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

net/publication/258550978

Debris Flow Impact Estimation steep slopes

Conference Paper · September 2009

CITATIONS READS

160 7,075

5 authors, including:

Johannes Hübl Jürgen Suda

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
387 PUBLICATIONS 3,742 CITATIONS 82 PUBLICATIONS 737 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dirk Proske Roland Kaitna

Bern University of Applied Sciences University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
171 PUBLICATIONS 1,367 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 1,548 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Johannes Hübl on 02 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Symposium on Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering
Ohrid/Macedonia, 1-5 September 2009
Paper: A56

Debris Flow Impact Estimation

Johannes Hübl1, Jürgen Suda2, Dirk Proske1, Roland Kaitna1, Christian Scheidl1
1
Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences, Vienna, Austria, e-mail: johannes.huebl@boku.ac.at
2
Institute of Structural Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Applied
Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Abstract. Alpine regions are exposed to several gravitational hazard processes.

Such processes are debris flows, landslides or avalanches. Human settlements
are protected amongst other things by structures adjusted to a certain process.
The preparation of methods of calculation for the estimation of a debris flow
impact force against such protection structures made of structural concrete is
the content of this paper. The paper is strongly related to the Austrian Code Se-
ries ONR 2480X.
Keywords: Debris flow, debris flow impact, mitigation structures

1 Introduction

Alpine regions are characterized by some special conditions, which influence struc-
tural concrete. For example, on one hand extreme climatic condition can be found in
this region, but also some mass transportation processes can be found on the other
hand. Such processes often expose a hazard to humans and human settlements. Ex-
amples of processes driven by gravity are debris flows, landslides, rock falls or ava-
lanches. Debris flows can transport up to several hundred thousand cubic meter of
sediment from the mountain torrent catchment into the valley and deposit it onto an
alluvial cone at the deposit area. Because such events occur very irregularly and very
locally, they are difficult to observe and numerically to describe.
To develop Alpine regions and to permit human settlement, different mitigation
measures against such hazardous processes are necessary. Based on an engineers
view such measures can be distinguished into structural and non-structural mitigation
measures. Structural mitigation measures are for example debris flow barriers. Fur-
thermore mitigation measures can be divided into active and passive mitigation
138

measures. Active mitigation measures intervene direct into the process and prevent or
dampen the process itself whereas passive measures not directly influence the haz-
ardous process and only limit the damage caused by the process.
One type of structural mitigation measures are debris flow barriers (Fig. 1). Debris
flow barriers consist of a debris flow breaking structure, a retention basin and a pre-
structure. Usually the debris flow barriers are built of structural concrete. The barrier
itself consists of several piers and walls. More information about the general design
can be found in [4], [6], [9], [12]. Because these structures are entirely designed as
protection measure against debris flows, first the term debris flow should be intro-
duced.

Fig. 1. Example of debris flow barrier made of structural concrete (view upstream)

Fig. 2. Debris flow surges in the Lattenbach catchment, Tyrol, Austria (unpublished)
 139

Debris flows are extremely mobile, highly concentrated mixtures of poorly sorted
sediment in water (Pierson [22]) and may appear as different surges (Fig. 2). The
material incorporated is inherently complex, varying from clay sized solids to boul-
ders of several meters in diameter. Due to their high density (exceeding that of water
by more than a factor of two) and their high mobility, debris flows represent a serious
hazard for people, settlements, and infrastructure in mountainous regions. The front
of a debris flow can reach velocities up to 30 m/s (e.g. Costa [5], Rickenmann [23])
and peak discharges tens of times greater than for floods occurring in the same
catchment (e.g. Pierson [22]; Hungr et al. [14] (ONR 28400 [21]).
Fig. 3 shows the typical feature of a debris flow longitudinal section.

Fig. 3. Sketch of a debris flow surge (Pierson [22])

2 Debris Flow Impact Models

2.1 Observations and Experiments

To estimate the impact force of a debris flow against a concrete structure observations
are required. Currently it is not possible to develop models only based on theoretical
considerations.
The observations and experiments can be distinguished into observations under
real-world conditions and experiments in laboratories. The observations under real-
world conditions allow the measurement of impact forces of real debris flow events.
Examples of such measurements can be found by Zhang [32] in China, Hübl et al.
[11] in Austria or Wendeler et al. [30] in Switzerland. Fig. 4 shows a measurement
station during the observations from Hübl.
However the measurement of further indicators, such as speed, density or flow
height is often complicated. Also the time of the debris flow is difficult to predict.
Therefore besides field measurement also experiments in laboratories are carried out.
140

These experiments are mainly miniaturized experiments (Fig. 5), since real size de-
bris flows experiments are virtually impossibly to carry out in laboratories.

Fig. 4. Experimental set-up for debris flow impact measurement before (left) and after the
debris flow (right)

Fig. 5. Debris flow impact in a miniaturized test set-up

In the last years results of such experiments were published by Scotton [24], Ishi-
kawa et al. [15], Hübl & Holzinger [13] und Tiberghien et al. [26]. Fig. 5 shows an
example of a test by Hübl & Holzinger in order to derive maximum impact forces on
structures. The disadvantages of this type of tests are possible scale effects.
 141

2.1 Types of models

To estimate the impact force of debris flows against barriers several different models
exist. The models can be classified into hydraulic and solid collision models. The
hydraulic models are further separated into hydro-static and hydro-dynamic models.
Examples of hydro-static models are formulas by Lichtenhahn [20] und Armanini [2].
Still, in practice the simple formula by Lichtenhahn is very popular, because only the
debris flow height is required. And because often the height of the structures is taken
as debris flow height, there are no unknowns in the formula and the engineer can
easily design.
In general, the hydro-static formulas have the appearance:
pmax k ˜ U Mu ˜ g ˜ hMu (1)
with pmax maximum debris flow impact pressure in N/m2*
k empirical factor
UMu density of debris flow in kg/m3
g gravity in m/s2
hMu debris flow height in m
*The maximum here is not related to statistical considerations, but to the maxi-
mum pressure value in the load distribution on the structure.
In contrast, the hydro-dynamic formulas have the appearance:

pmax a ˜ U Mu ˜ v2 (2)

with pmax maximum debris flow impact pressure in N

a empirical factor
v velocity of debris flow in m/s
The empirical factor value a depends on the flow type. For example, for laminar
flow and fine grained material Watanabe & Ikeya [29] estimate 2.0, for coarse mate-
rial values up to 4.0 are given by Egli [7] and Geo [8]. Zhang [32] recommends val-
ues between 3.0 and 5.0. The values of Zhang are based on field measurements of
over 70 debris flows.
In some publications, for example in Vandine [27], Ishikawa et al. [15] or Hungr
et al. [14] a is considered as flow cross section. However, then the units have to be
adapted.
A special representation of the hydro-dynamic formula is given by Hübl &
Holzinger. Here the measured impact force (miniaturized tests) is normalized against
the hydro-dynamic formula. Furthermore the Froude-Number has been used to
achieve scale free relationships and has been related to the normalized impact force.
Based on a correlation analysis a numerical expression is given as:

pmax 5 ˜ U Mu ˜ v 0.8 ˜ ( g ˜ hMu )0.6 (3)

Mixed models considering hydro-static and hydro-dynamic elements can be found

from Kherkeulitze [17] and Arattano & Franzi [1].
Besides the hydro-related models also models for solid body impacts are used for
the estimation of debris flow impact forces. Here a shift towards rock fall force esti-
142

mation can be found. The solid body impact models are mainly based on the Hertz
model assuming elastic material behavior. However, also alternative models consider-
ing viscous-elastic and elastic-plastic behavior are known (Kuwabara & Kono [18],
Lee & Hermann [19], Walton & Braun [28] and Thornton [25]). Furthermore some
publications use the Kelvin-Voigt model based on spring-damper-systems.
Additionally there exist some special models which are not clearly related to some
mentioned type of models. For example Yu [31] has published an empirical model.
Also Aulitzky [3] has introduced a model considering the shock wave speed inside a
debris flow. However both models use input data, like the shock wave speed, which
are extremely difficult to obtain for real-world debris flows.
After a short overview about the variety of models, hydro-static and hydro-
dynamic models are more intensively discussed. In Fig. 6 data from field measure-
ments and from miniaturized laboratory tests is shown in a diagram, which considers
on abscise the Froude number to achieve scale-invariant description and on the ordi-
nate measured impact forces normalized either by the hydro-static (right) or hydro-
dynamic (left) models.
Furthermore in the diagram two rectangle areas are visible: one on the left side
reaching from the Froude number 0 to about 2 and the other one reaching from the
Froude number 1.2 to 12. The second rectangle reaching from 1.2 to 2.0 is the range,
in which mainly the miniaturized tests were carried out, whereas the area from 0 to 2
is the range mainly found in field measurements. Only the tests by Tiberghien et al.
[26] were miniaturized tests reaching this area. Concluding one can state, that models
are developed of an input data range which does not comply with field data. This is a
systemic error.

Fig. 6. Relationship between debris flow impact force and Froude-number considering field
data as well as miniaturized laboratory tests
 143

Additionally it becomes obvious on Fig. 6, that the hydro-dynamic models do not

perform very well with low velocities and low Froude numbers. This is understand-
able since hydro-dynamic effects are not dominating in hydro-static pressure condi-
tions. On Froude numbers higher 2 however, hydro-dynamic models work very well.
In contrast, hydro-static models are very appropriate for low Froude numbers, less
then 1. For higher Froude numbers and velocities impact forces are underestimated. It
can be summarizing that hydro-static and hydro-dynamic models do not perform very
well in Froude region found in field data. As a proof, Table 1 lists data from some
field debris flow estimations and measurements.

Table 1. Debris flow properties estimated on field events based on Costa [6] and computed
impact forces, empirical factors k and a, and the Froude-number
v pmax
Torrent hMU [m] UMu [kg/m3] k** a** Fr**
[m/s] in MN/m2
Rio Reventado 8-12 1130-1980 2.9-10 0.7 4.67 18.67 0.50
Hunshui Gully 3-5 2000-2300 10-12 0.7 8.33 2.31 1.90
Bullock Greek 1.0 1950-2130 2.5-5.0 0.13 6.50 4.06 1.26
Pine Creek 0.1-1.5 1970-2030 10-31.1 0.3 21.43 0.38 7.56
Wrightwood Canyon
1.0 1620-2130 0.6-3.8 0.07 3.68 4.09 0.95
(1969)
Wrightwood Canyon
1.2 2400 1.2-4.4 0.15 5.21 6.94 0.87
(1941)
4.3-
Lesser Almatinka 2.0-10.4 2000 0.6 4.29 6.12 0.84
11.1
12.7-
Nojiri River 2.3-2.4 1810-1950 0.44 10.07 1.37 2.71
13.0
* Mean values and based on the Hübl & Holzinger Formula
** Mean values

Parallel to the comparison of field data and the models, also the hydro-static and
hydro-dynamic models should be directly compared by transferring the hydro-
dynamic models into hydro-static models. This can be carried out by the application
of the Bernoulli-energy line and results in empirical factors k for all models.
The Bernoulli-energy concept is here used in the following form:

v2
k ˜ U Mu ˜ g ˜ h a ˜ U Mu ˜ (4)
2
The factor 1/2 was already been visible in Fig. 6, when different scaling was used
on the left and right axis. Table 2 lists the computed empirical k-factors for all formu-
las. These values can now be compared with the observed values given in Table 1. In
general, the k-factors show a great diversity. This is not surprising, since the k-factor
has to consider many different aspects of such an impact. In Table 1 the factor mainly
reaches from 6.0 to 7.0 but two values exceed 10. This is in accordance with the re-
sults of Zhang, who estimated the factor based on field measurements between 6.0
and 10.0. Also the formulas from Armanini and Hübl & Holzinger with k-factors
between 5.0 and 7.5 are in agreement with the observed field data.
144

Table 2. Estimation of empirical k-factors for different models

Empirical k-
Author Remark
factor
Kherkheulidze a1.0 Mean values, no maximum values
VanDine 1.25 × A Transferring difficult, introduction of an area A
Watanabe &
4.0
Ikeya
Lichtenhahn 2.8-4.4 Transfer from density water to density debris flow
Armanini 5.0
Zhang 6.0-10 Field measurement (no scaling)
Hübl & Holzinger 7.5 Transfer difficult: exponents
Tiberghien 13.5 Miniaturized test set-up
Aulizky 25.0-50.0 Shock wave speed in debris flow estimated

As already in the explanation of Fig. 6 shown the miniaturized measurements are

often not in the region of field observed Froude numbers. Therefore the robustness
and extrapolation capability of the regression formulas has to be proofed. This will be
shown for the Hübl & Holzinger formulae. Here the robustness of non-linear com-
puted regression formulae is tested carrying out the following steps:
-Incremental consideration of further data (Scotton, Tiberghien et al. und Ishikawa
et al.)
-Exclusion of outliers
-Limitation of data for some Froude number regions used for regression
-Test of alternative mathematical formulations like Harris-model, hyperbolic
modes, Hoerl models, root models etc.)
As an example of the investigation, the regression coefficients of the formulae type
are summarized in Table 3.
pmeasurement v
K '' a ˜ Fr b with K '' and Fr , (5)
U ˜v 2
g˜h

Table 3. Results of non-linear regression for different populations

Data from Data from Hübl Data from Hübl &

Hübl & & Holzinger, Holzinger, Scot- Selected
Data from
Holzinger, Scotton, Ti- ton, Tiberghien et Data from data with
Hübl &
Scotton, berghien et al., al. and Ishikawa et Hübl & Foude-
Holzinger
Tiberghien et Ishikawa et al. al. without outliers Holzinger number
and Scotton
al. and Ishi- and Froude- and Froude- <3
kawa et al. number <3 number <3
a 5.2 5.0 5.0 5.62 4.9 5.9
b -1.6 -1.6 -1.30 -1.66 -1.29 -1.50
r 0.96 0.881 0.9645 0.8755 0.966

The design engineer has to choose from the variety of models. For this selection
the models should fulfil some general requirements:
- Models should be convergent, meaning that with increasing quality of input data
the quality of the model result should also increase.
 145

- Models should be robust, meaning that small changes in the input data should
yield only to small changes in the results. Even further the model may perhaps ap-
plied in input data regions, in which it was not originally developed.
- Models should not have a systematically error meaning that the average statistical
error is zero.
Furthermore model requirements:
- The input data for the models has to be either computational able or measurable.
Even further input data with high weighting inside the formulae should be more pre-
cisely known than the other input data.
- The model should be easy applicable and be usable in practice.
- The model should at least partially have some theoretical background.
- The model should be chosen according with historical models, if these historical
models have been proven of value.
- If two models reach the same accurateness, the model with less required input
data should be chosen.
As shown already, all introduced models consider of significant errors in some re-
gions of the Froude-number. However, it is then very important to clearly state the
application limits. Some of the inherent model errors should be stated clearly to better
understand the model capability.
All hydraulic models mentioned so far are based on Newton fluids (the viscosity is
independent from the velocity). However since debris flow is a highly concentrated
mixture of poorly sorted sediment in water, the viscose shear strength is velocity
dependent and additionally other effects like plastic strain, turbulences and dispersion
appear. All this effects are only included in the empirical k- or a-factor.
The impact of solid particles is only considered by Vandine [27]. However, meas-
urements by Zhang [32] show, that the single boulder impacts against solid structures
yield to the highest impact forces. To model this hard impacts further information
about the stiffness and strength of the impacting bodies are required. The modelling
by forces would not be possible anymore. This would yield to a dramatic increase in
the modelling complexity and would finally lead to models, which are not applicable
under practice conditions. Furthermore such a model would require extensive input
data. For simplification reasons the so-called Hertz impact model based on elastic
material properties is preferred. The related time-force-functions for debris flow are
currently under development. Some work is done by Tiberghien et al. [26] and Zhang
[32].
Additionally, impacts of solid particles in fluids have to consider so-called hydrau-
lic active mass of the fluid. Such hydraulic active mass, which virtually increases the
mass of the impacting body, can reach up to 20 % of the original mass of the impact-
ing body. This effect increasing the impact force is counterbalanced by a decrease of
the impact force by deposited debris flow material in front of the concrete elements.
Preliminary tests carried out at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences have shown a significant effect. However both, the hydraulic active mass
and deposited debris flow material are not considered in the model.
146

4 Conclusions

Based on the presented investigation, the new ONR 24801 will include two design
models for debris flow structural concrete barriers. Since hydro-static models have
been applied very successfully over the last 30 years, the model of Armanini for the
computation of the maximum pressure will be included. On the other hand, parallel to
Armanini, the new model of Hübl & Holzinger will be included in the code. The
model shows a robust behavior, gives rather accurate results and is still easy to use.
However the regulation of the maximum impact force is useless without giving
further information about the load pattern. The load pattern will parallel to the maxi-
mum impact force be regulated in the ONR 24801. Fig. 7 shows load patterns of
debris flow based on works by Wendeler et al. [30] and miniaturized tests by Hübl &
Holzinger. On the right side the suggested load patterns are shown. The choice of
rectangular or trapezium load pattern considers a possible debris flow in several
waves filling up successive the deposit space in front of the debris flow barrier.
Therefore the impact forces are climbing up the barrier. A parallel decrease of the
impact forces at lower level has not been considered yet.

Fig. 7. Observed and suggested load patterns for debris flow impacts

Furthermore debris flows do not necessarily hit the barrier straight. Perhaps often
the debris flow hits the barrier in a different angle. Therefore side impact forces have
to be considered as well. Unfortunately in this field currently no tests or field meas-
urement data is available. Overall a 1/5 up to 1/3 of the frontal impact force should be
used. Besides impact forces also breaking forces of debris flows have sometimes to
be considered, however they are not discussed here.

References

1. Arattano. M. & Franzi. L.: On the evaluation of debris flows dynamics by means of mathe-
matical models. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (2003) 3: pp. 539-544
2. Armanini. A.: On the dynamic impact of debris flows. Recent developments on debris flows.
Lecture notes in Earth Sciences 64. 1997. Springer Verlag. Berlin
3. Aulitzky. H.: Vorlesungsmaterial Muren. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
 147

4. Bergmeister. K.. Suda. J.. Hübl. J.. Rudolf-Miklau. F. (2008): Schutzbauwerke gegen Wild-
bachgefah-ren. In: Bergmeister. K.. Wörner. J.-D. (Hrsg.). Beton Kalender 2008 Bd. 1 II.
Ernst & Sohn Verlag. Berlin, pp. 89-289
5. Costa. J.E. 1984. Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flows. In Costa. J.E.; Fleischer. P.J.
(eds.): De-velopments and Applications of Geomorphology. Berlin: Springer: pp. 268-317
6. Costa. J.E.: Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flows. In Costa. J.E.; Fleischer. P.J. (eds.):
Develop-ments and Applications of Geomorphology. 1984. Berlin: Springer: Pp. 268-317
7. Egli. T.: Objektschutz gegen gravitative Naturgefahren. 2005. Vereinigung Kantonaler
Feuerversiche-rungen VKF. Bern
8. GEO: Review of Natural Terrain Landslide Debris-Resting Barrier Design. Geotechnical
Engineering Office. Geo Report No. 104. Civil Engineering Department. Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
9. Gotthalmseder. P. (1998): Bautypen der Geschiebebewirtschaftung. In: Wildbach- und Law-
inenverbau. 62. Jg. Nr. 136. Pp. 81-102
10. Hertz. H.: Über die Berührung fester elastischer Körper. Journal für die reine und
angewandte Mathematik 92. 1881. Seite 156-171
11. Hübl, J. (2006): Vorläufige Erkenntnisse aus 1:1 Murenversuchen: Prozessverständnis und
Belastungsannahmen. Geotechnik und Naturgefahren: Balanceakt zwischen Kostendruck
und Notwendigkeit (VÖBU), 19.10.2006, Wien
12. Hübl, J., Fiebiger, G. (2005): Debris-flow mitigation measures, in: Debris-flow Hazards
and Related Phenomena, ed. by JAKOB, M., HUNGR, O., pp. 445-487, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg New York, ISBN 3-540-20726-0
13. Hübl. J. & Holzinger. G. (2003): Entwicklung von Grundlagen zur Dimensionierung
kronenoffener Bauwerke für die Geschiebebewirtschaftung in Wildbächen:
Kleinmaßstäbliche Modellversuche zur Wirkung von Murbrechern. WLS Report 50 Band 3.
Im Auftrag des BMLFUW VC 7a
14. Hungr. O.; Morgan. G.C. & Kellerhals. Quantitative analysis of debris flow torrent hazards
for design of remedial measures. Can. Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 21. 1984. Pp. 663- 677
15. Ishikawa. N.. Inoue. R.. Hayashi. K.. Hasegawa. Y. & Mizuyama. T.: Experimental Ap-
proach on measurement of impulsive fluid force using debris flow model. Interprevent 2008
16. Kettl. W. (1984): Vom Verbauungsziel zur Bautypenentwicklung. Wildbach- und Law-
inenverbau. 48. Jg. Sonderheft. Pg. 61-98
17. Kherkheulidze. I.: Estimation of basic characteristics of mudflow („sel“). Proc. Int. Assoc.
Sci. Hy-drol. Symp. Floods Comput.. Vol. II. Leningrad. 1967, pp. 940-948.
18. Kuwabara. G & Kono. K.: Restitution coefficient in a collision between two spheres. Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys. 26 (1987) pp. 1230– 1233.
19. Lee. J. & Herrmann. H.J.: Angle of repose and angle of marginal stability: molecular dy-
namics of granular particles. J. Phys. A.: Math. Gen. 26 (1993), pp. 373–383
20. Lichtenhahn. C.: Die Berechnung von Sperren in Beton und Eisenbeton. Kolloquium über
Wildbach-sperren. Mitteilungen der Forstlichen Bundesanstalt Wien. Heft 102/1973, pp. 91-
127.
21. ONR 24800: Schutzbauwerke der Wildbachverbauung- Begriffsbestimmungen und
Klassifizierung. 2007
22. Pierson. T.C.: Flow behavior of channelized debris flows. Mount St. Helens. Washington.
In Abra-hams. A.D. (ed.). 1986. Hillslope Processes. Boston: Allen and Unwin: pp. 269-296
23. Rickenmann. D. 1999. Empirical relationships for debris flows. Natural Hazards 19(1). pp.
47-77.
24. Scotton. P.: Dynamic Impact of Debris Flows: Experimental Study. Dipartimento di
Ingegneria Civile ed Ambientale. Universita Di Trento. 1996
25. Thornton. C.: Coefficient of restitution for collinear collisions of elastic– perfectly plastic
spheres. J. Appl. Mech. 64 (1997), pp. 383–386
 148

26. Tiberghien. D., Laigle. D., Naaim. M., Thibert. E., and Ousset. F.: Experimental investiga-
tion of inter-action between mudflow and obstacle. Debris-flow Hazards Mitigation: Me-
chanics, Prediction and Assessment. 4th International Conference on Debris-flow Hazards
Mitigation. 2007. Chengdu. China.
27. VanDine. D. F.: Debris Flow Control Structures for Forest Engineering. British Columbia.
Res. Br.. B.C. Min. For.. Victoria. B.C.. Work. Pap. 08/1996
28. Walton. O. R. & Braun. R. L.: Viscosity. granular-temperature. and stress calculations for
shearing assemblies of inelastic. frictional disks. J. Rheol. 30 (1986). Pp. 949– 980
29. Watanabe. M. & Ikeya. H.: Investigation and analysis of volcanic mud flows on Mount
Sakurajima. Japan. Erosion sediment transport measurement. International Association on
Hydrology, Florence. Science Publication 133/1981, pp. 245-256.
30. Wendeler. C., Volkwein. A., Denk. M., Roth A., Wartmann S.: Field measurements used
for numerical modeling of flexible debris flow barriers. 4th DFHM Conference 2007.
Chengdu
31. Yu. F.C.: A study on the impact force of debris-flow. Proceedings of the national science
council. part A: Physical Science and Engineering. Taipei. Taiwan. Vol. 16/1992. No. 1: pp.
32-39.
32. Zhang. S.: A comprehensive approach to the observation and prevention of debris flow in
China. Natural Hazards. 7. 1993. Pp. 1-23

View publication stats