4.7 Article

Debris flow density determined by grain composition

期刊

LANDSLIDES
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 1205-1213

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10346-017-0912-x

关键词

Debris flow; Grain composition; Grain size distribution; Debris flow density

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41471011]
  2. West Light Foundation of The Chinese Academy of Sciences [Y5R2040040]
  3. Open Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering [SKHL1516]
  4. Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Surface Process, CAS [Y3R1340340]
  5. Scientific Project of Department of Land and Resources of Sichuan Province [KJ-2015-18]
  6. Dongchuan Debris Flow Observation and Research Station, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Density is one of the most important parameters of debris flows. Because observing an active debris flow is very difficult, finding a method to estimate debris flow density is urgently needed for disaster mitigation engineering. This paper proposes an effective empirical equation in terms of grain size distribution (GSD) parameters based on observations in Jiangjia Gully, Yunnan Province, China. We found that the GSD follows P(D) = KD (-mu) exp(- D/Dc), with mu and Dc representing the fine and coarse grains, respectively. In particular, mu is associated with some characteristic porosity of soil in the natural state and increases with increased porosity. Dc characterizes the grain size range of the flow and increases with the grain concentration. Studies show that flow density is related to both parameters in power law. Here, we propose an empirical equation for estimating flow density: rho = 1.26 mu (-0.132) + 0.049Dc(0.443), which provides not only an estimation of the density for a flow, but also describes the variation in density with the GSD of material composition; this provides important information related to the design of debris flow engineering structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据