Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Research Paper

Numerical assessment for the efficiencies of check dams in debris flow T

gullies: A case study
⁎
Wei Shena, Tonglu Lib, , Ping Lib, Yulu Leib
a
Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Bologna, 40126, Italy
b
Department of Geological Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710064, China

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

Keywords: Quantitative assessment for the efficiencies of check dams is necessary for the purpose of reducing the risk of
Debris flow potential debris flow disasters. In this paper, an improved finite difference model is adopted to assess the effi-
Disaster mitigation ciency of the check dam in Dagou debris flow gully, Gansu Province, China. Unlike other numerical models, the
Check dam improved model can simultaneously consider bed entrainment and the impeding effect of check dams, so it can
Numerical simulation
reflect the interaction between check dams and debris flow dynamics. The results show that the existing 10 m
Finite difference method
check dam may only be sufficient to prevent a debris flow with less than 0.8 times the volume of the catastrophic
event occurred in this gully in 2013. Otherwise, a higher check dam should be constructed in order to prevent a
larger event. The location of a check dam has significant influence on the dynamics of the debris flow. Generally,
a check dam constructed in the upper part of the gully performs better in controlling bed entrainment and the
discharge. Comparing with the locations in downstream, the dam site located in upstream of this gully seems to
be a better choice in terms of both efficiency and engineering quantity.

1. Introduction
Debris flows are one of the most dangerous types of mass move-
ments which occur frequently in established channels on earth surface
[34]. These flows are characterized by the two-phase nature (i.e., they
consist of poorly-sorted sediments saturated with water, and both solid
particles and fluid significantly influence the motion of the flows) and
periodical occurrence, which distinguish they from dry granular flows
and floods. The two-phase nature of debris flows tends to render them
the high mobility that dry rock avalanches cannot reach. According to
field data, a debris flow can have more than twice the mobility (the
ratio of the horizontal run-out distance L to the drop height H: L/H) of a
dry rock avalanche [30], which suggests that debris flows usually
possess much longer run-out distances and larger impact areas than
other landslides. As a consequence, a large debris flow alone may result
in hundreds of deaths, such as the debris flow events occurred in China
[51,63], Venezuela [26,65] and many other countries [1,18,19]. Ad-
ditionally, with the rapid expansion of population and urbanization in
developing countries, a growing number of infrastructures and re-
sidence buildings are constructed on old debris flow fans without fully
evaluating the potential risks, which makes the current situation worse
[15,69,70]. Under such a circumstance, constructing efficient debris
flow prevention works becomes an urgent mission.
Various debris flow preventions works, such as check dams, slit
dams, channel works, wire nets etc., have been devised and put into
practice [12,29,42]. Among them, check dams may be the most widely-
used countermeasures in debris flow gullies [11,49]. On the other hand,
the design of check dams and the efficiency assessment of them still rely
heavily on empirical methods currently [4,44,61]. For instance, the
storage capacity of a dam, which determines dam height, is a critical
index in check dam design. However, this index is usually estimated
according to the maximum static capacity of a reservoir using empirical
equations. Such a design method ignores the fact that the motion of a
debris flow is a dynamic process, and thus it tends to give an inaccurate
estimation. Another question which remains largely unsolved is the
efficiencies of the already constructed check dams in thousands of
debris flow gullies. If the assessment of their efficiencies is conducted
only after the occurrence of real debris flow events, the risk of in-
adequate design can be high and the subsequent catastrophic con-
sequences will be unavoidable. As a result, debris flow disasters, which
are caused by the failures of inadequately designed check dams, are
reported by literatures at times [12,64]. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop reliable quantitative methods for the design and assessment of
check dams. To realize this goal, numerical simulation can be a pro-
mising choice.
Many numerical models have been developed for simulating flow-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wei.shen2@unibo.it (W. Shen), dcdgx08@chd.edu.cn (T. Li), dcdgx07@chd.edu.cn (P. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103541
Received 26 November 2019; Received in revised form 24 February 2020; Accepted 9 March 2020
Available online 14 March 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Shen, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

like mass movements like debris flows. The existing models can be 2. Principles of the numerical model
classified into three categories according to the mechanical methods,
namely discrete models (DMs), continuum models (CMs) and fluid-solid 2.1. Governing equations
coupling models (FSCMs). DMs regard the debris mass as an assemblage
of solid particles, and adopt discrete element methods [5,39,59] to The governing equations adopted in our model are deduced in a
solve the governing equations of the particle system. These methods global Cartesian coordinate [55]. They can be written as
perform well in simulating dry granular flows, while they may not be
∂U ∂F ∂G
capable of capturing the two-phase nature of debris flows since they + + =S
∂t ∂x ∂y (1)
ignore the influence of fluid. By contrast, CMs view the mixture of
debris flows as a continuum medium or both the solid and liquid parts where U is the vector of conservative variables, F and G are the vectors
as continuum mediums, while FSCMs are generally the combinations of of transport fluxes in the x and y directions, respectively, and S is the
DMs and CMs [8,47,62,68]. Theoretically, since FSCMs can directly vector of source terms. Their expressions are given by
depict the two-phase nature of debris flows, they should be able to
provide more realistic simulation results. However, the computational ⎛h⎞
cost of FSCMs is still unaffordable when simulating a real debris flow U = ⎜Q x ⎟
⎜Q ⎟
events, which constrains their applications. Therefore, there are only a ⎝ y⎠ (2)
few preliminary studies adopting FSCMs to simulate rock avalanches
⎛ Qx ⎞
generated impulsive waves. Given the above reasons, perhaps CMs are
still the most widely-used models that can be put into practice in debris F = ⎜Qx 2 h + k x gh2 2⎟
⎜ Qx Qy h ⎟
flow simulation. The existing CMs normally adopt shallow water as- ⎝ ⎠ (3)
sumption to simplify the problem, so that the original three-dimen-
sional problem can be reduced to a two-dimensional problem which ⎛ Qy ⎞
takes less computational resources. A variety of depth-averaged models, G=⎜ Qx Qy h ⎟
both those based on single-phase mixture fluid theory ⎜Q 2 h + k gh2 2 ⎟⎠
⎝ y y (4)
[7,13,28,41,43,45,48,53–55] and two-phase fluid theory [50,60], have
been proposed through similar manners. They can be solved by various Er
⎛ ⎞
numerical methods, such as finite difference method, finite volume
⎜ (Ag 2
+ B ) htanα
2 −
τ b Ab hv x
⎟
method and smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Additionally, some re- S = ⎜ tan α + tan β + 1 m v x 2 + v y 2 + vz 2
⎟
cent models have taken into account the effects of i) debris flow mass ⎜ (Ag + B ) h tanβ τ b Ab hv y
⎟
variation due to entrainment/deposition processes and ii) bed curva- ⎜ tan2α + tan2β + 1 − m v x 2 + v y 2 + vz 2
⎟
⎝ ⎠ (5)
ture [23,31]. These factors play dominant role in determining the dy-
namics of some debris flows. For instance, entraining saturated material In the above equations, h is the thickness of the debris flow,
can enhance the mobility of a debris flow [56], while the centrifugal Qx = vxh and Qy = vyh are the mass fluxes in the x and y directions,
force produced by curved bed can increase the total basal normal force respectively, kx and ky are the lateral earth pressure coefficients in the x
and interstitial pressure on bed, especially in the case of fine-grained and y directions, respectively, which are calculated according to the
material flow [22,58]. These new advances are of significant im- strain rate [55], Er is the entrainment rate, A and B are the terms related
portance to the improvement of simulation accuracy. On the other to the static and centrifugal normal forces on the basal surface, re-
hand, the current models are mainly formulated to simulate debris spectively, tanα = ∂Z ∂x and tanβ = ∂Z ∂y are the slopes of the basal
flows propagating on natural grounds. This limits their application in surface in the x and y directions, respectively, Z is the basal elevation, g
the design and efficiency assessment of the check dams in debris flow is the gravitational acceleration, τb is the basal shear stress, Ab is the
gullies. Although some recent studies and commonly used commercial basal area of the control volume, vx, vy and vz are the depth-averaged
models (e.g. FLO 2D and RAMMS) have accounted for the effect of velocities in the x, y and z directions, respectively. The expressions of A,
artificial structures in their models [17,36,37,40,66], they did not B and Ab are given by
consider bed entrainment which is a critical factor when simulating the ∂k x h2 2 ∂k y h2 2
dynamic process of a debris flow. As have been illustrated by previous A=1+ tan α + tan β
∂x ∂y (6)
studies [25,27,32,33,56], ignoring bed entrainment may lead to wrong
simulation results and misinterpretation on the run-out characteristic of 2 Cy ⎛ vy ⎞2
Cx v
a debris flow, especially when most material of a debris flow comes B= ⎛ x ⎞ + ⎜ ⎟
cos α ⎝ cos α ⎠ cos β ⎝ cos β ⎠ (7)
from entrainment (e.g., run-off induced debris flows). To overcome
these drawbacks in the previous CMs, recently Shen et al. [57] devel-
Ab = Δx Δy tan2α + tan2β + 1 (8)
oped a modified single-phase depth-averaged model which can si-
multaneously consider bed entrainment and the constraint of check where Cx and Cy are the bed curvatures in the x and y directions, re-
dams. The purpose of this paper is to apply this model to the efficiency spectively, and Δx, Δy are the sizes of the control volume in the x and y
assessment of the check dams in a real debris flow gully. In this case directions, respectively.
study, we evaluate the influences of check dam location, height and In rapid granular masses flowing along mountain streams, normal
debris flow magnitude on prevention efficiencies. The outcome of this and shear stresses associated with friction and collision [3] (i.e. dis-
study can be helpful in improving current understandings toward the persive pressures) simultaneously occur within a basal shear layer
interaction between debris flows dynamics and the impeding effect of [2,21,38,67]. Some studies indicate that the granulometric properties
check dams, and the method adopted here provides a promising ap- (i.e. average grain diameter) of debris mass, which is also related to
proach for the quantitative design of check dams and their efficiency dispersive pressure, can greatly influence the run-out length of a debris
assessment. flow [6,21]. However, for simplicity, we do not consider the stresses
In the following parts, the basic principles of the modified model are caused by the dispersive pressures here. The commonly used Mohr-
briefly presented. Then the Dagou debris flow gully with check dam is Coulomb criterion is adopted to determine both the shear stresses in the
applied as a case study. debris flow (τb) and the erodible mass (τe)
τb = σ (1 − rub) tan φb + cb (9)

2
W. Shen, et al.
τe = σ (1 − rue ) tan φe + ce (10)
where σ is the total normal stress on basal surface, the subscripts b and e
refer to debris flow and erodible mass, respectively, ru is the ratio of
pore pressure u to total normal stress σ, which is an empirical para-
meter, tanφ is the effective frictional coefficient, and c is the cohesion.
The entrainment rate Er is calculated according to the momentum
conservation of the entrained mass [24]
∂Z τb − τe
Er = − =
∂t ρe vx 2 + vy 2
(11)
where ρe is the density of the entrained mass.
Substituting Eq. (9) and (10) into the above equation, the expression
of Er can be rewritten as
σ (1 − rub) tan φb + cb − σ (1 − rue ) tan φe − ce
Er =
ρe vx 2 + vy 2 (12)
In summary, the governing equations (Eq. (1)) of the adopted model
are fully closed by Eqs. (9), (10) and (11), and the three elements in
vector U (i.e., h, Qx and Qy) are the basic variables need to be calcu-
lated. These equations are discretized and solved by an explicit finite
difference scheme adopted in Shen et al. (2018).
2.2. Impeding effect of check dam
In our model, the impeding effect of check dam is considered by
imposing a velocity constraint condition on the upstream cells of the
check dams [57]. This assumption treats the check dam as a rigid
boundary condition, and the influence of check dam on the flow
rheology is not considered. The actual interaction between a debris flow
and a check dam is a much complex process. For example, impacting
with a check dam will change the water pressure in debris mass [10],
which will affect the flow rheology in turn, and so does the filtering
effect of check dam. In addition, the impact force acted by the debris
flow against a check dam is a key parameter for the design of these
defense structures [35], especially when different impact phases (i.e.
impulsive, hydrodynamic and static phases related to the compressi-
bility of the fluid-like mixture) occur [20]. However, these aspects are
out of the scope of the present study, so we ignore them in our model
for simplicity. The computational cells occupied by the check dams are
marked as check dam cells (CDCs), and their upstream neighbor cells
are specified as velocity constraint cells (VCCs). These cells are sche-
matically shown in Fig. 1. In every computational loop, the following
velocity constrain will be imposed to the VCCs
0 if hu < hd
vu = v {
ucal if hu ⩾ hd (13)
The above equation means that the debris mass in a VCC will remain
static if the thickness of the flow in the VCC (hu) is smaller than the
height of the check dam (hd) in the CDC next to it. Otherwise, the
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of check dam cells (CDCs) and velocity constraint
cells (VCCs).
3
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541
velocity value (vucal) will be updated using the computational result of
governing equations (Eq. (1)). Additionally, the check dam height will
be included in the elevation of the basal surface (Z) when calculating
vucal.
2.3. Numerical scheme
The numerical scheme is briefly introduced here, and detailed in-
formation can be found in [55]. Rectangular computational cells are
used to discretize the governing equations. The debris flow depth h is
discretized at the center of these cells, and the mass fluxes Qx and Qy are
discretized at the boundaries of these cells. The third-order Adams
predictor-corrector method [55] is used to discretize the temporal terms
(i.e., the first terms on the left hand side of Eq. (1)), and first-order
upwind method is adopted to discretize the convective terms (i.e., the
second and third terms on the left hand side of Eq. (1)). Source terms
(i.e., the right hand side of Eq. (1)) are discretized by central difference
method. Appling the above numerical scheme, the governing equations
will be transformed into linear algebraic equations which can be solved
numerically.
3. Introduction to the Dagou landslide induced debris flow
The Dagou debris flow gully is located in Dagou Village, Tianshui
City, Gansu Province, northwest China (N 34°31′59.90″, E
105°55′54.50″), and it is in the southern margin of the Chinese Loess
Plateau. Under the long-term effect of river erosion and tectonic
movement, the study area is abundant of long and narrow gullies which
are bounded by steep ridges and slopes. This type of topography makes
the region prone to geo-hazards such as landslides and debris flows. For
instance, it was reported that two massive debris flows, which occurred
in 1984 and 1991, respectively, claimed hundreds of deaths in the study
area [46].
The Dagou landslide induced debris flow is a recent catastrophic
mass movement in this region which occurred on 21th July 2013.
Unlike debris flows triggered by run-off erosion or rainsplash [9,16],
this deep-seated landslide was triggered by high bed and fissure water
pressure produced by a heavy rainfall and transformed into a fast debris
flow during its propagation process [46]. The cumulative precipitation
in the debris flow region was about 240 mm within the 7 days before
the occurrence of this debris flow [46]. The debris flow has a much
larger horizontal run-out distance L (about 1100 m) than the vertical
drop H (about 270 m), which suggests the hypermobility of the flow.
The motion of this debris flow can be divided into four stages. Firstly, a
slope failure occurred at the head the Dagou gully, and the detached
mass mainly slid on the back scarp in this stage. Then, the landslide
disintegrated and transferred into a flow-like movement when it went
through a throat region in the gully. In the third stage, the debris flow
propagated quickly along the channel, and in the meantime its volume
was significantly enlarged by entraining the saturated material on the
path. And finally, the debris flow stopped in the flat outlet of the gully
where a fan-shaped deposit was formed. The debris flow finally de-
stroyed ten houses in the accumulation zone, but fortunately no ca-
sualties were reported which attributed to a successful early warning
before the landslide. The panoramas of the Dagou debris flow catch-
ment before and after the slope failure are shown in Fig. 2. Comparison
between Figs. 2a and 1b clearly shows that the plants and the top loose
soil in the gully were entrained by the debris flow. The initial volume of
the landslide is about 151,000 m3, and about 46,000 m3 of materials
were entrained by the debris flow. Given the risk of the occurrence of
potential debris flows, a 10 m check dam (Fig. 2c) was built in the
upstream of the gully under the financial support of the local govern-
ment. The view of the source zone after constructing the check dam is
shown in Fig. 3.
The main body of the debris flow is mudstone. As illustrated by the
outcrop at the back scarp after the slope failure (Fig. 4), the strata in the
W. Shen, et al.
Fig. 2. Panoramas of the Dagou gully (a) before slope failure, (b) after slope failure but before constructing the check dam, and (c) after constructing check dam.
(These satellite images were downloaded from Google Earth).
slope consist of thick mudstone and a thin layer of loess (only a few
meters) covering on the top. Therefore, the rheological property of this
debris flow should be controlled by the rheology of the mudstone. The
influence of loess can be neglected, so we will only consider the
rheology of mudstone in the following simulations.
4. Simulation settings
The digital elevation model of the study area is built up using our
field survey data. The coordinate adopted in simulation is given in
Fig. 5. The sizes of the computational cells are 10 m in both x and y
directions. Four locations along the gully are selected as the possible
places for building a check dam. These locations D1-D4 represent up-
stream, upper and middle stream, middle and lower stream and
downstream of the gully, respectively. D1 is the location of the existing
check dam in this gully. Additionally, three cross-sections are chosen to
monitoring the discharges along the gully. The locations of the check
dams and discharge monitoring cross-sections are illustrated in Fig. 6.
4
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541
Eleven groups of simulations are conducted to investigate the in-
fluences of check dam location, height and debris flow volume on the
prevention efficiency. The detailed settings for these groups are given in
Table 1. The first group (V-ND) absent of check dams is regarded as the
reference group representing the 2013 debris flow event. The initial
volume of the debris flow is the initial volume V of the detached
mudstone in the 2013 event. Bed entrainment is considered in every
group.
The parameters adopted in each simulation group are the same
(Table 2). The effective and internal friction angles, basal cohesion and
bulk density of the debris mass are given based on the mechanical
parameters of the mudstone samples [55]. The bulk density of the
erodible mass takes the same value as that of the debris mass for sim-
plification. The effective friction angle and basal cohesion of the
erodible mass take much lower values than those of the debris mass to
enable the occurrence of entrainment. Pore pressure coefficients are
empirically given and calibrated to make the simulation results agree
well with the field observations.
W. Shen, et al.
Fig. 3. Back scarp in the source zone of Dagou gully and the check dam in the gully. The check dam is located in the throat area of the gully between the source zone
and transportation zone.
5. Results and discussions
5.1. Influence of check dam location
Fig. 7 is the isopach maps of the debris deposit under the effect of
different check dam locations. It shows that except for group V-D2
(Fig. 7c) the final distributions of the debris deposit in the other three
groups are quite similar. Although in group V-D2 the average thickness
of the deposit in the accumulation zone reduces 2–3 m, the run-out
distance and covering area are basically the same as those of without a
check dam (Fig. 7a), which means that the check dam at D2 cannot
prevent a debris flow like the 2013 event. This is perhaps caused by two
reasons. First of all, the width of the gully at D2 seems to be narrower
than the other three positions, and the slope there is also steeper.
Therefore, the capacity of reservoir there tends to be smaller. Another
Fig. 4. Outcrop at the back scarp exposed after the slope failure in the source zone of Dagou gully. The landslide mainly consists of mudstone, and the average
thickness of the loess covering upon the mudstone is only approximately 5 m.
5
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541
reason is that the velocity of the debris flow at D2 is relatively high, and
thus more debris mass is likely to surpass the dam. In the other three
situations, the check dam reduces 30–40 m of the final run-out distance.
The amounts of debris mass entrapped by the check dam in these three
situations are quite close. However, since the gully in the downstream is
wider and flatter, the length of check dam at D1 will be longer than the
rest two situations.
The above analysis suggests that those places in the upper and
middle stream where the gully is narrow and steep should not be chosen
as the dam site. In addition, the flat and wide parts in the downstream
of the gully are also not suitable dam sites, because the total en-
gineering quantity tends to be larger in these locations. In comparison,
the dam site D1 in upstream seems to be a good choice in terms of both
prevention effect and engineering quantity. Nevertheless, it illustrates
that the current check dam may still not be sufficient to prevent a debris
W. Shen, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional digital elevation model of the computational zone for simulating the Dagou landslide-induced debris flow and the coordinates in this zone.

flow as large as the 2013 event. The debris flow may still endanger the Table 1
infrastructures and properties near to the outlet of the gully. Simulation conditions in different groups.
Fig. 8 illustrates the performance of the check dam in controlling Group names Initial volume V (m3) Dam location Dam Height (m)
the discharges in the gully. It is obvious that a check dam can reduce
the discharge on the downstream side of it, while it generally does not V-ND 151,000 Absence of check –
affect the discharge on the upstream side far away from it (Fig. 8d). The dams
V-D1 151,000 D1 10
reducing effect of check dam on the discharge is more significant when V-D2 151,000 D2 10
the dam is constructed in upstream of the gully. The peak discharges at V-D3 151,000 D3 10
the three cross-sections are almost the same (about 10,000 m3/s) before V-D4 151,000 D4 10
constructing a check dam. These values slump to about 8000 m3/s V-D1-15 151,000 D1 15
V-D1-20 151,000 D1 20
when the check dam is located at D1. By contrast, the discharge de-
0.8V-D1 0.8 × 151,000 D1 10
creases in groups V-D2 and V-D3 are relatively slight. Another apparent 0.6V-D1 0.6 × 151,000 D1 10
tendency is that the propagation speed of the debris flow will decrease 0.8V-ND 0.8 × 151,000 – –
due to the impeding effect of a check dam. In addition, the debris flow 0.6V-ND 0.6 × 151,000 – –
will spread slower when the dam is located in the upper gully (Fig. 8a).

when the heights of the dam are 15 m and 20 m, respectively. The

5.2. Influences of check dam height and debris flow volume
As suggested above, the current 10 m check dam at D1 is not suf-
ficient enough to prevent a debris flow with the same scale as the 2013
event. Therefore, two groups of simulations with different check dam
heights are conducted to investigate the influence of check dam height
on the final prevention effect. The results are presented in Fig. 9. In-
tuitively, increasing check dam height will certainly reduce the amount
of debris mass that rushes out the gully. The simulation results agree
well with this intuition, and more importantly it can give a quantitative
assessment. The final run-out distance can reduce about 50 m and 80 m
prevent effect of a 15 m check dam at D1 can be regarded as sufficient if
the front of the debris flow is thought to be far away enough to the
nearest building.
The initial volume of a debris flow influences the final run-out
distance even without the effect of check dams. This dependency of the
run-out length on the volume of the debris flow can be also derived
from some empirical relationships [14,52]. Fig. 10 illustrates the im-
peding effect of the current check dam on two different initial scales of
debris flows. It shows that a debris flow has 0.8 times of the volume of
the 2013 event can still threaten the residence area that is close to the

Fig. 6. Original thickness distribution of the Dagou landslide, the locations of the check dams and the discharge monitoring profiles in the simulations.

6
W. Shen, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

Table 2
Parameters for simulating the Dagou landslide-induced debris flow.
Parameters Pore pressure coefficient ru Effective friction angle φ Basal cohesion c Internal friction angle φi Bulk density ρ
– ° kPa ° g/cm3

Debris mass 0.8 11 43.9 30 2.19

Erodible mass 0.98 5 5 – 2.19

Fig. 7. Simulated final thickness distributions of the Dagou landslide-induced debris flow in groups V-ND and V-D1 to V-D4.

7
W. Shen, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

Fig. 8. Influence of check dam location on the discharges at the three monitoring profiles in Dagou gully.

outlet of the gully (Fig. 10a), while a debris flow has 0.6 times this
initial volume is more likely to stop before reaching the outlet. The
current check dam can further reduce the run-out distance in both
cases. Therefore, it can be concluded that the current check dam in
Dagou gully may be efficient enough to prevent a debris flow with
about 0.8 times of the initial volume of the 2013 event.
5.3. Influences of check dams on debris flow dynamics
feature is that the peak average velocity of the debris flow decreases
with the location of the dam from the downstream to the upstream of
the gully. Additionally, the average velocity will decrease with the in-
crease of check dam height. Similarly, a check dam can reduce the total
entrainment volume (Fig. 12). The constrain effect of check dam on bed
entrainment tends to be more obvious when it is constructed in the
upstream of the gully. The characteristic data in Table 3 can well
support the above analysis.

The average velocity and entrainment process curves of the debris
flow in different groups are used to analyze the influences of check
dams on the dynamics of this debris flow. The average velocity curves
(Fig. 11) show that the average velocity of the debris flow will be sig-
nificantly reduced due to the impact of the check dam. An apparent
6. Conclusions
The prevention effect of the check dam in Dagou gully is evaluated
by a modified finite different model. It shows that the current 10 m dam
may be insufficient to prevent a debris flow event as that occurred in

Fig. 9. Simulated final thickness distributions of the debris flow deposit under the effect of the check dams at D1 with different heights.

8
W. Shen, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

Fig. 10. Simulated final thickness distributions of the debris flow deposit with different initial volumes under the effect of the check dam at D1.

this gully in 2013. However, if the initial volume of a new debris flow is
no larger than 0.8 times the volume of the 2013 event, the current
check dam may perform efficiently enough. Otherwise, a 15 m or
higher check dam should be constructed to stop a debris flow like the
2013 event. Further analysis indicates that the location of the check
dam can significantly influence the dynamic characteristic of the debris
flow. Generally, if the check dam is located in the upper part of the
gully, it will perform better in controlling the peak discharge, total
average velocity and bed entrainment extent. The dam location in up-
stream of this gully should be a suitable place in terms of both pre-
vention effect and engineering quantity. The simulations also suggest
that those places in the upper and middle stream of the gully with

Fig. 11. Simulated average velocity curves of the debris flow in groups V-ND, V-D1 to V-D4, V-D1-15, and V-D1-20.

9
W. Shen, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541

Fig. 12. Simulated total volume curves of the debris flow in groups V-ND, V-D1 to V-D4, V-D1-15, and V-D1-20.

Table 3 reading the manuscript and providing constructive comments to help us

Simulated entrainment volumes, deposit volumes and the peak average velo- improve the quality of this paper. This research is funded by the
cities of the debris flow in different groups. National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC1501302), the
Groups Entrainment volume Deposition volume Peak average velocity Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41877242), and the
m3 m3 m/s China Scholarship Council (CSC) – University of Bologna Joint
Scholarship (File No. 201806560011).
V-ND 45,900 101,900 13.3
V-D1 41,700 71,800 9.5
V-D2 42,800 90,600 11.2 References
V-D3 43,000 70,500 12.7
V-D4 45,300 75,200 13.3 [1] Adhikari DP, Koshimizu S. Debris flow disaster at Larcha, upper Bhotekoshi Valley,
V-D1-15 40,600 60,300 9.5 central Nepal. Isl Arc 2005;14(4):410–23.
V-D1-20 39,000 48,100 9.5 [2] Armanini A. Granular flows driven by gravity. J Hydraul Res 2013;51(2):111–20.
[3] Bagnold RA. Experiments on a gravity-free dispersion of large solid spheres in a
Newtonian fluid under shear. Proc Roy Soc London Ser A, Math Phys Sci
1954;225(1160):49–63.
narrow and steep topography should be avoided choosing as the dam [4] Banihabib ME, Forghani A. An assessment framework for the mitigation effects of
sites. In addition, the flat and wide regions in the downstream of the check dams on debris flow. Catena 2017;152:277–84.
gully are also not suitable choices because they may require more en- [5] Beyabanaki SAR, Bagtzoglou AC, Liu L. Applying disk-based discontinuous de-
formation analysis (DDA) to simulate Donghekou landslide triggered by the
gineering quantity. Wenchuan earthquake. Geomech Geoeng 2016;11(3):177–88.
The effect of check dam is simplified as a rigid constraint in the [6] Cagnoli B, Piersanti A. Grain size and flow volume effects on granular flow mobility
present study, while the actual condition regarding to the interaction in numerical simulations: 3-D discrete element modeling of flows of angular rock
fragments. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 2015;120(4):2350–66.
between a debris flow and a check dam is much complex. This inter- [7] Calvello M, Cuomo S, Ghasemi P. The role of observations in the inverse analysis of
action process should be further investigated in order to obtain reliable landslide propagation. Comput Geotech 2017;92:11–21.
impact forces for the design of check dam. Furthermore, before putting [8] Canelas RB, Domínguez JM, Crespo AJC, Gómez-Gesteira M, Ferreira RML. A
Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics discretization for the modelling of free surface
into practice, the proposed model needs to be further validated in the
flows and rigid body dynamics. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 2015;78(9):581–93.
future by flume tests or real debris flow events with check dam sce- [9] Cascini L, Cuomo S, De Santis A. Numerical modelling of the December 1999
narios. Cervinara flow-like mass movements (Southern Italy). Italian J Eng Geol Environ.
2011:635–44.
[10] Cascini L, Cuomo S, Pastor M, Rendina I. SPH-FDM propagation and pore water
CRediT authorship contribution statement pressure modelling for debris flows in flume tests. Eng Geol 2016;213:74–83.
[11] Chanson H. Sabo check dams - mountain protection systems in Japan. Int J River
Basin Manage 2004;2(4):301–7.
Wei Shen: Conceptualization, Software, Writing - original draft. [12] Chen X, Cui P, You Y, Chen J, Li D. Engineering measures for debris flow hazard
Tonglu Li: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology. Ping Li: mitigation in the Wenchuan earthquake area. Eng Geol 2015;194:73–85.
Writing - review & editing, Formal analysis, Resources, Data curation. [13] Christen M, Kowalski J, Bartelt P. RAMMS: Numerical simulation of dense snow
avalanches in three-dimensional terrain. Cold Reg Sci Technol 2010;63(1):1–14.
Yulu Lei: Visualization. [14] Corominas J. The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides.
Can Geotech J 1996;33(2):260–71.
[15] Cui Y, Cheng D, Choi CE, Jin W, Lei Y, Kargel JS. The cost of rapid and haphazard
Declaration of Competing Interest
urbanization: lessons learned from the Freetown landslide disaster. Landslides
2019;16(6):1167–76.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [16] Cuomo S, Chareyre B, d'Arista P, Della Sala M, Cascini L. Micromechanical mod-
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- elling of rainsplash erosion in unsaturated soils by Discrete Element Method. Catena
2016;147:146–52.
ence the work reported in this paper. [17] Cuomo S, Moretti S, Aversa S. Effects of artificial barriers on the propagation of
debris avalanches. Landslides 2019;16(6):1077–87.
[18] Evans SG, Guthrie RH, Roberts NJ, Bishop NF. The disastrous 17 February 2006
Acknowledgement rockslide-debris avalanche on Leyte Island, Philippines: a catastrophic landslide in
tropical mountain terrain. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 2007;7(1):89–101.
We would like to thank the anonymous referees for carefully [19] Evans SG, Tutubalina OV, Drobyshev VN, Chernomorets SS, McDougall S, Petrakov

10
W. Shen, et al.
DA, et al. Catastrophic detachment and high-velocity long-runout flow of Kolka
Glacier, Caucasus Mountains, Russia in 2002. Geomorphology
2009;105(3):314–21.
[20] Federico F, Amoruso A. Impact between fluids and solids. Comparison between
analytical and FEA results. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36(1):154–64.
[21] Federico F, Cesali C. An energy-based approach to predict debris flow mobility and
analyze empirical relationships. Can Geotech J 2015;52(12):2113–33.
[22] Federico F, Cesali C. Coupled effects of pore-water pressure evolution, slope cur-
vature, and mass variation on the kinematics of rapidly sliding fine-grained mate-
rials. Int J Geomech 2017;17(10):04017088.
[23] Federico F, Cesali C. Effects of granular collisions on the rapid coarse-grained
materials flow. Géotech Lett 2019;9(4):278–83.
[24] Fraccarollo L, Capart H. Riemann wave description of erosional dam-break flows. J
Fluid Mech 2002;461:183–228.
[25] Frank F, McArdell BW, Huggel C, Vieli A. The importance of entrainment and
bulking on debris flow runout modeling: examples from the Swiss Alps. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 2015;15(11):2569–83.
[26] García-Martínez R, López JL. Debris flows of December 1999 in Venezuela. Debris-
flow hazards and related phenomena. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg; 2005. p. 519–38.
[27] Hungr O, Evans SG. Entrainment of debris in rock avalanches: an analysis of a long
run-out mechanism. GSA Bull 2004;116(9–10):1240–52.
[28] Hungr O, McDougall S. Two numerical models for landslide dynamic analysis.
Comput Geosci 2009;35(5):978–92.
[29] Ikeya H. Debris flow and its countermeasures in Japan. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol –
Bulletin de l'Association Internationale de Géologie de l'Ingénieur
1989;40(1):15–33.
[30] Iverson RM. The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 1997;35(3):245–96.
[31] Iverson RM, George DL, Logan M. Debris flow runup on vertical barriers and ad-
verse slopes. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 2016;121(12):2333–57.
[32] Iverson RM, Ouyang C. Entrainment of bed material by Earth-surface mass flows:
review and reformulation of depth-integrated theory. Rev Geophys
2015;53(1):27–58.
[33] Iverson RM, Reid ME, Logan M, LaHusen RG, Godt JW, Griswold JP. Positive
feedback and momentum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sedi-
ment. Nature Geosci 2011;4:116.
[34] Jakob M, Hungr O. Introduction. Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. p. 1–7.
[35] Jeong S, Lee K. Analysis of the impact force of debris flows on a check dam by using
a coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method. Comput Geotech 2019;116:103214.
[36] Kattel P, Kafle J, Fischer J-T, Mergili M, Tuladhar BM, Pudasaini SP. Interaction of
two-phase debris flow with obstacles. Eng Geol 2018;242:197–217.
[37] Kwan JSH, Sze EHY, Lam C. Finite element analysis for rockfall and debris flow
mitigation works. Can Geotech J 2018;1–26.
[38] Lanzoni S, Gregoretti C, Stancanelli LM. Coarse-grained debris flow dynamics on
erodible beds. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 2017;122(3):592–614.
[39] Law RPH, Choi CE, Ng CWW. Discrete-element investigation of influence of gran-
ular debris flow baffles on rigid barrier impact. Can Geotech J 2015;53(1):179–85.
[40] Liu J, Nakatani K, Mizuyama T. Effect assessment of debris flow mitigation works
based on numerical simulation by using Kanako 2D. Landslides 2013;10(2):161–73.
[41] McDougall S, Hungr O. Dynamic modelling of entrainment in rapid landslides. Can
Geotech J 2005;42(5):1437–48.
[42] Mizuyama T. Structural countermeasures for debris flow disasters. Int J Eros
Control Eng 2008;1(2):38–43.
[43] Ouyang C, He S, Xu Q, Luo Y, Zhang W. A MacCormack-TVD finite difference
method to simulate the mass flow in mountainous terrain with variable computa-
tional domain. Comput Geosci 2013;52:1–10.
[44] Pal D, Galelli S, Tang H, Ran Q. Toward improved design of check dam systems: A
case study in the Loess Plateau, China. J Hydrol 2018;559:762–73.
[45] Pastor M, Haddad B, Sorbino G, Cuomo S, Drempetic V. A depth-integrated, coupled
SPH model for flow-like landslides and related phenomena. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 2009;33(2):143–72.
11
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103541
[46] Peng J, Fan Z, Wu D, Zhuang J, Dai F, Chen W, et al. Heavy rainfall triggered
loess–mudstone landslide and subsequent debris flow in Tianshui, China. Eng Geol
2015;186:79–90.
[47] Peng X, Yu P, Chen G, Xia M, Zhang Y. Development of a coupled DDA–SPH method
and its application to dynamic simulation of landslides involving solid-fluid inter-
action. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2019.
[48] Pirulli M, Pastor M. Numerical study on the entrainment of bed material into rapid
landslides. Géotechnique 2012;62(11):959–72.
[49] Piton G, Carladous S, Recking A, Tacnet JM, Liébault F, Kuss D, et al. Why do we
build check dams in Alpine streams? An historical perspective from the French
experience. Earth Surf Proc Land 2017;42(1):91–108.
[50] Pudasaini SP. A general two-phase debris flow model. J Geophys Res Earth Surf
2012;117(F3).
[51] Ren D. The devastating Zhouqu storm-triggered debris flow of August 2010: likely
causes and possible trends in a future warming climate. J Geophys Res: Atmos
2014;119(7):3643–62.
[52] Rickenmann D. Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazards
1999;19(1):47–77.
[53] Sassa K, Nagai O, Solidum R, Yamazaki Y, Ohta H. An integrated model simulating
the initiation and motion of earthquake and rain induced rapid landslides and its
application to the 2006 Leyte landslide. Landslides 2010;7(3):219–36.
[54] Savage SB, Hutter K. The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough
incline. J Fluid Mech 1989;199:177–215.
[55] Shen W, Li T, Li P, Guo J. A modified finite difference model for the modeling of
flowslides. Landslides 2018;15(8):1577–93.
[56] Shen W, Li T, Li P, Shen Y, Lei Y, Guo J. The influence of the bed entrainment-
induced rheology and topography changes on the propagation of flow-like land-
slides: a numerical investigation. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2019;78(7):4771–85.
[57] Shen W, Wang D, Qu H, Li T. The effect of check dams on the dynamic and bed
entrainment processes of debris flows. Landslides 2019;16(11):2201–17.
[58] Siviglia A, Cantelli A. Effect of bottom curvature on mudflow dynamics: theory and
experiments. Water Resour Res 2005;41(11).
[59] Song Y, Huang D, Zeng B. GPU-based parallel computation for discontinuous de-
formation analysis (DDA) method and its application to modelling earthquake-in-
duced landslide. Comput Geotech 2017;86:80–94.
[60] Tai Y-C, Heß J, Wang Y. Modeling two-phase debris flows with grain-fluid se-
paration over rugged topography: application to the 2009 Hsiaolin event, Taiwan. J
Geophys Res: Earth Surf 2019;124(2):305–33.
[61] Takahashi T, Das DK. Debris flow: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. CRC
Press; 2014.
[62] Tan H, Chen S. A hybrid DEM-SPH model for deformable landslide and its generated
surge waves. Adv Water Resour 2017;108:256–76.
[63] Tang C, Rengers N, van Asch TWJ, Yang YH, Wang GF. Triggering conditions and
depositional characteristics of a disastrous debris flow event in Zhouqu city, Gansu
Province, northwestern China. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2011;11(11):2903–12.
[64] Wang GL. Lessons learned from protective measures associated with the 2010
Zhouqu debris flow disaster in China. Nat Hazards 2013;69(3):1835–47.
[65] Wieczorek GF, Larsen MC, Eaton LS, Morgan BA, Blair JL. Debris-flow and flooding
hazards associated with the December 1999 storm in coastal Venezuela and stra-
tegies for mitigation. Open-File Report. – ed: US Geological Survey 2001.
[66] Xiong M, Meng X, Wang S, Guo P, Li Y, Chen G, et al. Effectiveness of debris flow
mitigation strategies in mountainous regions. Prog Phys Geogr: Earth Environ
2016;40(6):768–93.
[67] Zhang D, Foda MA. Internal wave—granular temperature interaction: an energy
balance study on granular flow. Acta Mech 1999;136(3):155–70.
[68] Zhao T, Utili S, Crosta GB. Rockslide and impulse wave modelling in the vajont
reservoir by DEM-CFD analyses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2016;49(6):2437–56.
[69] Zhou NQ, Zhao S. Urbanization process and induced environmental geological
hazards in China. Nat Hazards 2013;67(2):797–810.
[70] Ziegler AD, Cantarero SI, Wasson RJ, Srivastava P, Spalzin S, Chow WTL, et al. A
clear and present danger: Ladakh's increasing vulnerability to flash floods and
debris flows. Hydrol Process 2016;30(22):4214–23.