Single or Two-Phase Modelling of Debris-Flow? A Systematic Comparison of the Two Approaches Applied to a Real Debris Flow in Giampilieri Village (Italy)

  • Laura Maria StancanelliEmail author
  • Giorgio Rosatti
  • Lorenzo Begnudelli
  • Aronne Armanini
  • Enrico Foti


A comparison between the performances of two different debris flow models has been carried out. In particular, a mono-phase model (FLO-2D) and a two phase model (TRENT2D) have been considered. In order to highlight the differences between the two codes, the alluvial event of October 1, 2009 in Sicily in the Giampilieri village has been simulated. The predicted time variation of several quantities (as the flow depth and the velocity) has been then analyzed in order to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the two models in reproducing the global dynamic of the event. Both models seem capable of reproducing the depositional pattern on the alluvial fan in a fairly way. Nevertheless, for the FLO-2D model the tuning of the parameters must be done empirically, with no evidence of the physics of the phenomena. On the other hand, for the TRENT2D, which is based on more sophisticated theories, the parameters are physically based and can be estimated from laboratory experiments.


Debris flow Numerical model FLO-2D TRENT2D 



All consultants of the OPCM 10th October 2009 n°3815 are greatly acknowledged for the support demonstrated and for the useful information provided.

We would like to thank the Public Civil Engineering Works Office of Messina and the Department of Civil Defence of Sicilian Region for providing important data.


  1. Armanini A, Fraccarollo L, Rosatti G (2009) Two-dimensional simulation of debris flows in erodible channels. Comput Geosci 35:993–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fraccarollo L, Capart H, Zech Y (2003) A Godunov method for the computation of erosional shallow water transient. Int J Num Meth Fluids 41(9):951–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Julien PY, O’Brien JS (1998) Dispersive and turbulent stresses in hyperconcentrated sediment flows, Unpublished paperGoogle Scholar
  4. O’Brien JS (1986) Physical process, rheology and modeling of mudflows. Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  5. O’Brien JD (2007) FLO-2D user’s manual, Version 2007.06, FLO Engineering, NutriosoGoogle Scholar
  6. O’Brien JS, Julien PY (1985) Physical processes of hyperconcentrated sediment flows, Proceeding of the ASCE Specialty Conference on the delineation of landslides, floods, and debris flow Hazards in Utah, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Series UWRL/g-85/03, 260–279Google Scholar
  7. O’Brien JS, Julien PY (1988) Laboratory analysis of mudflow properties. J Hyd Eng ASCE 114(8):877–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Stancanelli LM, Bovolin V, Foti E (2011) Application of a dilatant – viscous plastic debris flow model in a real complex situation. River, Coastal and Estuarine Morphodynamics: RCEM2011, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  9. Takahashi T (1978) Mechanical characteristics of debris flow. J Hyd Div – ASCE 104(8):1153–1169Google Scholar
  10. Trent2D User’s Manual (2011) available at:
  11. Ucosich (2009) Map reporting the filling state condition inside the Giampilieri village after to the alluvial event of 1st Oct 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Maria Stancanelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giorgio Rosatti
    • 2
  • Lorenzo Begnudelli
    • 2
  • Aronne Armanini
    • 2
  • Enrico Foti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations