Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physical modeling of baffles influence on landslide debris mobility

Baffle physical modeling influence on landslide debris mobility

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Landslides Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 27 March 2015

Abstract

Debris flows surge downslope carrying destructive energy and can result in long runout distances. Structural mitigation is commonly installed along the flow path to impede debris flow mobility and protect downstream facilities. An array of baffles is a structural countermeasure frequently designed using empirical methods or prescribed to impede debris flow; nonetheless, its influence on reducing mobility is not well understood. A 5-m-long flume model is used to conduct a series of tests to systematically study the effects of varying baffle height, number of rows, spacing between rows, and degree of transverse blockage on mobility. Froude scaling is adopted to characterize initial upstream conditions. Debris runout, overflow, and frontal velocity reduction resulting from each baffle configuration used are examined. Experimental results reveal that it is imperative to adopt baffle heights taller than the approach flow depth (h) in order to suppress overflow and reduce runout. Adopting 1.5 h-tall baffles can reduce runout and peak overflow depth by 19 and 20 % compared to short baffles (0.75 h), respectively. A single row of baffles is ineffective in reducing frontal debris velocity, whereas increasing the array to three rows leads to 65 % reduction in runout and up to 57 % reduction in frontal velocity. Increasing spacing between successive rows from 0.25w to 0.5w can reduce runout by up to 37 %.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arattano M, Deganutti AM, Marchi L (1997) Debris flow monitoring activities in an instrumented watershed on the Italian Alps. 1st International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment. ASCE, San Francisco, CA, pp 506–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi CE, Ng CWW, Law RPH, Song D, Kwan JHS, Ho KKS (2013a) Investigation of baffle configuration on landslide debris impedance. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (re-submitted with minor corrections)

  • Choi CE, Ng CWW, Song D, Kwan JHS, Shiu HYK, Ho KKS, Koo RCH (2013b) Flume investigation of landslide debris resisting baffles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (re-submitted with minor corrections)

  • Choi CE (2013) Flume and discrete element investigation of granular flow mechanisms and interaction with baffles. PhD Thesis, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

  • Chu T, Hill G, McClung DM, Ngun R, Sherkat R (1995) Experiments on granular flows to predict avalanche runup. Can Geotech J 32(2):285–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa JE (1984) Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flows: Developments and Applications of Geomorphology. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cosenza E, Cozzolino L, Pianese D, Fabbrocino G, Acanfora M (2006) Concrete structures for mitigation of debris-flow hazard in the Montoro Inferiore Area, Southern Italy. 2nd International Congress, IFSC, Naples, Italy, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray JMNT, Tai YC, Noelle S (2003) Shock waves, dead zones and particle-free regions in rapid granular free-surface flows. J Fluid Mech 491:161–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hákonardóttir KM, Jóhannesson T, Tiefenbacher F, Kern M (2001) A laboratory study of the retarding effect of braking mounds in 3, 6 and 9 m long chutes, Report No. 01007. Reykjavík, Veðurstofa Íslands

  • Hauksson S, Pagliardi M, Barbolini M, Jóhannesson T (2007) Laboratory measurements of impact force of supercritical granular flow against mast-like obstacles. Cold Reg Sci Technol 49(1):54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim A (1932) Landslides and human lives (Bergsturz und Menschenleben). Bi-Tech Publishers, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D, Kaitna R, Scheidl C (2009) Debris Flow Impact Estimation. 11th International Symposium on Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering, WMHE, Ohrid, Macedonia, pp 137–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungr O (1981) Dynamics of rock avalanches and other types of mass movements. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta

  • Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2013) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. landslides DOI 10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y

  • Ikeya H, Uehara S (1980) Experimental study about the sediment control of slit Sabo dams. J Jpn Erosion Control Eng Soc 114:37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson R (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35(3):245–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson R, Vallance J (2001) New views of granular mass flows. Geology 29(2):115–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jóhannesson T, Gauer P, Issler D, Lied K (2009) The design of avalanche protection dams recent practical and theoretical developments. European Commission, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo DOK (2000) Review of natural terrain landslide debris-resisting barrier design: GEO-Report No. 104. Geotechnical Engineering Office, HKSAR

  • Mancarella D, Hungr O (2010) Analysis of run-up of granular avalanches against steep, adverse slopes and protective barriers. Can Geotech J 47(8):827–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizuyama T (2008) Structural countermeasures for debris flow disasters. Int J Erosion Control Eng 1(2):38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivares L, Picarelli L (2006) Modelling of flowslides behaviour for risk mitigation. 6th Int. Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Hong Kong, pp 99-113

  • Rickenmann D (1999) Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazards 19(1):47–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salm B (1987) Snow, avalanches and avalanche protection (lecture notes). Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (in German)

  • Scheidegger AE (1973) On the prediction of the reach and velocity of catastrophic landslides. Rock Mech 5:231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Federal Highway Administration (2006) Hydraulic design of energy dissipaters for culverts and channels: Report No. FHWA-NHI-06-086. USFHA, Springfield, VA

  • Wang G, Sassa K (2001) Factors affecting rainfall-induced flowslides in laboratory flume tests. Geotechnique 51(7):587–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe M, Mizuyama T, Uehara S (1980) Review of debris flow countermeasure facilities. J Jpn Erosion Control Eng Soc 115:40–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendeler C, Volkwein A, Roth A, Herzog B, Hahlen N, Wenger M (2008) Hazard prevention using flexible multi-level debris flow barrier. 11th Interpraevent Congress, Interpraevent, Dornbirn, Austria, pp 547-554

  • Wong HN, Ho KKS (1996) Travel distance of landslide debris. 7th International Symposium on Landslides, Taylor and Francis, pp 417-422

  • Wong HN, Lam KC, Ho KKS (1998) Diagnostic report on the November 1993 natural terrain landslides on Lantau Island: GEO Report No. 69. Geotechnical Engineering Office, HKSAR

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is published with the permission of the Head of the Geotechnical Engineering Office and the Director of Civil Engineering and Development, Government of the Hong Kong SAR, China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    C. W. W. Ng & D. Song

  2. Golder Associates Ltd., Kowloon, Hong Kong

    C. E. Choi

  3. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    J. H. S. Kwan, R. C. H. Koo, H. Y. K. Shiu & K. K. S. Ho

Authors
  1. C. W. W. Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. E. Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. H. S. Kwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. C. H. Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. Y. K. Shiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K. K. S. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. E. Choi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ng, C.W.W., Choi, C.E., Song, D. et al. Physical modeling of baffles influence on landslide debris mobility. Landslides 12, 1–18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0476-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0476-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation