4.3 Article

Impulse load characteristics of bouldery debris flow impact

Journal

GEOTECHNIQUE LETTERS
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 111-117

Publisher

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/jgele.17.00159

Keywords

centrifuge modelling; landslides; particle-scale behaviour

Funding

  1. Research Grants Council of the Government of Hong Kong SAR, China [T22-603/15N, 16209717]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Pioneer Hundred Talents Program
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11672318, 51709052]
  4. HKUST Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study
  5. Hong Kong Jockey Club Disaster Preparedness and Response Institute [HKJCDPRI18EG01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Boulders entrained in debris flows are the main cause of damage to debris-resisting structures. Poly-dispersity leads to grain-size segregation, which causes boulders to migrate to the free surface and then accumulate at the front of the flow. Despite the importance of grain-size segregation, the current design of debris-resisting structures does not explicitly consider its effects on impact. In this study, two series of centrifuge tests were carried out to investigate the impact behaviour of mono-disperse bouldery flows and bi-disperse flows comprising boulders mixed with fine debris material. The diameter of the boulders was varied to study the effects of boulder size on the dynamic response of an instrumented model rigid barrier. The results reveal that, as the boulder size increases, a transition from progressive loading to predominantly impulse loading is observed. Boulders floating on the fine debris can induce even higher peak loads compared with mono-disperse bouldery flow. A new relationship between an equivalent dynamic pressure coefficient for the hydrodynamic approach and boulder size is established. This new relationship serves as a criterion for distinguishing between the boulders and fine debris in the design of structural countermeasures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available