Advertisement

New Thoughts for Impact Force Estimation on Flexible Barriers Open image in new window

  • Daoyuan Tan
  • Jianhua YinEmail author
  • Jieqiong Qin
  • Zhuohui Zhu
Conference paper

Abstract

Flexible barriers have received increasing attention in debris flow control because they are more economical and easier to install when compared with rigid barriers. However, in the design of a flexible barrier, the debris impact force is difficult to estimate, even if sophisticated numerical analysis is employed. In this paper, suggestions for simplified impact force estimations are given. At first, the existing approaches to estimate the impact force for impermeable rigid barriers are modified to cater for the case of a flexible barrier. We consider that there are two key characteristics of flexible barriers when compared with rigid barriers: flexibility and permeability. Flexibility exemplifies itself in a longer duration of impact. A simple spring-mass system is used to represent the interaction of the debris flow and barrier and observed impact times are considered. It is deduced that the impact force on a flexible barrier should be less than half of that for a rigid barrier, both being impacted by the same/similar debris flow. Furthermore, for a ring net which is impacted by a debris flow of substantial mass and velocity, it is considered that the impact load is proportional to the elastic deformation of the flexible barrier in the direction of flow. Impact force calculated using the preceding assertion has been compared with the impact force in published results, and a satisfactory comparison is found. Large-scale experiments are proposed so that the validity of the above assertions can be ascertained. Permeability, the other key characteristic of a flexible barrier, can also influence the impact force as less force will be imposed on the barrier if less debris mass is retained by the barrier. Large-scale experiments are also proposed to investigate the relationship between the barrier net opening size and the debris impact force. Besides, existing approaches for estimating debris flow loading on impermeable rigid barriers are reviewed and improved by introducing a drag force which can impede the impact force. Then the largest force combination during the impact process cannot be simply determined as the largest dynamic loading or the largest earth pressure loading, and it can only be decided by calculating the largest force of all three stages.

Keywords

Debris flow Impact force Flexible barrier Flexibility Permeability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial supports from Collaborative Research Fund (CRF) of Research Grants Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government of China ((PolyU12/CRF/13E, A/C: E-RB09) and supports from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (A/C: 1-ZVEH). Finally, I would like to offer my special thanks to Dr. H.C. Mark Chan, who offered so much help in his valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Armanini A (1997) On the dynamic impact of debris flows. Recent developments on debris flows. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashwood W, Hungr O (2016) Estimating the total resisting force in a flexible barrier impacted by a granular avalanche using physical and numerical modeling. Can Geotech JGoogle Scholar
  3. Bischoff PH, Perry SH, Eibl J (1990) Contact force calculations with a simple spring-mass model for hard impact: a case study using polystyrene aggregate concrete. Int J Impact Eng 9:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cui P, Zeng C, Lei Y (2015) Experimental analysis on the impact force of viscous debris flow. Earth Surf Process LandGoogle Scholar
  5. de Campos T, Galindo M (2016) Evaluation of the viscosity of tropical soils for debris flow analysis: a new approach. Géotechnique 1–13Google Scholar
  6. DeNatale JS, Iverson RM, Major JJ, Lahusen RG, Fiegel G, Duffy JD (1999) Experimental testing of flexible barriers for containment of debris flows. US Geol Surv Open File Rep 99(205):38Google Scholar
  7. Denlinger RP, Iverson RM (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across three-dimensional terrain: 2. numerical predictions and experimental tests. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 106:553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hu K, Wei F, Hong Y, Li X (2006) Field measurement of impact force of debris flow. Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chin J Rock Mech Eng 25:2813–2819Google Scholar
  9. Hungr O, Morgan G, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21:663–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IshikawaN, Inoue R, Hayashi K, Hasegawa Y, Mizuyama T (2008) Experimental approach on measurement of impulsive fluid force using debris flow model, naGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeong SW (2014) The effect of grain size on the viscosity and yield stress of fine-grained sediments. J Mt Sci 11:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaiheng H, Fangqiang W, Yong H, Xiaoyu L (2006) Field measurement of impact force of debris flow. Chin JRock Mech Eng 1Google Scholar
  13. Kwan JSH, Cheung RWM (2012) Suggestions on design approaches for flexible debris-resisting barriers. Geo discussion noteGoogle Scholar
  14. Lo DOK (2000) Review of natural terrain landslide debris-resisting barrier design. GEO-Report No. 104, Geotechn Eng Off, Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionGoogle Scholar
  15. Mizuyama T (1979) Computational method and some considerations on impulsive force of debris flow acting on sabo dams. J Jpn Soc Erosion Control Eng 112:40–43Google Scholar
  16. Segalini A, Brighenti R, Umili G (2014) A simplified analytical model for the design of flexible barriers against debris flows. Landslide science for a safer geoenvironment. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Vagnon F, Segalini A (2016) Debris flow impact estimation on a rigid barrierGoogle Scholar
  18. Watanabe M, Ikeya H (1981) Investigation and analysis of volcanic mudflows on Mt. Sakurajima, Japan. Erosion and sediment transport measurementGoogle Scholar
  19. Wendeler C (2016) Debris-flow protection systems for mountain torrents. In: Steffen K (ed) WSL Berichte. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSLGoogle Scholar
  20. Wendeler C, McArdell B, Rickenmann D, Volkwein A, Roth A, Denk M (2006) Field testing and numerical modeling of flexible debris flow barriers. Proc Int Conf on Phys Modell Geotech, HonkongGoogle Scholar
  21. Wendeler C, Volkwein A (2015) Laboratory tests for the optimization of mesh size for flexible debris-flow barriers. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:2597–2604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wu F, Fan Y, Liang L, Wang C (2016) Numerical simulation of dry granular flow impacting a rigid wall using the discrete element method. PLoS ONE 11:e0160756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yifru AL (2014) Assessment of rheological models for run-out distance modeling of sensitive clay slides, Focusing on Voellmy RheologyGoogle Scholar
  24. Yu FC (1992) A study on the impact forces of debris flow. Proc. NSC, Part A: Phys Sci Eng 16, 7Google Scholar
  25. Zhang S (1993) A comprehensive approach to the observation and prevention of debris flows in China. Nat Hazards 7:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daoyuan Tan
    • 1
  • Jianhua Yin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jieqiong Qin
    • 1
  • Zhuohui Zhu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations