Bagnold’s experiments are affected by
the flow initiation due to the incipient failure of a granular
the suspicion that the results were distorted by the presence of
deposit, which lies at the borders between hydrodynamics and
secondary circulations within the rheometer in which the mea-
geotechnics.
surements were made (Hunt et al. 2002), this theory has the
The liquid phase of debris flows is usually composed of water,
advantage of great simplicity. For this reason it has been widely
treated as a Newtonian fluid with the Navier–Stokes equations.
applied to geophysical flows driven by gravity, and in partic-
It is also common to consider the mixture of water and small
ular to debris flows (Takahashi 1991). According to Bagnold,
particles (smaller than ∼30 μm), dispersed in the liquid, as a
the collisions between the particles, averaged over time, con-
homogeneous fluid. In this case we have to distinguish between
tribute to dispersive pressure in the flow field that substantially
silt and clay. If the particles are from the silt fraction and their con-
depends on the relative average distance between the grains. On
centration is low, then their presence will not affect the Newtonian
the basis of experimental measurements made in a viscosimeter
behaviour of the mixture. In the case of clay or mud, the dis-
with light spherical particles, Bagnold arrived at the conclusion
persed particles confer a Binghamian behaviour to the interstitial
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014

fluid, even if the clay content is relatively small (Coussot 1977,
Ancey 2007). Under the hypothesis that the particle dimensions
are smaller than the infinitesimal control volume, the granular
phase can be assimilated to a continuous medium with its own
rheological properties due to the interactions between the grains.
However, if the particle size is of the same order of magnitude as
the boundaries of the flow, then this simplification will not work.
If the two phases are treated as two fluids without any mass
exchange between them, their dynamics is described by the same
equations of mass and momentum conservation known as the
Cauchy equations:
∂ρ β ∂(ρ β uβ )
+ =0
∂t ∂xi
β β β β (1)
∂ρ β ui ∂(ρ β ui uj ) β ∂Tij β
+ = ρ β gi + + Fi
∂t ∂xj ∂xj
where β = g, f represents, respectively, the granular phase and
the interstitial fluid; ρ g = cρs and ρ f = (1 − c)ρw are the den-
sity of the granular and the fluid phase, respectively; c is the
volumetric concentration; ρs is the material density of the grains
β
and ρw is water density; ui is the generic component of the veloc-
β
ity vector of each phase; Tij is the tensor of the internal stresses
β
of each phase; and Fi is the vector of the forces of interaction
between the two phases (because of the principle of reciprocity
g f β p p
Fi = −Fi ); gi is the component (per unit mass) of the mass
force acting on each of the phases, which in the present case is
β p
the vector of the gravity acceleration g, namely gi = −g∂z/∂xi ,
where z represents the vertical rising direction.
Below I briefly consider the most recent theories of granu-
lar fluid mechanics, applied to the two-phase flows driven by
gravity. Then, some of the many unsolved issues on which pre-
sumably the research effort will focus in the coming years will be
identified.
that for a sufficiently high shear rate, the relationship between the
dispersive pressure and the shear rate is quadratic, and in a 2D
shear flow it is pg−disp = a cos φρs (ldp γ̇ )2 where dp is the size
of the particles, γ̇ is the shear rate, and φ is the dynamic friction
angle, which according to Bagnold is substantially constant in
this regime. The parameter l is the linear concentration, which
represents the ratio between the diameter of the particle and the
average distance between the particles, and a is an experimental
constant. According to Bagnold’s model, the dispersive pressure
depends, therefore, only on the shear rate (known as Bagnold
scaling). The dispersive pressure induces in turn (or rather is
induced by) dispersive shear stress τ g−disp , related to the pressure
by a Coulombian relationship: τ g−disp = a sin φρs (ldp γ̇ )2 .
It is easy to prove (Armanini et al. 2008) that Bagnold’s theory,
applied to a gravity-driven flow of rigid grains in water, implies
that the concentration is constant across the flow depth. This
is an obvious inconsistency. In fact, experiments show that the
concentration assumes the maximum c∗ (random packing con-
centration) near the bed, and tends to zero near the free surface
(Armanini et al. 2005). This limitation of the Bagnold theory is
probably due to the fact that he assumed the same velocity scale
(ldp γ̇ ) and the same length scale for both the dispersive pres-
sure and the shear stress. This limitation has been overcome with
the introduction of the kinetic theory of granular flows (Chap-
man et al. 1971, Jenkins and Savage 1983, Lun et al. 1984,
Jenkins and Richman 1985), derived from the kinetic theory of
ideal gases and based on the concept of granular temperature
 = u i u i /3, in which the symbol  represents the average
value of all particles that are in the control volume in a certain
instant (u i = ui − ui  is the fluctuating component of the par-
p p
p g−coll
ticle velocity, ui  = ui is the average velocity component).
The volume dimensions should be sufficiently large compared
with the particle size and the mean distance between particles
but sufficiently small with respect to the dimensions of the flow
field under consideration (though the theory is almost always
applied beyond these limits).
 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013) Granular flows driven by gravity 113

Table 1 Expressions of the different functions adopted in the kinetic energy theory equations, according to Lun and Savage (1986)

f1 = c(1 + 4cηp go )
√   
5 π 8 1 8 8
f2 = 1 + cηp go + cηp (3ηp − 2) + √ c2 ηp go
96ηp (2 − ηp ) 5 go 5 5 π
√   
25 π 12 1 12 2 4
f4 = 1 + cηp go + cηp (4ηp − 3) + √ c2 ηp g
16ηp (41 − 33ηp ) 5 go 5 π
12
f5 = √ c2 go (1 − ep2 )
π
(1 + ep )
ηp =
2
 
c −2.5c∗
go = 1 −
c∗
g−coll
√
μ = ρ s f 2 dp 
√
k = ρ s f 4 d p 
pg−coll = ρs f1 

Note: Other expressions, differing slightly, are available in the literature.

Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014

In the kinetic theory, the rheological constitutive relationship
g−coll
is also shear dependent (Bagnold scaling), i.e. Tij
g g
−p g−coll
δij + μ g−coll
(∂uj /∂xi + ∂ui /∂xj ). The “collision” vis-
cosity μg−coll√ is scaled by the square root of the granular
temperature  (served here as a velocity scale) and √ by the
grain size dp as a length scale, i.e.: μg−coll = ρs f2 dp . The
same velocity scale is used to express the granular pressure,
i.e. pg−coll = ρs f1 , where f1 and f2 are two parametrical func-
tions, which depend on the particle concentration c (Table 1).
Both functions are in turn proportional to the radial distribu-
tion function go , which takes into account the fact that in the
determination of the probability of collisions between two parti-
cles, the net volume surrounding the first particle is reduced due
to the presence of the second particle (Carnahan and Starling
1970). Various formulations have been proposed for this func-
tion. They are especially different at high concentrations where
the radial distribution function diverges, and the kinetic theory
should lose its validity. One of these expressions is shown in
Table 1.
The main difference between Bagnold’s rheology and the
kinetic theory is in the equation of state, which in this case is
not directly related to the shear rate. In addition to the mass and
momentum conservation, the balance equation for the granular
kinetic energy (here in terms of granular temperature; Jenkins and
Savage 1983) permits us to close the set of necessary equations:
The rate of change of the kinetic energy (left side of Eq.2) is
= balanced by (1) kinetic energy diffusion due to particle fluctua-
tions (first term on the right), (2) work of the granular stresses
(second term on the right), and (3) dissipation rate due to the
non perfectly elastic collisions among particles (third term). The
expression for the diffusion coefficient √ k is similar to that for
the viscosity coefficient, i.e. k = f4 ρs dp , and f5 is a func-
tion of the radial distribution function go , concentration c, and the
inelasticity restitution coefficient of the particles ep (Table 1). In
addition, it is important to note that the production and dissipa-
tion terms are scaled by the same length scale dp . This means that
granular flows lack a scale separation (Goldhirsch 2003), unlike
the turbulent Newtonian fluid, in which the small-scale fluctua-
tions have an internal scale depending on the viscosity, while the
larger fluctuations are scaled by the mixing length scale.
The limitations of the kinetic theory in relation to flows char-
acterized by high particle concentrations become particularly
severe when the granular flows are driven by gravity and occur
on a loose bed composed of the same particles at rest. The flow in
the proximity of this boundary is characterized by prolonged con-
tacts (frictional regime), even though a certain degree of granular
temperature is always present (Fig. 1).

 
3 ∂ g ∂
ρs c + uj
2 ∂t ∂xj
  
advection
   g g
∂ ∂ g−coll ∂ui δuj 1.5
= k + τij + − ρs f5 (2) Figure 1 Sketch of the instantaneous distribution of a submerged gran-
∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi dp
         ular flow driven by gravity. The boundary between the frictional and the
diffusion production dissipation collisional regimes is intermittent
 114 A. Armanini
Figure 2 Sketch of submerged granular flow on a fixed wall (left) and on a loose bed (right)
In addition, the collisions could involve several particles at the
same time. The particle concentration at this erodible boundary
assumes its maximum value c∗ . The loose static bed is formed
because the solid concentration increases downward up to a value
(random packing concentration) at which the frictional shear
stress is so high that no granular motion is possible.
Dealing with “free surface” granular flows, it is important to
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014
distinguish flows on a rigid wall (fixed bed) and flows on a loose
bed. In the second case, towards the bed all kinematic variables
(velocity, concentration, and granular temperature) asymptoti-
cally tend to their static values. This also means that the granular
shear stress tends to become shear-rate independent. In the first
case, on the contrary, the same variables exhibit at the wall
finite gradients. In particular, the concentration near the wall may
exhibit positive gradients (Fig. 2). This behaviour is due to the
fact that the solid wall is much “stiffer” than a bed formed from
loose particles and therefore the coefficient of inelastic restitu-
tion of the solid wall is typically larger. This effect applies even
if the wall is formed by a solid plate with glued particles identical
to the particles of the flow. In particular, in a uniform channel
flow on a solid wall the free surface is parallel to the wall. How-
ever, in the case of loose particles the slope of the free surface
is independent of the slope of the channel bottom (Fig. 2). In the
case of a rigid wall, the particles colliding with the wall could
bounce more than those that collide with each other at a certain
distance from the wall, and this mechanism is responsible for the
reduction of the concentration in the vicinity of the rigid wall.
The rheology of the frictional regime has not yet found a con-
vincing solution, although different formulations of an empirical
nature are available in the literature. The most frequently adopted
constitutive models can be grouped into four classes (Lois et al.
2005): (i) shear rate-independent models, based on a Coulombian
relationship between granular shear stress and granular pressure
through a dynamic friction angle that mainly depends on the
particle concentration; (ii) shear rate-dependent relationships,
mostly based on the extension of the kinetic theories; (iii) models
based on the idea of the force chains mechanism (Fig. 3), leading
to a non-local rheology; this scheme is mainly adopted to explain
the jamming transition; and (iv) models based on the Ginzburg–
Landau differential equation treating the transition between fric-
tional and collisional regimes as a phase transition phenomenon.
In almost all the models adopted in the literature, it is assumed
that the frictional regime is confined within a layer of finite height
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)
Figure 3 Instantaneous networks of the force chains. Reprinted with
permission from Da Cruz et al. (2005). Copyright 2005 by the American
Physical Society. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v72/e021309*.
(in analogy with the boundary layer theory), within which the
proper rheology of the frictional regime is valid. The experiments
(Armanini et al. 2009) show that this separation is somewhat arbi-
trary and that the two regimes (frictional and collisional) are not
stratified, but coexist (Fig. 4) and are intermittent (Fig. 1), just as
in the buffer layer between the viscous sublayer and the logarith-
mic region in the turbulent boundary layer. However, unlike the
fluid boundary layer, in which each sub-layer is characterized by
its own specific length scales, the granular flows lack separation
of scales, since the particle diameter turns out to be the only
geometrical scale that dominates both collisional and frictional
regimes.
This is likely one of the major reasons for the lack of a clearly
layered structure of such flows. In general, it can be consid-
ered reasonable that stresses related to the two regimes can be
summed, so that the total stress tensor of the granular phase can
be expressed as
g g−coll g−fric
Tij = Tij + Tij (3)
g−coll g−fric
where Tij and Tij are the collisional and frictional
components of the granular stress tensor, respectively.
∗ Readers may view, browse, and/or download material for tempo-
rary copying purposes only, provided these uses are for noncommercial
personal purposes. Except as provided by law, this material may not
be further reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, adapted, per-
formed, displayed, published, or sold in whole or part, without prior
written permission from the American Physical Society.
 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)
1 1
pg
0.8
pg−coll
0.6
h h
0.4
0.2
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
pg/(rs gh)
Figure 4 Distribution along the dimensionless normal distance η = x2 /h (h is the flow depth) from the bed of the total and collisional shear stresses
(right) and pressure (left) in a uniform channel flow of mixed spheres and water. Note the significant thickness of the region where the two regimes
coexist. The collisional regime dominates only in the proximity of the free surface (η → 1) (Larcher et al. 2007)
A widely used method of modelling of the frictional regime
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014
is based on a visco-plastic rheology (Meruane et al. 2010):
Tij
g−fric g−fric
= −pg−fric δij + τij (4)
where pg−fric represents the (non-deviatoric) pressure due to the
long-lasting contacts between the particles. As the frictional pres-
sure pg−fric depends on the particle concentration, it must vanish
when the concentration is less than that at which the contacts
become instant. The deviatoric part of the tensor is expressed
through a Coulombian scheme, and so directly linked to the
g−fric
frictional pressure, i.e. |τij | = (1 − δij )pg−fric tan φ fric , where
φ fric is the internal friction angle.
Different expressions have been proposed to link the pressure
or/and the friction angle to the particle concentration (Johnson
and Jackson 1987, Johnson et al. 1990). All these models contain
from three to four empirical constants that have to be experi-
mentally obtained with an ex post method. These models very
often lack convincing physical foundations and generality, per-
haps with an exception of the model of Savage (1998), which is
probably the most general of these approaches although it con-
tains a large number of empirical parameters. This model has not
been widely used and its limits have to be further checked.
The experimental evidence suggests that the shear-rate
dependency is preserved across the whole flow depth and thus
needs to be taken into consideration (Armanini et al. 2005,
Lois et al. 2005, Armanini et al. 2011). In this respect, it is
worth mentioning that the μ(I ) model recently proposed by
the GDR Milieux Divisès Group (GDR Midi 2004) is currently
being widely adopted. This model is based on the parameter
√
I = dp γ̇ / pg /ρs , called the inertial parameter, which repre-
√
sents the ratio of two temporal scales: a micro-scale dp / pg /ρs
that is the time required for a particle to fall the distance dp by
the action of a pressure pg , and a macro-scale proportional to the
inverse local shear rate γ̇ .
The inertial parameter is the square of the Savage number
(Savage 1994). The model is based on the observation that for a
Granular flows driven by gravity 115
0.8 t g12
t g-coll
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
t g/(rs gh)
thin layer of particles moving down a slope, the angle at which the
material begins to flow (static angle, θs ) is greater than the angle
at which the layer stops (dynamic repose angle, θ2 ). This effect
invokes the idea that in granular flows, the hysteretic behaviour
may play a significant role. The μ(I ) model is, therefore, a
binomial Columbian model in which the friction coefficients
depend on the inertial parameter (Jop et al. 2006):
tan θs (Io + I ) + (tan θ2 − tan θs )Io
τ g = pg (5)
Io + I
The model has been extended beyond this frame, giving the angle
θ2 the meaning of the “friction angle at high I ”, the nature of
which should be better investigated and in any case has to be
determined experimentally together with the parameter Io . As
the inertial parameter, I is a function of the shear rate, the rheol-
ogy of this model is in some way also shear dependent. The same
Group GDR (Forterre and Pouliquen 2008) has coupled the rhe-
ological relationship (5) with an equation of state, consisting of
a linear relationship between the inertial parameter and the parti-
cle concentration c = cmax − (cmax − cmin )I , in which cmax is the
random packing concentration and cmin is the minimum concen-
tration at which the model is valid. By substituting this equation
of state into Eq. (5), it is easy to realize that this model can also be
ascribed to the category of the Coulombian models in which the
friction angle depends on the solid concentration while the over-
all model requires four experimental parameters. Nonetheless,
this model has been applied to a variety of scenarios, particu-
larly related to gravity-driven flows such as debris flows or dry
granular flows, rock avalanches, and powder snow avalanches
(Rognon et al. 2008b, Marks et al. 2011). The model was origi-
nally formulated for a granular fluid without the interstitial fluid
and later extended to the granular flow with an interstitial fluid
(Cassar et al. 2005, Berzi and Jenkins 2008), including cohesive
materials (Rognon et al. 2008a).
As previously mentioned, the rheology of the frictional regime
remains one of the most important problems of the dynamics of
granular fluids that is still unresolved.
 116 A. Armanini Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)

A vital observation related to the frictional regime is that the 30

granular temperature plays a significant role in this region too,
highlighting an area of new conceptual developments. In this 28

respect, it is worth mentioning a model proposed by Jenkins

26
(2007). His model is based on the extension of the kinetic theory

jd (°)
to dense granular flow, in which the length scale corresponds 24
to a cluster of particles rather than to a single particle size. The
interpretative picture given by Lois et al. (2005) in this regard 22
clarifies the physics of the frictional regime: “… a dense granular
flow of perfect hard grains is animated with intense rattling and 20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
changes of the contact network orientation. The dynamics of the
c
system involves many minute events which generalize binary
Figure 5 Behaviour of the apparent friction angle ϕd = arctan(τ g /pg )
collisions: these are creation and opening of contacts, rearrange-
when neglecting the diffusive term in the kinetic energy balance, as a
ments of existing force network, and sudden changes in the nature function of particle concentration c for ep = 0.75
of the frictional contact.” This picture also inspired the model by
Armanini et al. (2011).
It is also worth mentioning that Aranson and Kramer (2002)
and Aranson and Tsimring (2006) introduced an equation for of momentum, thus considerably reducing the degree of com-
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014

the generic first-order phase transition (i.e. Ginzburg-Landau plexity of the system of equations. Following this simplification
equation) to explain the transition from the solid phase to the we obtain:
gas (kinetic) granular flow, i.e.:
τ g−coll f2 f5
= (8)
2 pg−coll f1
∂ρ g ∂ρ ∂ ρ ∂F (ρ, δ)
+ ui =D − (6)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi ∂ρ This result corresponds to Bagnold’s scaling for both granular
shear stress and pressure. The behaviour of the ratio τ g /pg ,
where the parameter ρ represents the ratio between the total thus calculated, is reported in Fig. 5 as a function of the par-
number of static (or persistent) contacts and the total number ticle concentration for the case of constant inelastic restitution
of contacts. This parameter controls the ratio between the static coefficient ep .
part of the stress tensor and the full stress tensor of granular The plot highlights the linear asymptotic behaviour for
flow. The parameter D is a suitable diffusion coefficient; and c → c∗ and c → 0; this trend explains the linear behaviour of
F(ρ, δ) is the free energy density, which is assumed to have two
local minima at ρ = 1 (solid phase) and ρ = 0 (granular fluid
phase), Aranson and Tsimring (2006). Their model has been
1.0
successfully applied to powder snow avalanches to explain an
instability phenomenon, observed by Goldfarbs et al. (2002) and kinetic
0.8
known as fingering. The model has not yet been applied to sub- theory
merged granular flows, but it could give interesting results for 0.6
such flows also. h
Bagnold

0.4
Coulomb
2.2 Simplified solutions
0.2
There is a strong need to find simplified solutions of the system
of equations for granular flows, especially for the applications of 0.0
the kinetic theory to debris flows. It is easy to verify that if, in a 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
j
uniform flow, we neglect the diffusive term of the energy balance
(Eq.2), then it is possible to find a relationship of proportionality Figure 6 Distribution along the dimensionless normal distance
η = x2 /h of the measured arctangent of the ratio between shear stress
between the granular temperature  and the square of the shear and pressure (apparent friction angle) in a uniform flow of mixed spheres
rate γ̇ 2 : and water (data from Armanini et al. 2009). It is possible to observe
the smooth transition from the pure Coulomb model on the loose bed
f2 (η = 0) to the collisional regime at the free surface (η = 1). The figure
= (dp γ̇ )2 (7)
f5 also shows the constant friction angle suggested by Bagnold for his
experiments (Bagnold 1954). Note that the apparent friction angle of
In this case, we could drop the granular temperature in the expres- the collisional regime is bigger than the corresponding angle of the
sion for the collision viscosity (Table 1) and hence in the budgets frictional regime
 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)
1 3
0.8
0.6
h
0.4
0.2 Dffusion
Production
Dissipation
0 that a portion of volume is occupied by the solid instead of being
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Energy balance terms: (-)
Figure 7 Vertical distribution of the different terms composing the
kinetic energy balance (Eq.2) measured in a uniform flow of spheres
and water (Armanini et al. 2009). All the terms are made dimensionless,
by dividing them by ps h1/2 g 3/2
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014
the apparent friction angle in Fig. 6, when approaching the free
surface.
The simplification k ≈ 0 is however problematic, since, as
shown in Fig. 7, the diffusive term in the kinetic energy bal-
ance (Eq.2) is of the same order of magnitude as both the
production and the dissipation, especially in the intermediate
region in which the two regimes have more or less the same
significance.
However, the possibility of simplifying the energy balance
has not yet been fully explored, nor have all the limits been
investigated. It is probably still possible to find new simplified
solutions that are useful for applications in the field. Other kinds
of simplified solutions are based on the a priori assumptions
regarding some of the dependent variables of the system, which
usually include the volume concentration.
2.3 Research challenges
From the previous section, it is clear that a general framing of
the problem of the rheology of granular fluids is still lacking,
particularly for the frictional regime. While at least one con-
ceptual scheme for the collisional regime exists (based on a
micro-structural constitutive model), the rheological formula-
tions for the frictional regime are essentially empirical. The μ(I )
model has shed new light on this topic, but many questions are
still open. This issue is probably the major challenge of research
on granular flows.
From an engineering point of view then, it is always
challenging to find simplified solutions to complex problems.
The idea of neglecting the diffusive terms, as has been said,
represents a remarkable possibility. It could be used to derive
bulk relationships, useful in depth-integrated models applicable
to field cases.
As mentioned in the previous section, the model based on the
first-order phase transition also deserves attention and an attempt
to apply it to submerged granular flows is welcome.
Granular flows driven by gravity 117
Interaction forces between granular fluid and
interstitial fluid
3.1 Critical issues
In principle, the interaction between interstitial fluid and granular
phase is relatively simple and can be related to two actions: (a)
the buoyancy forces component, independent of the difference in
velocities between liquid and solid, and attributable to the fact
occupied by the fluid and (b) the drag and lift forces component,
induced by the difference in velocity between the two phases.
The general relation is
f
f ∂pf ∂τij
Fi = c −c − Di (9)
∂xi ∂xj 
   drag
buoyancy
f
Here, Fi is the interaction force exerted by the fluid phase on
g f
the granular phase, and vice versa for Fi (i.e. Fi = −Fi ), and
g
Di is the drag component exerted by the fluid on the particles
(Iverson 1997).
In granular flows at high concentration (which correspond to
the fully developed debris flow), the terms related to the drag and
lift are usually negligible in the momentum balances, while in
the energy balance their effect may be significant. These forces
become increasingly important with decreasing concentrations,
and are decisive in the bed load (Seminara et al. 2002) and the
suspended particles transport (Greimann et al. 1999).
Apart from the difficulty of the determination of the appro-
priate coefficients of lift and drag in the presence of clusters of
particles at high concentration, the problem becomes even more
complicated when we consider turbulent flow of the intersti-
tial fluid. In this situation, the particles introduce a turbulence
length scale comparable to the particle size, which is added to
the scale generated by the rough wall. The problem of turbu-
lence closure has been addressed with zero equation models
and empirical relationships for the mixing length, expressed as a
function of the solid concentration (Takahashi 1991). Although
such models provided reasonable results, they have been heavily
empirical and therefore difficult to generalize. There have been
also several attempts to tackle the problem with more elaborate
closure models (one- or two-equation closure models), in par-
ticular with the k − ε model. In this case, however, the problem
of the formulation of the terms relevant to the mechanisms of
interaction between the solid and (turbulent) fluid phases has not
yet found a definitive solution. In the literature, there are dif-
ferent approaches: some authors (see, e.g. Meruane et al. 2010)
consider the effects of drag by adding a specific production term
into the equations of the turbulent energy, while other authors
(see, e.g. Hsu et al. 2003) consider this effect by adding a special
dissipation term into the turbulent energy balance.
It should be underlined that the presence of the interstitial fluid
is involved in the energy balances for the granular phase (Eq.2). A
 118 A. Armanini
simplified way to account for this effect is to modify the inelastic
restitution coefficient ep inside the coefficient f5 of Eq. (2), mak-
ing it dependent on the particle Stokes number (Armanini et al.
2009, Gollwitzer et al. 2012).
3.2 Research challenges
As we have seen, the problem of the interaction between the
fluid and granular phases still has several unexplained aspects,
especially the turbulence effects. These effects are increas-
ingly important when the solid concentration is reduced, as,
for example, in debris flows during the arrest phase and also
during the debris flow formation. The question becomes cru-
cial if we want to extend the granular flow approach to bedload
and suspended sediment transport. The problem in this case
relates mainly to the closures of the second- and third-order
correlations between the fluctuating component of concentra-
tion and granular and water velocities. These terms are typically
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014
modelled with diffusion concepts, in which the diffusion coeffi-
cients are often expressed using relationships with questionable
phenomenology.
4 Sorting and segregation in granular flows
4.1 Mechanisms
An important aspect affecting mostly geophysical granular flows
is the strong dispersion that characterizes their particle size dis-
tribution, which in debris flows ranges from a few millimetres to
blocks larger than one meter (Takahashi 1991).
As a consequence, during the flow the particles are segregated
in accordance with their size. The finer particles are subject to a
mechanism of downward infiltration (percolation) into the void
spaces in the underlying layers; accordingly in the upper lay-
ers there is a progressive enrichment of particles of larger size
(Bridgwater 1976, Ottino et al. 2000). The result is a reverse
grading, where larger particles are concentrated in the higher
layers.
In addition to this effect, there is a second mechanism, linked
to the size segregation due to the imbalance of impact forces
between particles of different size, which favours the migration
of the particles. The mechanism that governs this second type
of migration is not clear. According to some researchers (see,
e.g. Takahashi 1991) this second mechanism is the main cause
of the effect of expulsion of boulders and their accumulation in
the vicinity of the front observed in the debris flow. But there
is also the hypothesis (Savage and Lun 1988, Legros 2002) that
the direction of this second mechanism is per se independent of
the size of particles, but added to the infiltration process tends to
facilitate the upward shift of particles of larger size.
The angle of repose of the particles also seems to have a
certain influence on the stratification of the particles. Makse et al.
(1997) have observed that when a mixture of graded granular
material is poured into a container, the mixture tends to form
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)
Figure 8 Typical stratification of successive layers of fine and coarse
grains observed by Makse et al. (1997); the small white grains start first,
followed by the larger red grains (from Makse et al. 1997)
successive stratified layers (Fig. 8). This effect, which seems
likely to be induced by the fact that the particles exhibit different
angles of repose, has been observed also for submerged material
(Samadani and Kudrolli 2001).
4.2 Research challenges
In the literature there is a tendency to give ample space to the
problems of granular mechanics, which have much more affin-
ity with industrial applications than with civil engineering. In
addition, the majority of the theories developed on this topic
are more appropriate to the collisional regime. For the frictional
regime, the problem of sorted grain size distribution and asso-
ciated mechanisms of percolation of the finer fraction remain
unsolved.
As is known, the expulsion of boulders in debris flows has
important consequences in the dynamic impact on the struc-
tures. From a mechanics point of view, it is very likely that this
aspect also has consequences on the rheology of the debris flows.
Indeed, it is reasonable to think that an enrichment of the fine frac-
tion, where the shear stresses are greater, produces a decrease in
the global resistance of these flows. New experiments are nec-
essary to better understand the sorting mechanisms but, apart
from the problem of the grain sorting, it is also urgent to clarify
the possible scaling effects in the reduced scale experiments on
granular flows in general.
5 Final remarks on field applications
A further question that relates to all aspects of granular fluid
mechanics regards the application of the models to unsteady
and non-uniform flows. This issue concerns primarily the appli-
cation of the rheological constitutive relationships of granular
fluid mechanics to three-dimensional problems. Such applica-
tions in the literature are quite rare in relation to both laboratory
 Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)
models and field studies, requiring real ability of constitutive
relations to simulate three-dimensional phenomena. In the future,
more efforts should be invested in both laboratory tests and in
mathematical modelling concerning this aspect.
The situation with the 2D depth-integrated models is also
rather disappointing. In the field applications of civil and envi-
ronmental engineering, it is necessary to use depth-integrated
models, based on the equations that meet the shallow water crite-
ria (Cao et al. 2006, Garegnani and Rosatti 2013). The equations
governing these models can be derived by the integration of the
three-dimensional equations across the flow depth (Armanini
et al. 2006, Greco et al. 2012). From the previous sections
it seems reasonable, therefore, to use a two-phase approach,
which reproduces the equations of conservation of the masses
and momenta of the solid and liquid phases (Garegnani et al.
2011, Rosatti and Begnudelli 2013).
We must, unfortunately, note that even today in most applica-
tions to debris flow and snow avalanches a homogeneous fluid
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014
approach is still adopted, in which it is assumed that the flow is
composed of a mixture of fluid (water or air) and sediment that
form a homogeneous non-Newtonian fluid with constant density.
For these models, the conservation of solid mass is guaranteed
a priori by the hypothesis of constant density, so no specific dif-
ferential equation is written for the balance of the solid mass
(similar to the Exner equation). These models behave, there-
fore, as fixed bed models (see the difference between the fixed
bed and the loose bed depicted in Section 2), that is, they are
governed by the Saint Venant equations. It is evident that these
models are unable to simulate mass changes, which however are
decisive during both the initiation phase of debris flows and the
arrest phase. In addition, these models cannot be used to verify
the efficiency of defense works based on the sediment retention
mechanisms, such as check dams. In these models, in fact, the
erosion/deposition processes cannot be predicted by definition.
To make fixed bed models able to simulate the arrest phase
of debris flows, it is usual to assume artificially that the flow has
Binghamian properties (Herschel–Bulkley models). In this way,
the model predicts the arrest of the flow en masse when the bed
shear stress assumes the value of the threshold stress. It is evident
that this is an artefact and that, especially in the absence of clay
material, the arrest occurs through a more or less gradual process
of sedimentation of the solid phase. In addition, the Herschel–
Bulkley parameters, suitable for calibrating the models, are
subject to very wide variations, and mostly are known only a pos-
teriori. This knowledge gap must be urgently filled through new
innovative experiments and advanced numerical simulations.
References
Ancey, C. (2007). Plasticity and geophysical flows: A review. J.
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 142(1), 4–35.
Aranson, I.S., Kramer, L. (2002). The world of the complex
Ginzburg-Landau equation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 99–143.
Granular flows driven by gravity 119
Aranson, I.S., Tsimring, L.S. (2006). Patterns and collective
behavior in granular media: Theoretical concepts. Rev. Mod.
Phys. 78, 641–692.
Armanini, A., Capart, H., Fraccarollo, L., Larcher, M. (2005).
Rheological stratification in experimental free-surface of
granular-liquid mixture. J. Fluid Mech. 532, 269–319.
Armanini, A., Fraccarollo, L., Rosatti, G. (2006). Two-
dimensional simulation of debris flows in erodible channels.
Comput. Geosci. 35(5), 993–1006.
Armanini, A., Fraccarollo, L., Larcher, M. (2008). Liquid-
granular channel flow dynamics. Powder Tech. 182,
218–227.
Armanini, A., Larcher, M., Fraccarollo, L. (2009). Intermittency
of rheological regimes in uniform liquid-granular flows. Phys.
Rev. E 79(5), 051306.
Armanini, A., Dumbser, M., Nucci, E., Larcher, M. (2013).
Dynamics of submerged gravitational granular flows. In
Numerical methods for hyperbolic equations: Theory and
applications, 157–163, E. Vázquez-Cendón, A. Hidalgo, P.
García-Navarro, L. Cea, eds. CRC Press – Taylor and Francis
Group.
Bagnold, R.A. (1954). Experiment on a gravity-free dispersion
of large solid spheres in a Newtonian fluid under shear. Proc.
Royal Soc., London, Series A 225(1160), 49–63.
Berzi, D., Jenkins, J.T. (2008). A theoretical analysis of free-
surface flows of saturated granular-liquid mixtures. J. Fluid
Mech. 608, 393–410.
Bridgwater, J. (1976). Fundamental powder mixing mechanisms.
Powder Technol. 15, 215–236.
Campbell, C.S. (1990). Rapid granular flows. Ann. Rev. Fluid
Mech. 22, 57–92.
Cao, Z., Pender, G., Carling, P.A. (2006). Shallow water hydro-
dynamic models for hyper-concentrated sediment-laden flows
over erodible bed. Adv. Water Res. 29(4), 546–557.
Capart, H., Young, D.L., Zech, Y. (2002). Voronoï imaging meth-
ods for the measurement of granular flows. Exp. Fluids 32,
121–135.
Carnahan, N.F., Starling, K. (1970). Equations of state for non-
attracting rigid spheres. J. Chem. Phys. 51, 635–636.
Cassar, C., Nicolas, M., Pouliquen, O. (2005). Submarine gran-
ular flows down inclined planes. Phys. Fluids 17, 103301.
Chapman, S., Cowling, T.G. (1971). The mathematical theory
of non-uniform gases. ed. 3. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
Coussot, P. (1977). Mudflow rheology and dynamics. IAHR
Monograph, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Da Cruz, F., Emam, S., Prochnow, M., Roux, J.N., Chevoi, F.
(2005). Rheophysics of dense granular materials: Discrete
simulation of plane shear flows. Phys. Rev. E 72, 021309.
Forterre, Y., Pouliquen, O. (2008). Flows of dense granular
media. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 1–24.
Garegnani, G., Rosatti, G. (2013). On the range of validity of the
Exner-based models for mobile-bed river flow simulations.
J. Hydraulic Res. (accepted).
 120 A. Armanini
Garegnani, G., Rosatti, G., Bonaventura, L. (2011). Free surface
flows over mobile bed: Mathematical analysis and numerical
modeling of coupled and decoupled approaches. Comm. Appl.
Ind. Math. 2(1), doi:10.1685/journal.caim.371.
GDR MiDi (2004). On dense granular flows. Eur. Phys. J. E 14,
341–365.
Goldfarbs, D., Glasser, B., Shinbrot, T. (2002). Shear instabilities
in granular flows. Nature 415, 302–305.
Goldhirsch, I., 2003. Rapid granular flows. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.
35, 267–293.
Gollwitzer, F., Rehberg, I., Kruelle, C.A., Huang, K. (2012).
Coefficient of restitution for wet particles. Phys. Rev. E 86,
011303.
Greco, M., Iervolino, M., Leopardi, A., Vacca, A. (2012). A
two-phase model for fast geomorphic shallow flows. Int. J.
Sediment Res. 27, 409–425.
Greimann, B.P., Muste, M., Holly, Jr., F.M. (1999). Two-phase
formulation of suspended sediment transport. J. Hydraulic
Downloaded by [200.87.111.21] at 14:49 25 April 2014
Res. 37(4), 479–500.
Hsu, T.J., Jenkins, T.J., Liu, L.P. (2003). On two-phase sedi-
ment transport: Dilute flow. J. Geophys. Res. (1978–2012)
108 (C3).
Hungr, O. (2005). Classification and terminology. In Debrisflow
hazards and related phenomena, 9–23, M. Jakob, O. Hungr,
eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hunt, M.L., Zenit, R., Campbell, C.S., Brennen, C.E. (2002).
Revisiting the 1954 suspension experiments of R.A. Bagnold.
J. Fluid Mech. 452, 1–24.
Iverson, R.M. (1997). The physics of debris flows. Rev. Geophys.
35(3): 245–296.
Jakob, M. (2005). A size classification for debris flows. Eng.
Geol. 79(3–4), 151–161.
Jakob, M., Hungr, O. (2005). Debris-flow hazards and related
phenomena. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Jenkins, J.T., Richman, M.W. (1985). Kinetic theory for plane
flows of a dense gas of identical, rough, inelastic, circular
disks. Phys. Fluids 28, 3485–3294.
Jenkins, J.T., Savage, S.B. (1983). A theory for rapid flow of
identical, smooth, nearly elastic, spherical particles. J. Fluid
Mech. 130, 186–202.
Jenkins, J.T. (2007). Dense inclined flows of inelastic spheres.
Granular Matter 10, 47–52.
Jenkins, J.T., Hanes, D.M. (1998). Collisional sheet-flow of
sediment driven by a turbulent fluid. J. Fluid Mech. 370,
29–52.
Johnson, P.C., Jackson, R. (1987). Frictional-collisional constitu-
tive relations for granular materials, with application to plane
shearing. J. Fluid Mech. 176, 67–93.
Johnson, P.C., Nott, P., Jackson, R. (1990). Frictional-collisional
equations of motion for particulate flows and their application
to chutes. J. Fluid Mech. 210, 501–535.
Jop, P., Forterre, Y., Pouliquen, O. (2006). A constitutive law for
dense granular flows. Nature 441, 727–730.
Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 51, No. 2 (2013)
Larcher, M., Fraccarollo, L., Armanini, A. (2007). Set of mea-
surement data from flume experiments on steady uniform
debris flows. J. Hydraulic Res. 45(Supp. 1), 59–71.
Legros, F. (2002). Can dispersive pressure cause inverse grading
in grain flows? J. Sedimentary Res. 72(1), 166–170.
Lois, G., Lemaitre, A., Carlson, J.M. (2005). Numerical tests of
constitutive laws for dense granular flows. Phys. Rev. E 72(5),
051303.
Lun, C.K., Savage, S.B. (1986). The effects of an impact depen-
dent coefficient of restitution on stresses developed by sheared
granular material. Acta Mech. 63, 15–44.
Lun, C.K.K., Savage, S.B. Jeffrey, D.J., Chepurniy, N. (1984).
Kinetic theories for granular flow: Inelastic particles in Cou-
ette flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general flow field.
J. Fluid Mech. 140, 223–256.
Makse, H.A., Halvin, S., King, P.R., Stanley, H.E. (1997).
Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature 386,
379–381.
Marks, B., Rognon, P., Einav, I. (2011). Grainsize dynamics
of polydisperse granular segregation down inclined planes.
J. Fluid Mech. 690, 499–511.
Meruane, C., Tamburrino, A., Roche, O. (2010). On the role
of the ambient fluid on gravitational granular flow dynamics.
J. Fluid Mech. 648, 381–404.
Ottino, J.M., Khakhar, D.V. (2000). Mixing and segregation of
granular materials. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 55–91.
Rognon, P.G., Chevoir, F, Bellot, A., Ousset, F., Naaïm, M.,
Coussot, P. (2008a). Rheology of dense snow flows: Infer-
ence from steady state chute-flow experiments. J. Rheology
52, 729–748.
Rognon, P.G., Roux, J.N., Naaïm, M., Chevoir, F. (2008b). Dense
flows of cohesive granular materials. J. Fluid Mech. 596,
21–47.
Rosatti, G., Begnudelli, L. (2013). Two-dimensional simulation
of debris flows over mobile bed: Enhancing the TRENT2D
model by using a well-balanced generalized Roe-type solver.
Comput. Fluids 71, 179–195.
Samadani, A., Kudrolli, A. (2001). Angle of repose and seg-
regation in cohesive granular matter. Phys. Rev. E 64(5),
051301.
Savage, S.B. (1994). The mechanics of rapid granular flows. Adv.
Appl. Mech. 24, 289–366.
Savage, S.B. (1998). Analyses of slow high-concentration flows
of granular materials. J. Fluid Mech. 377, 1–26.
Savage, S.B., Lun, C.K.K. (1988). Particle size segregation in
inclined chute flow of dry cohesionless granular solids. J. Fluid
Mech. 189, 311–335.
Seminara, G., Solari, L., Parker, G. (2002). Bed load at
low Shields stress on arbitrarily sloping beds: Failure of
the Bagnold hypothesis. Water Resour. Res. 38(11), 31-1,
doi:10.1029/2001WR000681.
Takahashi, T. (1991). Debris flow. IAHR Monograph Series,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam-Brookfild.