File 3

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/225262144
Debris-ﬂow mitigation measures
Chapter · January 2005

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-27129-5_18
CITATIONS READS
68 3,988
4 authors, including:
Johannes Hübl Gernot Fiebiger

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna FIEBIGER CONSULTING
353 PUBLICATIONS 2,506 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Oldrich Hungr
University of British Columbia - Vancouver
153 PUBLICATIONS 12,891 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Technischer Gebäudeschutz View project
Sedalp View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Johannes Hübl on 26 March 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Matthias Jakoband Oldrich Hungr
Debris-flow Hazaids
and Related
Phenomena
Fachbib!k~t~·~·; v,:,_;•. ', ,r;,~ tt.tr, Technik
Universität ·tn.· i:lc.:J~)nkuttur Wien
I -·------
Signatur-Nr.: svst€m~tik;
T :> v~4t ....~.o .~t. :&.3....... . · ,....r:;.~"L.
••• ,. •••• •.::::;.! ............ .
~Springer
Published in association with
Praxis Publishing
Chichester, UK
PR0
18
Debris-flow mitigation measures
Johannes Huebl and Gernot Fiebiger
18.1 STRATEGY OF PROTECTION
Integrated risk management is a tool to prevent, intervent, and avoid natural

hazards (Amman, 2001). This includes a combination of land use planning and
technical and bioengineering measures to guarantee an optimal cost-benefit ratio.
An essential aspect of risk management is the design of mitigation measures
which reduce the existing risk to an accepted Ievel of residual risk. Two types of
mitigation measures can be distinguished (Zollinger, 1985): active measures and
passive measures.
Active measures focus on the hazard, while passive measures focus on the
potential darnage (Huebl and Steinwendtner, 2000; Kienholz, 2003). It is of funda-
mental importance to risk management to clearly define the spatial !'lnd temporal
objectives of the desired degree of protection, with an understanding' of acceptable
residual risk.
The strategy ofprotection describes the best combination ofprotection measures
(Figure 18.1). Once protection objectives have been established from the risk assess-
ment, the protection concept describes the strategy selected to reach those targets.
Therefore, special management tasks are assigned for unique elements of the
watershed. Each task defines a desired modification of the debris-fiow system and
the performance of the elements with regard to the hazard. Ultimately, the sum of
each element's functions must Iead to the fulfilment of the overall protection
objective (Huebl, 2001).
In the next step appropriate measures are chosen to meet the tasks derived from
the protection concept. This conceptual plan of measures is called the "safety
system" (Kettl, 1984, 1998; Wehrmann, 2000) . It includes measures that guarantee
the effective performance of debris-fiow mitigation. These measures must be
evaluated with respect to their technical, economical, ecological, and political feasi-
bility, and should be combined to fulfil their functional demands.
M. Jakob and 0. Hungr (eds), Debris-fiow Hazards and Related Phenomena.

©Praxis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2005.
446 Debris-ftow mitigation measures [Ch. 18
Strategy of protection
~ Do~ume~tatlonand ~
conüoloffuncbo!;::
ln;O:~~~n ' ~- . ( ..,......, "'
~ '\. --~-~---··;J.
\ • protectlon goals
. ·-·· -- - -
Projectof / - · -·•· .~. ..-/
- - · ···· · ·"' •..Ass1gnmentof- ·.•
tesJa!,
-. ·---.· r- -·-···-
Mlllgatlon maasures t DecJsJon Rlsk
-~~~a.s_s~~~~--
1
, to catchm.entelemeil
- .. -· ·· -- - "\~- .
( . _ , ,. . • n --·- .• ,_- . ... . . • :·.~?f....,.,.
·:·. ·;_l
Werkplan 1
~ Protec;U<i!J; c_on~
\ -~
Structural
r· - ' •.
·
·'
(
- ~-·
Dtoelslon
•
Oeclston
• • • .: ·:
:· Information "·-~
~-=·--~~ ..
destgn ) ~ .. · " · ·· · ,·· :/
-~f. · /?
· r·--·--~s~ - - · ~
,. InfOrmation ·. : Draftof measurel! ·.
'·<..
...:i.:..... . .. .. , • ' :___"jf!_ly~!{Ste_ff]_'~j
,.~·<:~"~;~~t > (--- Rt;k··.·:.---:.

\, _ .~.11.'~!~.'- ~~_!e._s.sm_!l!t. • .
Figure 18.1. Strategy of protection.

Huebl et al. (2004).
The final step within the planning process includes the detailed structural design
of the mitigation measures and the development of a work plan of all projected
works.
Once all mitigation measures are established in the debris-flow catchment th9
utility of these measures is documented to allow a better understanding of the inter~
relationship between debris flows and mitigation measures.
18.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
18.2.1 Active mitigation measures

Active debris-flow mitigation measures (Table 18.1) may affect the initiatio~
transport, or deposition of debris flows and can therefore change its magnitu4e
and frequency characteristics. This can be achieved either by changing the
ability of occurrence of a debris flow (disposition management) or by ·
the debris flow itself (event management).
Sec. 18.2] Mitigation measures 447
Table 18.1. Active measures.
Objective Task Measure
Disposition management
Decrease runoff Decrease peak discharge • Forestry measures
• Watershed management
• Diversion of runoff to other catchments
Decrease erosion Decrease surficial erosion • Forestry measures and soil
due to overland flow bioengineering
• Watershed management
• Drainage
Irrerease slope stability • Forestry measures and soil
bioengineering
• Terrain alteration (grading, scaling)
• Drainage control
• Stabilization of the toe slope (e.g.,
consolidation, rock buttresses)
Decrease vertical and • Channel enlargement
lateral erosion in the • Channel-bed stabilization
channel bed • Transverse structure (sill, ramp, check
dam)
• Longitudinal construction
• Groyne
• Soil bioengineering
Decrease water discharge • Diversion of runoff to other catchmcnts
at high erodible • Bypass
channel-reach
Event managerneilt
Discharge control Decrease peak discharge to • Water storage
prevent darnage • Channel enlargement
• Enlargement of the cross section at
/~
channel crossings (e.g., bridges)
Debris control Transformation process • Debris flow breaker
Deposition debris under • Permanent debris deposition
controlled conditions • Temporary debris deposition
Debris flow detlection to • Deflection to area of low consequence
adjacent areas
Organic debris filtration • Organic debris rake
Especially in the alpine countdes (France, Switzer1and, Austria) severa1 books

about torrent contro1 works were published during the 19th and 20th centuries
(Aretin, 1808; Dui1e, 1826; Breton, 1875; Pesta1ozzi, 1882; Sa1is, 1883; Demontzey,
1889; Thiery, 1891; Seckendorff, 1886; Wang, 1901, 1903; Stiny, 1931; Strele, 1950).
During the last three decades many more contributions to all types of active
measures have been published worldwide.
448 Debris-flow mitigation measures [Ch. 18
In the following, a nurober of case studies are presented with a description of

active debris-fiow mitigation measures.
Forest management activities

In the past century, Schmittenbach was amongst the most dreaded mountain
torrents in the Salzburg region in Austria. Zell am See (about 60 km south of the
city of Salzburg), a town located on the fan of Schmittenbach, had been affected by
several severe debris fiows. In the past century the upper catchment area was
characterized by alpine pasture lands in which cattle grazing had severly damaged
its sparse forest cover. In 1885 a project was initiated to decrease debris-flow activity.
Its main featurewas afforestation of a 158-ha area to increase the soil water absorp-
tion capacity and thus limit erosion due to high runoff events.
The afforestation was carried out by specifying the appropriate tree species for
the respective elevation belt. Below 1,750 m, a mix of 80% spruce (Picea abies) and
20% larch (Larix deciduas) were used; while up to 1,780m, a 50% mix of Picea abies
and Larix decidua were p1anted. Above 1, 780 m only Swiss stone pine (Pinus cembra)
was used. Planting was performed in clusters. Areas with extended snowcover wen:
left bare, because of biotic endangerment. The plants were produced from native
seeds, at the corresponding altitude.
From 1950-1999 an additional afforestation campaign was carried out, this time
using spruce, larch, Swiss stone pine, Scots pine (Pinus mugo), European mountai~
ash (Fraxinus excelsior), red beech (Fagus sylvatica), birch (Betula pendula), willow
(Larix sp.), and alder (Ainus sp.) (Hartwagner, 2002).
The afforestation (Figures 18.2 arid 18.3) resulted in a decrease ofsurface runo~
of about 42% and a significant reduction of bedload. Continuous maintenance of th~
forest cover is necessary to minimize biotic and abiotic darnage to the stands. rn
addition, in order to raise the elevation of timberline, measures against snow ava~ .
lanches were implemented.
Soil bioenginee1·ing and terrai11 alte1·ation

Soil bioengineering addresses the technologies and applications of dead and liv~
plants for erosion control. Soil bioengineering structures start or aceeierate phyt().f
sociological successions and processes, minimize erosion, and govern the ground•
water supply.
Soil bioengineering measures can be applied to:
• channels, gullies, rivers, and streams (Figure 18.4);

• slope stabilization and bank redevelopment (Figure 18.5); and
• road ditch stabilization.
Most effective in soil bioengineering is the combination of surface protec~i~

constructions like seeding with stabilizing constructions. The range of longitudu~,.;
structures extends from tree spurs (rough coniferous trees), branch layering(W
gullies, vegetated channels, live brush mattresses, living slope grids, different
Figure 18.2. Schmittenbach in 1887, Salzburg, Austria.

Photo: courtesy of WLV.
Figure 18.3. Schmittenbach in 1976 after afforestation, Salzburg, Austria.

Photo: courtesy of WL V.
Figure 18.4. Soil bioengineering at Pendlermure in 1995, Tyrol, Austria.
fascines, vegetated revetments of different materials, log brush barrier construction,

live pole construction, brunch and brush packing, and double-row palisades. At the
transverse structures there are living groynes, live siltation construction, living
combs, brushes and palisade constructions, brush sills, fascine sills, log cribwalls
with brushlayers, as well as planted gabions and wooden crib dams.
The success of soil bioengineering measures depends on the effect of the pre-
viously implemented technical control measures and the stability thus gained:
Therefore, most engineers prefer to combine soil bioengineering with hard engineer-
ing structures.
Integl"ated wate1·shed management

The purpose of integrated watershed management is to minimize the need for costlY
protective measures along the channel andin the runout zone. Vegetation should ~
managed under the principles of conservation and sustainability, while protecting
against natural hazards.
Figure 18.5. Slope stabilization at Filprittertobel in 1898, Vorarlberg, Austria.

Several options are available to the engineer:
• afforestation, sub-alpine forestation, protection forest rehabilitation, and stand

conversion;
• bioengineering measures, such as slope and erosion protection, and stream bank
protection;
• agricultural measures such as grazing management, replacement of forest
pasture, management of alpine grazing; and
• hard engineering measures such as barriers, deflection berms, or debris basins.
In Austria's Zillertal (Tyrol) the forest of a 200-km 2 study area was heavily
damaged due to forest grazing, forest litter utilization, and using branches as
green fadder (pollarding). Further darnage was caused by an excessive game stock.
The unhealthy state of the forest, combined with natural. erosion processes, caused
frequent debris flows resulting in severe darnage to the villages and agricultural areas
at the fans. To control this situation, a nurober of technical measures were applied,,
such as the installation of debris basins, bedload control at potential sources of,
erosion, and the installation of a drainage system on slopes susceptible to erosion.
Moreover, suspending all forest cattle grazing and litter utilization, as weil as
reducing the game stock, improved the forest condition. Furthermore, 1,200 ha of
new forests were planted above the timberline between 1,700 and 2,100m. Improve~
ment of land development, rationalization of alpine farming, and a change in land
ownership, were also implemented (Stauder, 1975).
While technical measures may result in immediate debris-flow protection, foresl
management has proven to be very successful. It succeeded in decreasing the cm:i~
sequences of natural hazards and also produced positive economic effects on t~e
local forestry and agricultural industries and increased the region's touristic value8:
These days, for example, pasture access roads are being used as seenie routes fof
thousands of tourists.
Drainage
Drainage systems drain water from wet areas and/or hillsides to stabilize the eco:"
systems. Water drainage stabilizes unstable areas and prevents the build-up of higQ
pore-water pressure along potential shear surfaces. The principles of drainage stabil~
ization are based on the following:
• Prevention of superficial and subsurface runoff from the area above the slide a~
weil as collecting wells by a horseshoe-like diversion drainage (horseshoe
drainage).
• To drain subsurface water to prevent the formation of shear surfaces.
The drainage channels are constructed as ditches with a sealed base (loam Iayer
or seal foils) on which suckers (drainage pipes with an impermeable bottom and
perforated top surface to carry off superficial and subsurface water within the
Iandslide mass) or other draining material is installed. The surface of the drain is
covered by permeable layers of coarse materiallike small boulders. After an overall
Iength of 30-50 m, these drains are then guided tagether in wells. The collected
drained water is delivered to a receiving creek. The drains are either linear,
branched out, triple-pole, or herring hone type.
Toe slope stahilization

Bed or bank erosion can cause a destabilization of banks along channels. Depending
on the process and magnitude ofthis destabilization, either a transverse (Figure 18.6)
or longitudinal (Figure 18.7) structure can be constructed. Transverse structures are
mainly used to prevent stream bed erosion, while longitudinal structures are used for
bank erosion.
Transverse structures are designed to raise channel beds and reduce stream
gradients. The original channel slope and the slope created by the installation of a
check dam determine the height of, and distance between, successive structures.
During the construction ofthese transverse structures, it is important to consider
the foundations of the abutments, scour depth or depositional grade, and the design
of the outlet structure. In Europe, until the 1920s, these structures were mainly
Figure 18.6. Transverse toe slope stabilization, Bretterwandbach, Tyrol, Austria.

Figure 18.7. Longitudinal toe slope stabilization, Eugenbach, Austria.
constructed of dry stone. Later, cemented stone was used, until being replaced by
concrete and reinforced concrete during the 1950s (Figures 18.8 and 18.9).
Special check dam types have been developed for channel sections subject t.o
high lateral pressures. For thesecheck dams, the wing walls are positioned in relati~,
to the central structure and can consequently be moved perpendicular to the streaJ1l
centre line. The first check dams of this type were built with wing walls arrang~~~
upstream of the central section (Figure 18.10); however, in modern structures, they
are situated downstream (Figure 18.11).
Transverse structures are damaged or destroyed mainly by:
• The impact of a debris flow, when the body of the structure is not adequately
supported by earth fill from behind (Figure 18.12).
• The scouring of the lateral abutment.
• Scouring downstream of the check dam.
• Lateral bypassing, caused either by the absence of a sloping wing wall top or
when discharge is blocked by bedload, as a consequence of sediment accumula~
tion downstream of the dam (Figure 18.13).
Figure 18.8. Niedernsiller Muehlbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Photo: courtesy of WL V_
Check dam (solid body barrier)
Wingwall Overflow Wing wall
E-
Spillway
Outlet structure
Outlet structure
Scour protection structure
Upstream view Cross section
Figure 18.9. Sketch of a typical check dam.

456 Debris-ßow mitigation measures [Ch. 18
}
.·
'{~); .,
<.l!li
·i't;
. rf.
.!
,. •.
,.
.\ .>
I I
,·
..'·
,j.
·~ t
'r ••
....~
'• 4 ... ; .·!<
~\1 i1,:\.;
-.~~··
. ",
' l.e.!!
·. /t~J,~ ·~<·
~~~~ ·'
Figure 18.10. Upstream wing walls, Duernbach, Salzburg, Austria.
Therefore, it is important to consider that:
• The spillway cross sectional design is equal to a debris-flow surge profile.

• The wing wall top equals the expected depositional grade (usually higher than
10%).
• The wing walls are laterally consolidated.
• No lateral erosion occurs upstream of the dam.
• The dam foundation reaches below the expected scour depth.
Figure 18.11. Downstream wing walls, Wagrai ner Ache, Salzburg. Austria.
Figure 18.12. Niedernsiller Muehlbach in 1970 after a debris-fl.ow event, Salzburg, Austria.
Photo courtesy of WLV.
458 Debris-flow mitigation measures
Figure 18.13. Gimbach in 2002 after a debris-fiow event, Upper Austria, Austria.
Longitudinal structures prevent the widening of channels but can also serve as
slope toe stabilization. In debris-flow-prone creeks, they should be constructed frow
stone or concrete. If its effect as a gravity wall is insufficient, additional anchors carl
be placed (Figure 18.14).
Bypass
One possible preventive measure is a debris-fl.ow bypass to avoid excessive sedime~l
recruitment along specific channel reaches. For example, in the "St. Julien" torred~
in France, a tributary of the Rhöne River, a 202m long channel with a cross sectiop
of 44m 2 was designed to bypass the "Mont Denis" Iandslide (Figure 18.15). oebf}J
and water was directed into the artificial channel by transverse structures. Aft~r
exiting the artificial channel, the torrent drops 83 m into the original stream bi@
(Mougin, 1900; cited by Wang, 1903). Similar structures were also constructed tri
Switzerland and Austria.
After the devastating debris fl.ows in Hollersbach (Salzburg) of 1501 and 151~,
numerous protective structures have been built. An array of check dams was
Figure 18.14. Anchored longitudinal structure, Kirchbachgraben, Carinthia, Austria.
constructed to stabilize the bedload source ("Grosse Blaike") on the Buergerbach

tributary. However, the check-dam array was eventually abandoned due to high
maintenance costs. As a result, debris flows occurred almost every year. In 1989
all surface and subsurface runoffwas collected into a tunnel (Figure 18.16).
Wate1· l'etention
Many debris flows have occurred in Wartsehenbach (Eastern Tyrol) during the past
centuries. This has led to a destabilization of the middle reaches of the cre~k;
However, due to geological conditions (highly fractured gneiss and schist) and, a
channel gradient of approximately 60%, no measures were taken to stabilize the
channel ot the side slopes.
Three tributaries drain the watershed, which is intensively utilized by fartni!l~
and the ski industry. Therefore, three flood-control reservoirs (one is shown~i~
Figure 18.17), were constructed in the upper catchment area to avoid debris-fl9\V
initiation in the torrent s middle reach. Before these reservoirs could be construct~.
a geological and hydrological study was carried out to determine the location a~~
the ideal retention capacity of the reservoirs. Today the reservoirs retain appro~~
mately 40,000m 3 ofwater, thereby reducing the 100-year return period dischargelll
the middle reach by 50%.
The reservoirs were built as earth-fill dikes with concrete outlet structures and ;a
sluice gate. To control the amount of water being retained by the dam, ultraso~~t
sensors monitor water Ievels, and alarm the facility operator when the water Ie\rCI
reaches a critical stage. ,
Figure 18.16. Bypass at Buergerbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Photo courtesy of H. Wehrmann.
Permanent dehris deposition

Until the end of the 1960s, solid dams (Figure 18.18) were built at the exits of
depositional areas to prevent dangeraus debris flows from reaching high-
consequence areas. These dams are effective until completely full. Later designs
Figure 18.17. Flood-control reservoir in the middle reach of Wartschenbach, Tyrol, Austria.
Figure 18.18. Solid body barrier, Einachgraben, Austria.

Figure 18.19. Small slot barrier, Koednitzbach, Tyrol, Austria.
included small drairis that were embedded in the dam body (Figure 18.19) to
minimize static water pressures (Kronfellner-Kraus, 1970). The development of
solid dams with large slots or slits to regulate sediment transport began with the
use of concrete and reinforced concrete. Slots or slits are designed to pass medium
sized floods through the opening without producing backwater effects which neces-
sitates their extension to the channel bed (Hoffmann, 1955).
Once debris basins have completely filled, they completely interrupt bedload
transport, and can Iead to excessive erosion downstream. Same fish species require
a renewed supply of spawning gravels which may be interrupted with debris basins.
Debris basins can also cause the water flow to cease completely with detrimental
effects to aquatic life and may therefore be rejected for ecological reasons.
In other reaches of the creek, which suffer from a sediment deficit, the retention
of debris in tributaries can Iead to severe erosion in the receiving streams and can
cause a drop in the groundwater Ievels.
Seclienal banier with fins
Wing wall Overflow Wing wall
Functional openings I Foundation Scour protection structure
Upstream view Cross section
Figure 18.20. Sketch of an open barrier.
Temporary dehris deposition

As a result of the apparent problems with debris retention dams, attempts have beeb
made to use temporary debris retention for bedload management downstream. Tlrl~
concept allows the passing of some smaller sized particles while !arge boulders witp
high destructive potential are reta:ined (Aulitzky, 1986). The intermediate storage 9f
the accumulated material is designed to balance hazard rnitigation and a healiliy
riverine environment.
During the 1970s, the concepts of "sorting" and "dosing" were introduce4
(Ueblagger, 1973). For both, it is indispensable to have a sufficient Capacity r6~
sediment storage in the dam area. Sediment "sorting" allows particle segregatio~
by grain size to allow only a given grain size to pass the structure. During "dosing"
on the other hand, an unsorted sedimentation is encouraged by creating backwater
in a bottleneck. In both cases, bedload transpoft is only infiuenced by the occurren~
of an event. The surplus of solids produced by a debris fiow would be stored, and
later released if the tailwater was deficient of area sediments. After small an4
medium-sized events, the deposition should be regularly cleared and drains should
be unclogged.
In debris dams (Figure 18.20), sorting and dosing could be installed in the
form of !arge slots or slits (open barriers). The first works of this type wer~
erected at the Maerzenbach and Riedbach in the years 1968/1969 as beam barriers
(Stauder, 1972).
Subsequently different types of construction were developed, differing in ·
drainage works and opening covers (Leys, 1965a, b, c, 1967, 1971a, b, 1973, 1976;,
Stauder, 1973; Hampel, 1974; Leys, 1976; Kettl, 1984; Riccabona, 1988; Eckersdor;'
fer, 1998; Krimpelstaetter, 1998). This Austrian style of barrier (Huebl et al., 200.3}
Table 18.2) is nowadays used in many European countries as weil as Japan, Taiwan.
and Canada (Figures 18.21-18.41).
Table 18.2. Types of open barriers.
Slot barriers
~)
.. ~Jt!.'J~~/
'(........... i.-',;(
ti;:i$\l't
Large slot barrier Small slot barrier
Slit barriers
~
I .
.
Slit barrier with vertical slits Slit barriet with horizontal slits Gap-crested slit barrier
'
with vertical slits
Compound barriers
~
1,~
W
. .
. u. :(" , .:';;-
.
' ... ~ 't . ••
. .. -. ' ~.: '
Compound barrier with Compound barrier with teeth

openings
Sectiona/ barriers
. tl j
.--r._ti.;i ~
Sectional barrier with fins Sectional barrier with piles Sectional barrier with
braces
,.,
Lattice barriers
' 11111.11111'' ~
Rake barrier Beam barrier Grill barrier
~~·-·
~~
Frame barrier
Net barriers
Figure 18.22. Small slot barrier, Truebenbach, Carinthia, Austria.

Photo: courtesy of M. Holub.
Sec. 18.2] Mi~igation measures 467
Figure 18.23. Slit barrier with vertical slits, Zinkenbach, Salzburg, Austria.
Figure 18.24. Slit barrier with horizontal slits, Schnannerbach, Tyrol, Austria.
Figure 18.25. Sectional barrier with fins and beams, Maerzenbach, Tyrol, Austria.

·.•
·.
·~;~
Figure 18.27. Sectional barrier with piles, Waldbach, Styria, Austria.

Photo: courtesy of M. Holub .
.:·
Figure 18.28. Beam barrier, Truebenbach, Carinthia, Austria.

Figure 18.29. Sectional rake barrier, Loehnersbach, Salzburg, Austria.
Figure 18.30. Beam barrier, lstalanzbach, Tyrol, Austria.

Figure 18.31. Cross-slit barrier, Luggauerbach, Salzburg, Austria.
Figure 18.32. Cross-slit barrier in 2000 after a debris flow, Luggauerbach, Salzburg, Austria.
Photo: courtesy of M. Leitgeb.
Figure 18.33, Sectional barrier with fins, Fong-Chiu, Nan-Tou Co un ty, Taiwan .
...
...~ '·
.....
.~
~'-... .:
~·.:/ ~~ .t
~ ..
~' i".;..
I
"
.~\.lfo....,_
Figure 18.34. Frame barrier, Ashiya River, Japan.

Photo courtesy of Comm. Steel Sabo Structures.
Figurc 18.35. Net barrier, Gleiersbach, Tyrol, Austria.

Photo courtesy of WLV.
Figurc 18.36. Sectimlai barrier with fins, Luggauerbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Figure 18.37. Sectional barrier with fins in 2000 after a debris-flow event, Luggauerbach,
Salzburg, Austria.
Photo: courtesy of M. Leitgeb.
Figure 18.38. Sectional barrier with fins, Rastelzenbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Figure 18.39. Sectional barrier with fins, Ellmaubach, Salzburg, Austria.
Figure 18.40. Debris-fiow grill, Furano River, Japan.

Photo: courtesy of Comm. Stecl Sabo Structures.
Figure 18.41. Debris-flow grill, Dorfbach Randa, Switzerland.
When designing an open barrier, the following considerations ought to be
• Assure a sufficient drain width.

• Drainage must reach the channel bed to permit automatic sediment rcu).yYr.u,
during normal streamflow, and maintenance of a minimum
assure survival of aquatic organisms.
• Prevention of barrier clogging by woody debris (possibly by using a
barrier or wood rake upstream of the main open barrier).
• Determination of variable beam, rake, or grill widths for efficient
retention.
• Protection of the wing walls with riprap or earth fill.
• Placement of the maintainance access against the fl.ow direction and at ~l:';f..J~.,.,Y
elevations (dam opening must be within the reach of a backhoe or bulldoZer
• Construction of small, narrow basins with high gradients (Zollinger, 1
Experience shows that sediment removal by normal streamfl.ow after a

fl.ow rarely works (drain rates of 50% are considered successful). This ist..~~..,,
boulders and woody debris interlock at the opening. In most cases, the
the debris basin upstream of an open barrier takes approximately 3-10
than in a permanent debris retention dam. This fact allows bedload
stream and helps to maintain the processes of dosing and sorting.
In modern debris-flow mitigation, debris barriers are located
debris-flow breakers, followed by an array of check dams aimed at stabili~~
channel. This assembly of measures is referred to as a "torrent training systelll,.
"functional chain" (Kettl, 1984).
Debl'is-flow breaker
Debris-fiow breakers are designed to reduce debris-fiow energy (Kettl, 1984;
Fiebiger, 1997). By slowing and depositing the surge front of the debris fiow, down-
stream reaches of the stream channel and settlement areas are exposed to consider-
ably lower dynamic impact.
In an array of different debris-fiow mitigation structures, debris-flow breakers
are always in the most upstream position. A debris-fiow breaker should retain at
least the volume of the surge wave. Numerous functional structures with modern
sediment management systems could bc installed downstream of the breakers.
Debris-fiow breakers can be designed as independent structures, but they are
often combined with dosing and sorting barriers (bifunctional barrier), using "fins"
to divide debris fiow. Independent breakers consist of several fins, designed to
withstand 7-11 times the hydrostatic water pressure (Lichtenhahn, 1973;
Annanini, 1997; Huebl and Holzinger, 2003). For the design of such structures
the flow behavior is an important criterion, because liquid mudflows and stony
debris fiows show distinct fiow dynamics.
The upstream side of the fins are typically armoured with a steel sheeting to
protect the concrete from abrasion and impact.
The spacing between fins depends on the predicted maximum and average
sediment size and the amount of expected woody debris. Each fin may have
several knick points and features a vertical segment designed to stop the bouldery
front of the debris-fiow surge wave.
Recently, check dams are being fitted with small debris-flow breakers so that, in
case of an unusually !arge debris fiow, the intermittent retention capacity can be
used.
Breakcrs have been tested in numerous debris flows and have proven to be an
essential element in any torrent training system. The deposition area upstream of the
breakers must be excavated after each debris'flow which necessitates access to the
structure.
Dejlection
Defiection structures are constructed to direct debris flow toward areas of low
consequences. This requires the existence of areas with low economic value in
which debris flows are allowed to deposit. Deflection structures include dikes,
groynes, and deflection walls (Figures 18.42 and 18.43) constructed of concrete,
reinforced concrete, boulder revetments, gabions, and other construction
materials. Deflection structures are commonly constructed as the last element of a
systematic torrent training control to diminish any remaining risk.
Woody debris rake

Woody debris catching facilities are used to separate !arge woody debris from
mineral debris. These structures consist of steel, reinforced concrete, or massif-
concrete. Open barriers can grant the function of filtering woody debris, too.
Figure 18.42. Deflection walls at Luggauerbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Photo: courtesy ofWLV.
Woody debris rakes are always planned and constructed in combination with other
bedload managing structures.
18.2.2 Passive mitigation measures

Passive rnitigation rneasures are used to reduce the potential loss by, for exampl~,
altering the spatial and temporal character of either the darnage produced by debns
Figure 18.43. Deflection wall at Niedernsiller Muehlbach, Salzburg, Austria.
flows or the associated vulnerability. Vulnerability of a disaster can be changed

either with land-use planning like hazard mapping, or through immediate disaster
response (Aulitzky, 1972). Different types of passive mitigation measures are sum-
marized in Table 18.3.
Haza,.d mapping
The mapping of debris-flow hazards is an important instrument for:
• Disaster prevention.
• Disaster management.
Usually hazard mapping is legalized by law (e.g., in Austria by the Forest Law of
1975). The combination ofintensity and frequency ofthe process is symbolized in the
maps by different colors and have to be referenced in land-use planning.
The delineation of debris-flow-affected areas normally is accompanied with
restrictions to property rights. It is therefore important that hazard mapping has
to be comprehensible and readily comparable to other regions. The result must
Table 18.3. Passive mitigation measures.
Objective Taskjfunction Measure
Preventive
Reduction of potential Debris-flow transport and • Land-use planning (local,
loss deposition without darnage regional)
Local protection of an • Infonnation, education, and
object (e.g., house, person, disaster management
traffic route) • Specification of construction
rules
Event Response
Reduction of potential Debris-flow transport and • Closing of traffic route
loss deposition without darnage • Infonnation
Upkeep of protective • Warning and evacuating of
measures hazardous areas
• Immediate technical assistance.
match high-quality criteria and should include strategies of how to address residual
risk. For further details see Chapter 17.
Land-use zoning
Building regulations in hazardous areas can help to reduce darnage to buildings and
infrastructures. Based on different legal and administrative procedures, expert
opinions Iead to decisions being made by authorities and agencies.
Technical self-protection for buildings in minor dangeraus locations is easy tq
apply and includes, for example, deflection walls or dams, reinforced concrete foun~
dations, reinforced concrete walls, jacketing, heightened entrance levels, and down~
stream adjustment of doors.
In areas with a high impact load of debris flows, development of further settle-
ments and infrastructure should be prohibited.
W amitrg systems
An important tool in risk management is an early warning system (Yano and Senoo,
1985).
Debris~flow early warning systems are capable of detecting debris flows an~
automatically triggering an alarm. They allow evacuation or road closures tö
prevent or mitigate potential darnage or loss of Iife.
Such warning systems can be used to protect settlement areas, traffic routes, and
construction sites. They can also be used to control and monitor safety measures, to
support active measures, and to aid scientific studies. The most important elements
of an early warning system are:
• Data collection.
Figure 18.44. Contactless warning by ultrasonic sensors at Lattenbach, Tyrol, Austria.
• Data transfer.
• Data management.
• Distribution of information.
• A decision hierarchy structure.
• Response planning and organization.
The combination of these components is optimised based on several require-

ments (e.g., site, transmission rate, power supply, response time) and possible
sources of error (e.g., destruction). Malfunction or breakdown of one component
can lead to the collapse of the whole system.
In Japan and China, early warning systems have been used since the 1980s.
Similar systems have since been installed in the USA and Europe (Italy, Switzerland,
France, Austria (Figure 18.44), and Slovenia). Today, debris-flow warning systems
482 Debris-flow mitigation rneasures
Figure 18.45. Contact warning by DLT (detecteur lave torrentielle) sensors at Ravoire de
Pontamafrey, France.
are used principally in connection with traffic routes (e.g., Ravoire de Pontamafrey
in France (Figure 18.45) and Log pod Mangrtom in Slovenia (Figures 18.46 and
18.47)). For further details on warning systems see Chapter 12.
Immediate techt~ical assistance

The urgent technical measures following a disaster serve above all the restoration of
the infrastructure and the avoidance of consequential loss and darnage frm:n.
following events. These include excavation of buried objects, reconstruction of the
infrastructure, and cleaning of the inundated areas.
sec. 18.3] Conclusion 483
Figure 18.46. Log pod Mangrtom, Slovenia.
18.2.3 Documentation and control

Established mitigation measures must be monitared either regularly (e.g., yearly) or
following a debris-flow event. Inspection of a debris-flow-prone creek is necessary to
evaluate the condition of the catchment and the status of the existing mitigation
measures (Table 18.4). The effectiveness of these measures should then be evaluated
subsequent to an event. As a result, weak elements in the mitigation concept or safety
system can be identified and additional measures can be planned accordingly.
18.3 CONCLUSION
In this chapter only a few examples of debris-flow mitigation measures are described.
There are a large variety of measures that can be combined in different ways. For
Figure 18.47. Log pod Mangrtom, Slovenia.
selecting the best adjusted arrangement great importance should be given to th~
knowledge of all ongoing geomorphic processes and their possible interaction with
the mitigation measures. This means a multidisciplinary approach has tobe applied,
including specialized skills in applied geology, geomorphology, hydrology, fluid.
dynamics, forestry, and structural engineering.
Although there is a Iarge pool of experience gained by practitioners working in
this field of activity, a lot of scientific gaps still exist. The rare occurrence of debris
flaws of design magnitude obliges the engineers to visualize the effect of the mitiga.:
tion measures on the initiation, transportation, and deposition of the debris flow.
Therefore, it is most important to collect and exchange the experience of existing
mitigation measures worldwide.
Sec. 18.4] References 485
Table 18.4. Documentation and control.
Objective Taskjfunction Measure
Inspection of measures Documentation of the effect • Control measurements

of the established debris-flow
counter measures
Maintenance of Control of the channel • Inspection of the catchment
protective measures and the established and documentation of the
debris-fiow counter measures existing condition (e .g.,
channel, slopes, forest,
mitigation measures)
Beside the assignment of technical structures, hazard mapping in combination

with land-use planning seems to be a proper and cost-effective tool to reduce future
losses.
18.4 REFERENCES
Amman, W.J. (2001) Integrales Risikomanagement von Naturgefahren. In: Forumfür Wissen,
Tagungsband Risiko+Dialog Naturgefahren vom 16.11.2001, Birmensdorf(pp. 27-31) [in
German]. ·
Aretin, F. von (1808) Ueber Bergfaelle und die Mittel, denselben vorzubeugen oder wenigstens
ihre Schaedlichkeit zu vermindern, Innsbruck [in German].
Armanini, A. (1997) On the dynarnic impact of debris fiows. In: A. Armanini and M. Michiue
(eds), Recent Developments on Debris Flows (Lecture Notes in Earth Seiences No. 64,
pp. 208-225). Springer-Verlag, New York.
Aulitzky, H. (1972) Gefahrenzonenplaene im Bereich der Wildbach- und Lmvinenverbmmng. 10:
Flussbautagung (Bericht, pp. 95-113). Bundesministerium fuer Land- und For-
stwirtschaft, Sektion IV, Vienna [in German].
Aulitzky, H. (1986): Die Wildbaeche und ihre Verbauung. Unpublished manuscript, Vienna
[in German].
Breton, P. (1875) ]:7tudes sur le systemegenerat de defence contre [es torrents. Dunod, Paris [in
French].
Demontzey, P. (1889) La restaurationdes terrains en montagne, au Pavillion des forets. Impri-
merie Nationale, Paris [in French].
Duile, J. (1826) Ueber die Verbauung der Wildbaeche in Gebirgs-Laendem, vorzueglich in der
Provinz Tirol und Vorar/berg. Rauch-Verlag, Innsbruck [in German].
Eckersdorfer, Th. (1998) Type of a dam with combination of dosing and sizing. Wildbach- und
Lawinenverbau, 62. Jahrgang, 136, 127-132.
Fiebiger, G. (1997): Structures of debris flow countermeasures. In: C-L. Chen (ed.), Debris-
jlow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment: Proceedings of Ist Inter-
national Conference, San Francisco (pp. 596-605). American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York.
Hampel, R. (1974) Die Wirkungsweise von Wildbachsperren. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, l,
82 [in German].
Hartwagner, W. (2002) Entwicklung Projekt Schmidten-Wildbaeche 1889. Zukw1ft braucht

Vergangenheit: 150 Jahre Oesterreichischer Forstverein (Berichte zu den Lehrwander-
ungen). Forsttagung, Salzburg, Austria [in German].
Hoffmann, L. (1955): Geschiebestausperren mit selbsttaetiger Entleerung von Feingeschiebe.
Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 6, 49-60 [in German].
Huebl, J. (2001) Strategy ofprotection. In: R. Didier and F. Zanolini (eds), Risques torrentiels
Universite Europeenne d'Ete sur !es Risques Natureis, Grenoble, France.
Hueb1, J. and Holzinger, G. (2003) Kleinmassstaebliche Modellversuche zur Wirkung von
Murbrechern (WLS Report 50, Vol. 3). Institut für Alpine Naturgefahren, Universität
für Bodenkultur-Wien [in German].
Huebl, J. and Steinwendtner, H. (2000) Debris flow hazard assessment and risk mitigation.
Felsbau, Rock and Soil Engineering (Vol. 1, pp. 17-23). Verlag Glueckauf [in Gennan].
Huebl, J., Holzinger, G., and.Wehrmaun, H. (2003) Klassifikation von Wildbachsperren (WLS
Report 50, Vol. 2). Institut für Alpine Naturgefahren, Universität für Bodenkultur-Wien
[in German].
Huebl, J ., Ganahl, E., Gruber, H., Holub, M., Holzinger, G., Moser, M., and Pichler, A.
(2004) Grundlagenerhebung für das Schutzkonzept Lattenbach (Catchrisk). Grundlagen
fuer eine Murenprognose und darauf aufbauend die Entwicklung eines Warn- und Alarm-
systems (WLS Report 95, Vol. 1). Institut für Alpine Naturgefahren, Universität für
Bodenkultur-Wien [in German].
Kettl, W: (1984) Vom Verbauungsziel zur Bautypenentwicklung: Wildbachverbauung im
Umbruch. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 48. Jahrgang, Sonderheft, 61-98 [in GennanJ.
Kettl, W. (1998) Vom Gefahrenpotential zum Verbauungssystem. Wildbach- und Lawinenver-
bau, 62. Jahrgang, 136, 9-13 [in German].
Kienholz, H (2003) Early warning systems related to mountain hazards. In: J. Zschau an,d
A. Kueppers (eds), Early Warning Systems for Natural Disaster Reduction: 3rd Inter~
national IDNDR Conference on Early Waming Systems for the Reduction of Natural
Disasters. Potsdam, 1998 (pp. 555-564). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Krimpelstaetter, L. (1998) Ausgestaltung von Rostauflagen bei Sortierwerken. Wildbach- und
Lawinenverbau, 136, 107-111 [in German].
Kronfellner-Kraus, G. (1970) Ueber offene Wildbachsperren. Mitteilungen der forstlichen
Bundesversuchsanstalt- Wien, 88, 7-77 [in German].
Leys, E. (l965a) Beispiele fuer Wildholzfaenge bei Sperrendolen und bei Abflusssektionen.
Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 23, 45-48 [in German].
Leys, E. (1965b) Wann sind Murverteiler vorteilhaft. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 23, 49-56
[in German].
Leys, E. (1965c) Schlitzdolen und Eisenrechen bei geraden Auslaufsperren von Geschiebea·
blagerungsbecken. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 23, 57-65 [in German] ..
Leys, E. (1967) Rechen- und Balkenbauten in der Wildbachverbauung zur Regulierung des
Geschiebetriebes. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 3, 44-51 [in German].
Leys, E. (197la) Erkenntnisse und Folgerungen aus den Unwetterkatastrophen des Jah~
1965 in den Bezirken Imst und Landeck in Tirol. "Interpraevent" 1971 (Vol. 3, PP· 431:;
440). Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft Interpraevent, Klagenfurt, Austria pn
German].
Leys, E. (197lb) Die Bedeutung der grossdoligen und der kronenoffenen Bauweise in der
Wildbachverbauung zur Vorbeugung von Hochwasser- und Murschaeden. "lnte";
prae1•ent" 1971 (Vol. 3, pp. 441-449). Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft Inter'"
praevent, Klagenfurt, Austria [in German].
Sec. 18.4] References 487
Leys, E. (1973) Das Geschiebe und das Wildholz als Bemessungswert fuer die Oelfnungsweite
bei den Entleerungsbauwerken in der Wildbachverbauung. Mitteilungen der forstlichen
Bundesversuchsanstalt-Wien, 102, 317-333 [in German].
Leys, E. (1976) Die technischen und wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen in der Wildbachverbauung
der grossdoligen und der kronenoffenen Bauweise. PhD-These an der Universität für
Bodenkultur, Wien [in German).
Lichtenhahn, C. (1973) Die Berechnung von Sperren in Beton und Eisenbeton. Mitteilungen
der forstlichen Bundesversuchsanstalt- Wien, 102, 91-118 [in German].
Mougin, M. (1900) Consolidation des berges par derivation d'un torrent (Torrent de Saint
Julien). lmprimerie Nationale, Paris [in French).
Pestalozzi, K. (1882) Verbauung der Wildbaeche. In: Handbuch der Ingenieunrissenschaften
{III. Band). Der Wasserbau, Leipzig [in German].
Riccabona, B. (1988) Bisherige Erfahrungen mit Entleerungssperren und ihre Wirkungsweise
bei Murstoessen und Hochwaessem in den letzten 20 Jahren. "IIIterpraevent" 1988
{Band 3, pp. 119-129). Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft Interpraevent, Klagenfurt,
Austria [in German).
Salis, A. (1883) Das schweizerische Wasserbauwesen. Staempfli'sche Buchdruckerei, Bern [in
German].
Seckendorlf, A.F. von (1886) Das forstliche System der Wildbachverbauung. Paper presented
at Oesterreichischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein, 27.3.1886, Wien [in German].
Stauder, S. (1972): Balkensperren im Zillertal: Eine neue Verbauungstype der Wildbachver-
bauung. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 36. Jahrgang, 1, 1-45 [in German].
Stauder, S. (1973) Verschiedene Konstruktionen von Balkensperren. Mitteilungen der forst-
lichen Bundesversuchsanstalt-Wien, 102, 307-316 [in German].
Stauder, S. (1975) Integralmelioration im Zillertal nach dem forsttechnischen System der
Wildbach- und Lawinenverbauung. In: Hochwasser- und Lawinenschutz in Tirol. Land
Tiro1, Innsbruck [in German].
Stiny, J. {1931) Die geologischen Grundlagen der Verbauung der Geschiebeherde. Springer-
Verlag, Vienna [in German].
Strele, G. (1950) Grundriss der Wildbachverbammg (2. Auflage). Springer-Verlag, Vienna [in
German).
Thiery E. (1891) Restauration des montagnes, correction des torrents, reboisement. Encyclo-
pedie des Travaux Publics. Librairie Polytechnique, Paris [in French].
Ueblagger, G. (1973) Retendieren, Dosieren und Sortieren. Mitteilungen der forstlichen
Bundesversuchsanstalt- Wien, 102, 335-372 [in German].
Wang, F. (1901) Grundriss der Wildbachverbammg (Tei11). Verlag Hirzel, Leipzig [in German].
Wang, F. (1903) Grundriss der Wildbachverbauung (Teil2). Verlag Hirzel, Leipzig [in German].
Wehrmann, H. (2000): Vergleichende Betrachtung von Wildbachverbauungssystemen im
Pinzgau: Vom Gefahrenpotential zum Sicherungssystem. MSc-These an der Universität
für Bodenkultur, Wien [in German].
Yano, K. and Senoo, K. (1985) How to set standard rainfall for debris flow warning and
evacuation. In: A. Takei (ed.), International Symposium on Erosion, Debris Flow and
Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba, Japan (pp. 451--455). Tsukuba, Japan.
Zollinger, F. (1985) Debris detention basins in the European Alps. In: A. Takei (ed.), Inter-
national Symposium on Erosion, Debris Flow and Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba, Japan
(pp. 433--438). Tsukuba, Japan.
View publication stats

File 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

File 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

File 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Debris-ﬂow mitigation measures

Chapter · January 2005

Johannes Hübl Gernot Fiebiger

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Technischer Gebäudeschutz View project

Sedalp View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

18.1 STRATEGY OF PROTECTION

Integrated risk management is a tool to prevent, intervent, and avoid natural

M. Jakob and 0. Hungr (eds), Debris-fiow Hazards and Related Phenomena.

ln;O:~~~n ' ~- . ( ..,......, "'

,.~·<:~"~;~~t > (--- Rt;k··.·:.---:.

Figure 18.1. Strategy of protection.

18.2 MITIGATION MEASURES

18.2.1 Active mitigation measures

Table 18.1. Active measures.

Objective Task Measure

Especially in the alpine countdes (France, Switzer1and, Austria) severa1 books

In the following, a nurober of case studies are presented with a description of

Forest management activities

Soil bioenginee1·ing and terrai11 alte1·ation

• channels, gullies, rivers, and streams (Figure 18.4);

Most effective in soil bioengineering is the combination of surface protec~i~

Figure 18.2. Schmittenbach in 1887, Salzburg, Austria.

Figure 18.3. Schmittenbach in 1976 after afforestation, Salzburg, Austria.

Figure 18.4. Soil bioengineering at Pendlermure in 1995, Tyrol, Austria.

fascines, vegetated revetments of different materials, log brush barrier construction,

Integl"ated wate1·shed management

Figure 18.5. Slope stabilization at Filprittertobel in 1898, Vorarlberg, Austria.

Several options are available to the engineer:

• afforestation, sub-alpine forestation, protection forest rehabilitation, and stand

Toe slope stahilization

Figure 18.6. Transverse toe slope stabilization, Bretterwandbach, Tyrol, Austria.

Figure 18.7. Longitudinal toe slope stabilization, Eugenbach, Austria.

Figure 18.8. Niedernsiller Muehlbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Check dam (solid body barrier)

Wingwall Overflow Wing wall

Figure 18.9. Sketch of a typical check dam.

Therefore, it is important to consider that:

• The spillway cross sectional design is equal to a debris-flow surge profile.

Figure 18.14. Anchored longitudinal structure, Kirchbachgraben, Carinthia, Austria.

constructed to stabilize the bedload source ("Grosse Blaike") on the Buergerbach

Figure 18.16. Bypass at Buergerbach, Salzburg, Austria.

Permanent dehris deposition

Figure 18.18. Solid body barrier, Einachgraben, Austria.

Figure 18.19. Small slot barrier, Koednitzbach, Tyrol, Austria.

Seclienal banier with fins

Wing wall Overflow Wing wall

Functional openings I Foundation Scour protection structure

Upstream view Cross section

Figure 18.20. Sketch of an open barrier.

Temporary dehris deposition

Table 18.2. Types of open barriers.

. .. -. ' ~.: '

Compound barrier with Compound barrier with teeth

Figure 18.22. Small slot barrier, Truebenbach, Carinthia, Austria.

Photo: courtesy of M. Holub.