Advertisement

Landslides

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 75–90 | Cite as

Experimental study on the regulation function of slit dam against debris flows

  • Gordon G. D. Zhou
  • H. S. HuEmail author
  • D. Song
  • T. Zhao
  • X. Q. Chen
Original Paper
  • 168 Downloads

Abstract

Slit dams are open-type structures used to mitigate debris-flow hazards by constricting the flow and attenuating the kinetic energy. However, slit dams are often filled up as they are designed to impede debris volume instead of reducing kinetic energy of debris flows. To better understand the regulation function of slit dams against debris flows, physical model tests were carried out using a 7-m-long flume. The water content and relative post spacing were varied to discern their influence on the regulation function. Results reveal that the velocity attenuation and trapping efficiency is strongly controlled by water content and relative post spacing. Water content fundamentally reflects the degree of liquefaction (effetive grain-contact stress) and capacity of energy dissipation of debris flows. When water content < 26%, relative post spacing has a noticeable effect on velocity attenuation, trapping efficiency, and run-out distance. In contrast, when water content ≥ 26%, the influence relative post spacing is negligible. Furthermore, a new relationship between velocity attenuation and trapping efficiency for the design of slit dams is proposed to avoid the slit dam being easily filled up by sediments contained in debris flows.

Keywords

Slit dam Debris flows Regulation function Relative post spacing Water content 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors received financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 11672318), the Youth Innovation Promotion Association, CAS, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Pioneer Hundred Talents Program, and from the research grant T22-603/15-N provided by the Research Grants Council of the Government of Hong Kong SAR, China.

References

  1. Armanini A, Larcher M, and Odorizzi M (2011) Dynamic impact of a debris flow front against a vertical wall. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment, pp. 1041–1049 Padua, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin JE, Donley HF, Howard TR (1987) On debris flow/avalanche mitigation and control, San Francisco Bay area, California. Rev Eng Geol 7:223–236Google Scholar
  3. Chanson H (2004) Sabo check dams-mountain protection systems in Japan. Intl J River Basin Management 2(4):301–307Google Scholar
  4. Chehata D, Zenit R, Wassgren CR (2003) Dense granular flow around an immersed cylinder. Phys Fluids (1994-present) 15(6):1622–1631Google Scholar
  5. Choi CE, Ng CWW, Song D, Kwan JHS, Shiu HYK, Ho KKS, Koo RCH (2014a) Flume investigation of landslide debris–resisting baffles. Can Geotech J 51(5):540–553Google Scholar
  6. Choi CE, Ng CWW, Law RP, Song D, Kwan JSH, Ho KKS (2014b) Computational investigation of baffle configuration on impedance of channelized debris flow. Can Geotech J 52(2):182–197Google Scholar
  7. Choi CE, Ng CWW, Au-Yeung SCH, Goodwin G (2015) Froude scaling of landslide debris in flume modelling. Landslides 12(6):1197–1206Google Scholar
  8. Choi CE, Goodwin G, Ng CWW, Chu HK, Kwan JSH, Pun WK (2016) Coarse granular flow interaction with slit-structures. Géotechnique Lett 6(4):1–8Google Scholar
  9. Choi SK, Lee JM, Kwon TH (2018) Effect of slit-type barrier on characteristics of water-dominant debris flows: small-scale physical modeling. Landslides 15(1):111–122Google Scholar
  10. Cui P (1999) Impact of debris flow on river channel in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River. Int J Sediment Research 14(2):201–203Google Scholar
  11. Cui P, Zeng C, Lei Y (2015) Experimental analysis on the impact force of viscous debris flow. Earth Surf Process Landf 40(12):1644–1655Google Scholar
  12. Cui YF, Zhou XJ, Guo CX (2017a) Experimental study on the moving characteristics of fine grains in wide grading unconsolidated soil under heavy rainfall. J Mt Sci 14(3):417–431Google Scholar
  13. Cui Y, Chan D, Nouri A (2017b) Coupling of solid deformation and pore pressure for undrained deformation–a discrete element method approach. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 41(18):1943–1961Google Scholar
  14. Cui Y, Choi CE, Liu H, Ng CWW (2018) Effects of particle size of monodispersed granular flows impacting a rigid barrier. Nat Hazards 91(3):1179–1201Google Scholar
  15. Han W, Ou G (2006) Efficiency of slit dam prevention against non-viscous debris flow. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 11(4):865–869Google Scholar
  16. Hauksson S, Pagliardi M, Barbolini M, Jóhannesson T (2007) Laboratory measurements of impact forces of supercritical granular flow against mast-like obstacles. Cold Reg Sci Technol 49(1):54–63Google Scholar
  17. He S, Liu W, Li X (2016) Prediction of impact force of debris flows based on distribution and size of particles. Environ Earth Sci 75(4):298Google Scholar
  18. Heller V (2011) Scale effects in physical hydraulic engineering models. J Hydraul Res 49(3):293–306Google Scholar
  19. Heumader J (2000) Technical debris-flow countermeasures in Austria-a review. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics Prediction, and Assessment. pp. 443–464. TaiPei, Taiwan: ASCEGoogle Scholar
  20. Hübl J, Fiebiger G (2005) Debris-flow mitigation measures. In Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp: 445–487Google Scholar
  21. Hübl J, Holzinger G (2003) Development of design basis for crest open structures for debris flow management in torrents: miniaturized tests for the efficiency estimation of debris flow breakers. WLS Report Google Scholar
  22. Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D (2009) Debris flow impact estimation. Proceedings of the 11th international symposium on water management and hydraulic engineering, pp. 1-4. Ohrid, MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  23. Hürlimann M, McArdell BW, Rickli C (2015) Field and laboratory analysis of the runout characteristics of hillslope debris flows in Switzerland. Geomorphology 232:20–32Google Scholar
  24. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 34(3):244–296Google Scholar
  25. Iverson RM (2015) Scaling and design of landslide and debris-flow experiments. Geomorphology 244:9–20Google Scholar
  26. Iverson RM, George DL (2015) Modelling landslide liquefaction, mobility bifurcation and the dynamics of the 2014 Oso disaster. Géotechnique 66(3):175–187Google Scholar
  27. Iverson RM, Logan M, Denlinger RP (2004) Granular avalanches across irregular three-dimensional terrain: 2. Experimental tests. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 109:F01015.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JF000084
  28. Iverson RM, Logan M, LaHusen RG, Berti M (2010) The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large-scale experiments. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 115:F03005.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001514
  29. Jaeggi MNR, Pellandini S (1997) Torrent check dams as a control measure for debris flows. In Recent developments on debris flows. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp: 186–207Google Scholar
  30. Johnson PA, McCuen RH (1989) Slit dam design for debris flow mitigation. J Hydraul Eng 115(9):1293–1296Google Scholar
  31. Kwan JSH, Koo RCH, Ng CWW (2015) Landslide mobility analysis for design of multiple debris-resisting barriers. Can Geotech J 52(9):1345–1359Google Scholar
  32. Law RPH, Choi CE, Ng CWW (2015) Discrete-element investigation of influence of granular debris flow baffles on rigid barrier impact. Can Geotech J 53(1):179–185Google Scholar
  33. Lien HP (2003) Design of slit dams for controlling stony debris flows. International Journal of Sediment Research 18(1):74–87Google Scholar
  34. Lien HP, Tsai FW (2000) Debris flow control by using slit dams. International Journal of Sediment Research 15(4):391–409Google Scholar
  35. Lin YY, Jiang YZ (1988) Experimental study on the effectiveness of slit dam on debris flow. J Chin Soil Water Conserv 19(1):40–57 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  36. Lobovský L, Botia-Vera E, Castellana F, Mas-Soler J, Souto-Iglesias A (2014) Experimental investigation of dynamic pressure loads during dam break. J Fluids Struct 48:407–434Google Scholar
  37. Malvern Instruments Ltd (2007) MAN0384-1.0 Mastersizer 2000 User ManualGoogle Scholar
  38. McArdell BW, Bartelt P, Kowalski J (2007) Field observations of basal forces and fluid pore pressure in a debris flow. Geophys Res Lett 34(7):L07406.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL029183
  39. McCoy SW, Kean JW, Coe JA, Staley DM, Wasklewicz TA, Tucker GE (2010) Evolution of a natural debris flow: in situ measurements of flow dynamics, video imagery, and terrestrial laser scanning. Geology 38(8):735–738Google Scholar
  40. Mizuyama T (2008) Structural countermeasures for debris flow disasters. Int J Eros Control Eng 1(2):38–43Google Scholar
  41. Mizuyama T, Suzuki H, Oikaka Y, Morita A (1988) Experimental study on permeable sabo dam. J Jpn Eros Control Eng Soc 41(2):21–25 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  42. MLR (Ministry of Land and Resources) (2004) Design standards for debris flow hazard mitigation measures (DZ/T0239-2004). Chinese Geological Survey, Ministry of Land and Resources, Beijing, China (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  43. Ng CWW, Choi CE, Song D, Kwan JHS, Koo RCH, Shiu HYK, Ho KKS (2015) Physical modeling of baffles influence on landslide debris mobility. Landslides 12(1):1–18Google Scholar
  44. Ni H, Tang C, Zheng W (2014) An overview of formation mechanism and disaster characteristics of post-seismic debris flows triggered by subsequent rainstorms in Wenchuan earthquake extremely stricken areas. Acta Geol Sin 88(4):1310–1328Google Scholar
  45. Ono GI, Mizuyama T, Matsumura K (2004) Current practices in the design and evaluation of steel sabo facilities in Japan. Proceedings of the INTERPRAEVENT International Symposium. pp. VII: 243–264. Riva del Garda, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  46. Piton G (2016) Sediment transport control by check dams and open check dams in Alpine torrents (Doctoral dissertation, Grenoble Alpes)Google Scholar
  47. Piton G, Recking A (2015) Design of sediment traps with open check dams. I: hydraulic and deposition processes. J Hydraul Eng 142(2):04015045Google Scholar
  48. Savage SB, Hutter K (1989) The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough incline. J Fluid Mech 199:177–215Google Scholar
  49. Scheidl C, Chiari M, Kaitna R, Müllegger M, Krawtschuk A, Zimmermann T, Proske D (2013) Analysing debris-flow impact models, based on a small scale modelling approach. Surv Geophys 34(1):121–140Google Scholar
  50. Scott KM, Macías JL, Naranjo JA (2001) Catastrophic debris flows transformed from landslides in volcanic terrains: mobility, hazard assessment, and mitigation strategies. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1630:1–59Google Scholar
  51. Shima J, Moriyama H, Kokuryo H, Ishikawa N, Mizuyama T (2016) Prevention and mitigation of debris flow hazards by using steel open-type sabo dams. Int J Eros Control Eng 9(3):135–144Google Scholar
  52. Sodnik J, Martinčič M, Mikoš M (2015) Are torrent check-dams potential debris-flow sources? In engineering geology for society and territory-volume 2. Springer, Cham, pp 485–488Google Scholar
  53. Suwa H (1988) Focusing mechanism of large boulders to a debris-flow front. PhD thesis, Tokyo University, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  54. Takahashi T (2014) Debris flow: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. CRC press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  55. White S, García-Ruiz JM, Martí C, Valero B, Errea MP, Gomez-Villar A (1997) The 1996 Biescas campsite disaster in the Central Spanish Pyrenees, and its temporal and spatial context. Hydrol Process 11(14):1797–1812Google Scholar
  56. Zhang S (1993) A comprehensive approach to the observation and prevention of debris flows in China. Nat Hazards 7(1):1–23Google Scholar
  57. Zhou GGD, Cui P, Chen HY (2013) Experimental study on cascading landslide dam failures by upstream flows. Landslides 10(5):633–643Google Scholar
  58. Zhou GGD, Wright NG, Sun Q (2016) Experimental study on the mobility of channelized granular mass flow. Acta Geol Sin 90(3):988–998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Earth Surface Process/Institute of Mountain Hazards and EnvironmentChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)ChengduChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resources and HydropowerSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations