4.7 Article

Rheological behaviour of reconstituted pyroclastic debris flow

Journal

GEOTECHNIQUE
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 19-27

Publisher

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/geot.10.P.005

Keywords

failure; laboratory tests; landslides; slopes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An experimental study of the rheological behaviour of three natural pyroclastic soils with different depositional processes remixed with water was carried out with the help of a rotational rheometer and inclined plane tests. A homogeneous fluid-like behaviour is obtained only within a very narrow range of concentrations, typically not more than 10%. Below this range the material sedimentates rapidly; above this range it behaves like a solid. In the fluid-like range the typical rheological behaviour of these suspensions is that of a yield stress fluid exhibiting a static yield stress larger than its dynamic yield stress. This effect probably finds its origin in a 'local' sedimentation effect: that is, the particles sedimentate just as necessary to form a structure more jammed than the structure during flow. As a result the flow of such materials is usually unstable: they will start to flow beyond a critical stress, but just beyond this value will reach a high shear rate associated with a high flowing velocity. The static and dynamic yield stresses of these materials increase widely from very low to very large values (several orders of magnitude). Inclined-plane tests were shown to provide reasonable although still approximate values for the static and dynamic yield stresses. These results suggest that in the field a small change in solid fraction will cause a slight decrease of the static yield stress, readily inducing a rapid flow that will stop only when the dynamic yield stress is reached, namely on a much smoother slope. This can explain the in situ observed post-failure behaviour of pyroclastic debris flows, which are able to flow over very long distances, even on smooth slopes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available