Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298
DOI 10.1007/s12665-015-5180-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Prediction of impact force of debris flows based on distribution
and size of particles
Siming He1,2,3 • Wei Liu1,2 • Xinpo Li1,2
Received: 30 November 2014 / Accepted: 20 October 2015
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract A debris flow is a solid–liquid two-phase flow;
the composition and gradation of the particles within have
a significant influence on its impact force. This paper
proposes a new method for studying the impact force
according to the composition of a debris flow based on
analysis of existing calculation methods. The impact force
is divided into three parts: (1) the dynamic pressure pro-
vided by the debris flow slurry, which is composed of fine
particles and water; (2) the impact force of coarse particles;
and (3) the impact force of boulders. This paper analyzes
the established formulations used to calculate the impact
force by using hydrodynamic theory and contact mechanics
to propose a debris flow impact model according to the
debris flow type. The results show that the impact force is
closely related to the solid volume fraction, composition of
particle materials, motion velocity, and depth of a debris
flow. Among all the components of the impact force, the
boulder impact force is the largest followed by the impact
force of coarse particles; the dynamic pressure is minimal.
Keywords Debris flow  Solid–liquid two-phase flow 
Gradation of particles  Impact force
& Wei Liu
sponlol@163.com
1
Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Surface Process,
Chinese Academy of Science, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan,
China
2
Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China
3
CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth
Sciences, Chengdu, China
Introduction
As natural phenomena, debris flows play an important role
in sediment transfer and erosion in mountainous zones
throughout the world. Debris flows are water-saturated
masses of soil and fragmented rock that are intermediate in
character between rock avalanches and flash floods
according to their mechanical behavior. Debris flows have
a solid volume fraction that exceeds 0.4, peak speeds that
surpass 10 m/s, and volumes that approach 109 m3 (Iverson
and George 2014). Therefore, debris flows commonly have
high mobility and extremely destructive natures, posing a
high risk to human life, safety, and property in mountain-
ous regions (Iverson 1997; Iverson and Denlinger 2001;
Iverson et al. 2011; Iverson and George 2014; Luna et al.
2012; Ouyang et al. 2014; Canelli et al. 2012; Tang et al.
2012; Eidsvig et al. 2014). Debris flows cause damage
mainly in three ways: deposition, entrainment, and direct
impact (Hu et al. 2011). However, impact is the main factor
that causes structural destruction (Mizuyama 1979; Hungr
et al. 1984; Armanini 1997; Zhang 1993; Shieh et al. 2008;
Hübl et al. 2009; Moriguchi et al. 2009). There is an
increasingly greater need for predicting the impact force of
debris flows for vulnerability and risk assessments as well
as for designing mitigation measures to withstand such
impact forces (Bugnion et al. 2012; Scheidl et al. 2013).
However, the impact mechanism is poorly understood,
owing partly to difficulties in measuring impact force (Hu
et al. 2011). At present, two different approaches exist for
calculating the impact force of debris flows: hydrostatic
models (Lichtenhahn 1973; Armanini 1997; Hübl et al.
2009) and hydrodynamic formulas (Watanabe and Ike
1981; Zhang 1993; Egli 2000; Wendeler et al. 2006;
Bugnion et al. 2012). A hydrostatic model is assumed to be
proportional to the hydrostatic pressure exerted on a fixed
123
298 Page 2 of 8 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298

Fig. 1 Classification standard

for particle sizes of debris flows

barrier by a debris flow. In general, the hydrostatic formula The objective of this study is to investigate the impact
of a debris flow can be expressed as forces of debris flows based on grain size distributions and
pmax ¼ kqgh; ð1Þ debris components. We divide the impact force of a debris
flow into three parts: (1) the dynamic pressure of slurry, (2) the
where pmax denotes the maximum debris flow impact impact force of coarse particles, and (3) the impact force of
pressure, k is an empirical parameter, q is the density of the boulders. The corresponding calculation formula is then pre-
debris flow, h is the total flow height, and g is the gravi- sented. In this study, the sizes of solid particles are classi-
tational acceleration. fied into three categories: fine particles with grain sizes less
However, impact force is related to factors other than than 10 mm, boulders with grain sizes greater than 500 mm,
flow depth and velocity. The hydrostatic model theoreti- and coarse particles with grain sizes between the two (Fig. 1).
cally does not consider the fact that dynamic impact is
related to hydrodynamic action rather than hydrostatic
pressure (Moriguchi et al. 2009). Dynamic pressure formula of debris flow slurry
A hydrodynamic formula is assumed to be proportional
to the square of the flow velocity from the change in fluid The slurry characteristics of a debris flow deviate from that of
momentum (Mizuyama 1979). In general, the impact an ideal fluid and depend on the constituents forming the slurry
hydrodynamic formula of a debris flow can be expressed as phase such as silt, clay, and fine particles. Assuming a debris
flow slurry with average velocity vf , flow depth h, and width b
pmax ¼ aqv2 ; ð2Þ
on an impact barrier (Fig. 2), the momentum theorem is
where pmax denotes the maximum debris flow impact    
pf bh Dt ¼ qf bhvf Dt vf ; ð3Þ
pressure, a is the empirical coefficient, and v is the average
velocity of a debris flow. where pf denotes the dynamic pressure of the slurry of a
Mizuyama (2008) reported that a limitation of hydro- debris flow, qf is the density of the slurry, vf is the average
dynamic formulas is that the impact process of debris flows velocity of the slurry, and Dt is the impact time.
is transient and unsteady and thus cannot be described by a Then, the dynamic pressure exerted by the slurry of a
certain constant velocity distribution. debris flow on a barrier can be expressed as
In summary, the existing impact force formulas of
pf ¼ qf v2f : ð4Þ
debris flows, both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic, consider
the flow as a single-phase homogeneous medium. Labo-
ratory testing and in situ monitoring data are incorporated
into hydraulics formulas, thereby synthetically reflecting Impact pressure exerted by coarse particles
the overall impact force of a debris flow. During laboratory
testing, however, the influence of the scale effect and the In this paper, coarse particles refer to the transition size
layout and size of the impact sensors for in situ monitoring between fine particles and boulders. Owing to the broad
prevents impact force analysis from accurately reflecting range in the size of coarse particles, we use the average
the actual debris flow conditions. In particular, the impact
of boulders is two to three orders of magnitude greater than
the dynamic pressure of the slurry and is the main factor
contributing to barrier damage (Suwa and Okuda 1983).
A debris flow is a typical solid–liquid two-phase fluid
flow that consists of a broad distribution of grain sizes from
65 lm to several meters. Fine particles and water form a
relatively uniform slurry, and coarse particles form slurry
packages. Their mobility differs; therefore, the impacts of
debris flows should be calculated separately based on their
compositions and the differences in their mobility
characteristics.
Fig. 2 Computation mode of dynamic pressure of debris flow slurry

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298 Page 3 of 8 298

 12
4 d50 3
Pg ¼ E d2 ; ð6Þ
3 2
where Pg denotes the impact force of a single particle, d50
is the average size of the coarse particles, E is the equiv-
alent elastic modulus, and d is the contact deformation.
Assuming vs and qs represent the velocity and density of
coarse particles, respectively, the following equation can
be derived according to the conservation of energy:
"   # Zdmax  12
1 4 d50 3 2 4 d50 3
p qs vs ¼ E d2 dd: ð7Þ
2 3 2 3 2
0

Then, the impact force formula of a single coarse par-

Fig. 3 Hertz contact of two nonconforming elastic bodies ticle can be expressed as
   
4 5 0:6 0:4 d50 2 0:6 1:2
Pg ¼ p E qs vs
particle size, d50 , as a representative for calculating the 3 4 2
 2
impact force exerted by coarse particles. Because d50 is d50
¼ 3:03E0:4 q0:6 1:2
s vs : ð8Þ
relatively small, the impact is correspondingly limited; 2
therefore, the influence of non-linear characteristics on the According to the volume fraction of a solid, the total
impact contact of the particles can be ignored. The impact number of coarse particles per unit area is expressed as
force of a single coarse particle may be computed (Iverson et al. 2010)
according to the Hertz contact theory (Johnson 1985; Vu- u
Quoc et al. 2001; Braccesi and Landi 2007). Consider two N ¼  2 ; ð9Þ
d50
spheres, sphere (1) and sphere (2), in contact with each p 2
other as shown in Fig. 3, and subjected to a normal contact where N is the total number of coarse particles per unit
force P. Let R1 and R2 be the radii of sphere (1) and sphere area, and u is the solid volume fraction of the debris flow.
(2), respectively. The material properties of sphere (1) are The average impact pressure formula of coarse particles
denoted by E1 for the Young’s modulus and l1 for Pois- can be written as
son’s ratio; similar properties are given for sphere (2). The
equivalent Young’s modulus E can be expressed as Pg ¼ 0:964E0:4 q0:6 1:2
s vs u: ð10Þ
(Johnson 1985):
1 1  m21 1  m22
¼ þ
E E1 E2 Impact force of boulders
and the relative radius R of contact curvature as (Johnson
Huang et al. (2007) applied the theory of elastic collision to
1985)
build a boulder impact model based on the Hertz law. In
1 1 1 their studies, the two balls in the collision represent a
¼ þ :
R R1 R2 concrete barrier and a boulder. Assuming the collision is
elastic and the radius and mass of the concrete barrier are
The normal contact force–displacement relation can be
significantly larger than those of the boulder, the impact
expressed as
force of the boulder can be expressed as
4 1 3  0:6
P ¼ ER2 d2 ; ð5Þ 4 5qs p2
3 Fb ¼ pðk1 þ k2 Þ0:4 U 1:2 R2 ; ð11Þ
3 4g
where P denotes the contact force, and d is the normal
approach or interference. where k1 ¼ 1m 1m2
E1 , k2 ¼ E2 , Fb represents for the impact
1

Assume that the concrete barrier is in half-space
(R2 ! 1) relative to a single coarse particle and that the
concrete barrier and coarse particle have the same Young’s
modulus and Poisson ratio (E1 ¼ E2 , l1 ¼ l2 ). Then, the
impact force of a single coarse particle may be expressed as
force of the boulder, U is the moving velocity of the
boulder, R is the radius of the boulder, qs is the density of
the boulder, and E1 , E2 , l1 and l2 denote Young’s elastic
modulus and the Poisson ratio of the concrete barrier and
boulder, respectively.

123
298 Page 4 of 8 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298

Huang et al. (2007) used experimental results to modify
the impact models and obtained a more reasonable and
universal model:
Fb ¼ 30:8U 0:5 R2 : ð12Þ
However, the impact interaction between a boulder and
a barrier involves complicated elastic–plastic deformation
and energy conversion. Due to the Hertz elastic contact
theory overestimates the impact of the boulder, Kuwabara
and Kono (1987), He et al. (2007), and Thornton (1997)
have suggested alternative models that consider viscous–
elastic and elastic–plastic behavior. In addition, applying
the impact force formula to actual situations based on a
laboratory model impact test gives inaccurate results.
Considering the Hertz elastic contact theory, a nonlinear
contact model has been developed on the basis of detailed
studies of the characteristics of the materials and current
engineering practices. This model stresses the influences of
elastic–plastic properties of materials on the mechanical
contact properties.
The Meyer nonlinear contact theory assumes that upon
normal loading, the contact deformation between a spher-
ical particle of a given dimension and a planar surface and
the contact pressure have the following relationship (Haz-
izan and Cantwell 2002; Andrews et al. 2002):
F ¼ cdnb ; ð13Þ
where F is the normal pressure acting on the contact mass,
db is the corresponding contact deformation, and c and b
are experimental regression coefficients that can be
obtained through an indent test or the finite element method
(FEM).
The following equation can be derived by considering
the conservation of energy at the impact of the boulder and
the barrier (He et al. 2007):
Zdmax
1
Mb U 2 ¼ cdnb dd; ð14Þ
2
0 U ¼ v ¼ vf ¼ vs ;
where Mb stand is the mass of the boulder, U is the moving
velocity of the boulder, and dmax represents the maximum
contact deformation.Further, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as
  Zdmax
1 4 3 2
pR qs U ¼ cdnb dd: ð15Þ
2 3
0
Thus, the maximum contact deformation formula can be
obtained as
 nþ1
1
nþ1 3 2
dmax ¼ pR U qs : ð16Þ
3c
The impact force formula of a boulder is presented as
 nþ1
n
nþ1 3 2
Fb ¼ c pR U qs : ð17Þ
3c
Velocity of slurry, coarse particles, and boulders
In the above impact force formula of debris flow, it is
necessary to determine the moving velocity of each phase,
including the velocities of the debris flow, slurry, and
coarse particles in addition to the moving velocity of the
boulders.
The mixture mass density of a debris flow can be defined
as (Iverson 1997; Iverson and Denlinger 2001)
q ¼ ð1uÞqf þ /qs ; ð18Þ
where q is the mass density of the debris flow, u is the
solid volume fraction, and qf and qs are the densities of the
fluid and solid phases, respectively.
The mixture moving velocity of a debris flow can be
defined as (Iverson 1997; Iverson and Denlinger 2001)
ð1  uÞqf vf þ uqs vs
v¼ ; ð19Þ
q
where v is the velocity of the debris flow, and vf and vs are
the velocities of the fluid and solid phases, respectively.
Iverson (1997) determined that solid velocity can be
substituted for fluid velocity:
v ¼ vf ¼ vs : ð20Þ
However, the velocity of a boulder is associated with the
type and state of motion of the debris flow according to the
following conditions:
1. When a boulder floats in a debris flow slurry during a
viscous debris flow, it is reasonable to assume that the
boulder has the same velocity as that of the debris flow:
ð21Þ
2. When a boulder moves mainly by rolling during a
dilute debris flow, the velocity of the boulder is less than
that of the debris flow and is related to the depth and the
diameter of the boulder.
Impact force load pattern of a debris flow
The temporal and spatial distribution of solid phase parti-
cles is closely related to the type of debris flow. In general,
solid-phase particle distribution is more uniform in viscous
debris flows, and the boulders within the flow move by

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298
floating. However, the solid particle concentration is dis-
tributed at the bottom of a dilute debris flow, and the
boulders within move by rolling along the gully bed.
Based on the distribution characteristics of solid parti-
cles in different types of debris flows, the present study
adopts methods reported previously (Kwan 2012) and
proposes a model for estimating the impact force of a
viscous debris flow on a containment barrier with an empty
reservoir under continuous impact (Fig. 4). In addition, a
model for estimating the impact force of a dilute debris
flow on a containment barrier is provided (Fig. 5).
Sample calculation analysis
Based on the calculation method proposed in this study for
estimating the impact force of debris flows, in addition to
the model for loading effects, calculations were performed
on the impact of a viscous debris flow against a contain-
ment barrier. The following assumptions were made: (1)
The height of the containment barrier is 6 m, (2) the depth
of the debris flow is 2 m, and (3) the average flow velocity
Fig. 4 Impact mode of viscous debris flow
Fig. 5 Impact mode of dilute debris flow
Page 5 of 8 298
of the debris flow is 5 m/s. Related parameters required for
calculating debris flow impact are shown in Table 1. The
values of c and n were obtained through static indentation
testing or finite element analysis (Wang et al. 2013). The
values of the other parameters were determined through
field measurements or laboratory experiments.
The relationship between the impact force and the
velocity of boulders within a debris flow upon impact with
the containment barrier was analyzed. The results of the
calculations, shown in Fig. 6, indicate a linear relationship
between the impact force and velocity. Higher velocity
relates to a greater impact force when the boulders hit the
containment barrier.
The impact force based on the calculation formula for a
typical debris flow was derived by using the aforemen-
tioned calculation parameters. The calculation results are
shown in Table 2.
Our proposed calculation method combines the influ-
ence of the slurry, coarse particles, and boulders within a
debris flow. The calculation results show a sum of
169.44 kPa for the impact forces of the debris flow slurry
and coarse particles. Even without the introduction of a
123
298 Page 6 of 8 Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298

Table 1 Calculation
u qf qs v d50 c n R (m) E1 (MPa) E2 (GPa) H (m)
parameters of the impact force
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (m/s) (m)
of a debris flow
0.3 1200 2400 5 0.1 10 1.4 1.0 10 25 6

Fig. 6 Relationship of impact force and velocity of boulders in a
debris flow
correction factor, the calculation results are equivalent to
that derived using other currently available formulas for
computing the impact force of a debris flow. However, the
impact force of the boulders within a debris flow deter-
mined by our method is significantly smaller than that
determined by Huang et al. (2007).
The calculation results for the three types of impact force
of a viscous debris flow in addition to a model illustrating the
loading effect on an empty reservoir are shown in Fig. 7.
The dynamic pressure of the debris flow slurry and the
impact intensity of the coarse particles, 60 and 278.8 kN,
respectively, were then converted to an impact force on a per
unit width of the barrier. The total impact force exerted on the
containment barrier by the debris flow was 3106.6 kN. In
terms of the proportions of the total impact force, that produced
by the boulders, coarse particles, and slurry was 88, 9, and 3 %,
respectively. The impact force of the boulders was nearly 30
times that of the slurry and nearly ten times that of the coarse
particles. The impact force of the coarse particles was in turn
three times that of the slurry. Hence, when designing con-
tainment barriers and structures, appropriate consideration
must be given to the boulders within the debris flows because
they constitute the main load of the impact force.
Naturally, the three types of forces in a debris flow do
not all act on the containment barrier at the same time.
Among the three, the impact forces of the slurry and coarse
particles are continuous loads, whereas that of the boulders
is a stochastic load. However, when designing protective
structures such as containment barriers, the combined
effect of all three types of loads must be considered. Only
then can the protective structures be guaranteed to provide
safety from debris flows.
Conclusion
The existing impact force formulas of debris flows always
need to determine some empirical parameters which rele-
vant to the distribution and sizes of particles in a debris
flow. However, the determination of empirical parameter
may have some errors due to the complex components of
debris flow. In order to avoid the arising of error, a novel

Table 2 Comparison of results by other calculation methods for a typical debris flow
Author Calculation formula Modified parameter Results Notes

Lichtenhahn (1973) pmax ¼ kqgh 2.8–4.4 85.6–134.5 kPa Hydrostatic formula

Scotton and Deganutti (1997) pmax ¼ kqgh 2.5–7.5 76–229 kPa Hydrostatic formula
Watanabe and Ike (1981) pmax ¼ aqv2 2.0–4.0 78–156 kPa Hydrodynamic model
Zhand (1993) 2 3.0–5.0 117–195 kPa Hydrodynamic model
pmax ¼ aqv
Hübl and Holzinger (2003) pmax ¼ 0:5qv0:8 ðghÞ0:6 168.5 kPa Hydrodynamic model
Armanini and Scotton (1992) pmax ¼ 9 12 qgy2d 275.18 kPa Hydrodynamic model
Canelli et al. (2012) 2 1.5–5.5 117–429 kN Hydrodynamic model
F ¼ Kqv A
 0:6
Huang et al. (2007) 5qs p 2 5526 kN Impact force of boulders
Fb ¼ 43 pðk1 þ k2 Þ0:4 4g U 1:2 R2
Present model pf ¼ qf v2f pf = 30 kPa Dynamic pressure
Pg ¼ 0:964E0:4 q0:6 1:2
s vs u Pg ¼ 139:44 kPa Impact force of coarse particles
nþ1 nþ1
n
Fb ¼ c pR3 U 2 qs Fb = 2737.76 kN Impact force of boulders
3c

123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298
Fig. 7 Three types of impact
force of viscous debris flow
when the barrier is unobstructed
impact force formulas which contain three parts: dynamic
pressure of slurry, impact pressure of course particles and
impact force caused by boulders is suggested on the basis
of the distribution and sizes of particles in a debris flow.
The proposed formulas were used for theoretical calcula-
tion, and the results were compared with those derived by
using other currently available formulas. The results have
shown that the impact forces caused by the slurry and
coarse particles are quite close to the results derived by
using existing formulas for calculating the impact flow of a
debris flow and among the components of the debris flow
impact load, boulders produced the greatest impact force,
followed by coarse particles and, to a much smaller extent,
slurry. When designing mitigation structures for debris
flows, the impact force caused by boulders should be the
primary consideration. A pattern for the impact forces and
loading effects of viscous and dilute debris flows was
proposed. This mode is realistic because it considers the
distribution characteristics of the solid particles within the
different types of debris flow. It is important to further
validate the presented model by comparing the predictions
and observations by using small model experiments and
measurements of actual-scale debris flow events.
Acknowledgments This research has received financial support
from the NSFC (Grant No. 41272346), the STS project of Chinese
Academy of Sciences (project No. KFJ-EW-STS-094) and The
Research Rlan of Shaanxi Provincial Transport Department.
References
Andrews EW, Giannakopoulos AE, Plisson E, Suresh S (2002)
Analysis of the impact of a sharp indenter. Int J solid struct
39(2):281–295
Armanini A (1997) On the dynamic impact of debris flows. In:
Armanini A, Masanori M (eds) Recent developments on debris
Page 7 of 8 298
flows, lecture notes in earth sciences. Springer, Berlin,
pp 208–226
Armanini A, Scotton P (1992) Experimental analysis on the dynamic
impact of a debris flow on structures. In: Internationales
symposion interpraevent 1992, vol 6, Bern, pp 107–111
Braccesi C, Landi L (2007) A general elastic–plastic approach to
impact analisys for stress state limit evaluation in ball screw
bearings return system. Int J Impact Eng 34:1272–1285
Bugnion L, McArdell BW, Bartelt P, Wendeler C (2012) Measure-
ments of hillslope debris flow impact pressure on obstacles.
Landslides 9:179–187
Canelli L, Ferrero AM, Migliazza M, Segalin A (2012) Debris flow
risk mitigation by the means of rigid and flexible barriers—
experimental tests and impact analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst
Sci 12:1693–1699
Egli T (2000) Objektschutz gegen gravitative Naturgefahren. Men-
surat Photogramm Genie Rural 98(3):120–125
Eidsvig UMK, Papathoma-Köhle M, Du J, Glade T, Vangelsten BV
(2014) Quantification of model uncertainty in debris flow
vulnerability assessment. Eng Geol 181:15–26
Hazizan MA, Cantwell WJ (2002) The low velocity impact response
of foam-based sandwich structures. Compos Part B: Eng
33(3):193–204
He SM, Li XP, Wu Y (2007) Calculation of impact force of outrunner
blocks in debris flow considering elasto-plastic deformation.
Chin J Rock Mech Eng 26(8):1664–1669 (In Chinese)
Hu KH, Wei FQ, Li Y (2011) Real-time measurement and prelim-
inary analysis of debris-flow impact force at Jiangjia Ravine,
China. Earth Surf Process Landf 36:1268–1278
Huang HP, Yang KC, Lai SW (2007) Impact force of debris flow on
filter dam. Geophys Res Abstr 9:03218
Hübl J, Holzinger G (2003) Entwicklung von Grundlagen zur
Dimensionierung kronenoffener Bauwerke fudie Geschiebebe-
wirtschaftung in Wildba hen: Kleinmasssta liche Modellver-
suche zur Wirkung von Murbrechern. WLS Report 50 Band 3,
Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering
Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D, Kaitna R, Scheidl C (2009) Debris flow
impact estimation. In: Proceedings of the international sympo-
sium on water management and hydraulic engineering, 1
September, Ohtid, Macedonia
Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of
debris flow torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can
Geotech J 21:663–677
123
298 Page 8 of 8
Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys
35:245–296. doi:10.1029/97RG00426
Iverson RM, Denlinger RP (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular
masses across three-dimensional terrain 1. Coulomb mixture
theory. J Geophys Res 106(B1):357–552
Iverson RM, George DL (2014) A depth-averaged debris-flow model
that includes the effects of evolving dilatancy. I. Physical basis.
Proc R Soc A 470:20130819
Iverson RM, Logan M, LaHusen RG, Berti M (2010) The perfect
debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large scale experiments.
J Geophys Res 115:F03005. doi:10.1029/2009JF001514
Iverson RM, Reid ME, Logan M, LaHuse RG, Godt JW, Griswold JP
(2011) Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-
flow entrainment of wet bed sediment. Nat Geosci 4:116–121
Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics [M]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Kuwabara G, Kono K (1987) Restitution coefficient in a collision
between two spheres. Jpn J appl phys 26(8R):1230
Kwan JSH (2012) Supplementary technical guidance on design of
rigid debris-resisting barriers [A], GEO Report No. 270
Lichtenhahn C (1973) Die Berechnung von Sperren in Beton und
Eisenbeton. Kolloquium uber Wildbachsperren, Mitteilungen der
Forstlichen Bundesanstalt Wien 102:91–127
Luna BQ, Remaı̂tre A, Van Asch TW, Malet JP, Van Westen CJ
(2012) Analysis of debris flow behavior with a one dimensional
run-out model incorporating entrainment. Eng Geol 128:63–75
Mizuyama T (1979) Computational method and some considerations
on impulsive force of debris flow acting on sabo dams. J Apan
Soc Eros Control Eng 112:40–43 (in Japanese)
Mizuyama T (2008) Structural countermeasures for debris flow
disasters. Int J Eros Control Eng 1(2):38–43
Moriguchi S, Borja RI, Ashima A, Sawada K (2009) Estimating the
impact force generated by granular flow on a rigid obstruction,
Acta Geotechnica 4:84. doi:10.1007/s11440-009-0084-5
Ouyang C, He S, Tang C (2014) Numerical analysis of dynamics of
debris flow over erodible beds in Wenchuan earthquake-induced
area. Eng Geol
123
Environ Earth Sci (2016)75:298
Scheidl C, Chiari M, Kaitna R, Müllegger M, Krawtschuk A,
Zimmermann T, Proske D (2013) Analysing debris flow impact
models, based on a small scale modelling approach. Surv
Geophys 34:121–140
Scotton P, Deganutti A (1997) Phreatic line and dynamic impact in
laboratory debris flow experiments. In: Chen C (ed) Proceedings
of the 1st. international conference on debris-flow hazards
mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 777–786
Shieh CL, Ting CH, Pan HW (2008) Impulsive force of debris flow on
a curved dam. Int J Sedim Res 23(2):149–158
Suwa H, Okuda S (1983) Deposition of debris flows on a fan surface,
Mt. Yakedake, Japan. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie NF Sup-
plementband 46:79–101
Tang C, van Asch TWJ, Chang M, Chen GQ, Zhao XH, Huang XC
(2012) Catastrophic debris flows on 13 August 2010 in the
Qingping area, southwestern China: the combined effects of a
strong earthquake and subsequent rainstorms. Geomorphology
139–140:559–576
Thornton C (1997) Coefficient of restitution for collinear collisions of
elastic—perfectly plastic spheres. J Appl Mech 64:383–386
Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X, Lesburg L (2001) Normaland tangential force-
displacement relation for frictional elasto-plastic contact of
spheres. Int J Solids Struct 38:6455–6489
Wang DP, He SM, Ouyang CJ, Zhang XX (2013) Study of dynamic
response of shed reinforced concrete slab to impact load of rock-
fall [J]. Rock Soil Mech 34(2):881–886 (in Chinese)
Watanabe M, Ike (1981) Investigation and analysis of volcanic mud
flows on mount sakurajima, japan. In: Erosion sediment transport
measurement. Int Assoc Hydrol Florence Sci Publ 133:245–25
Wendeler C, McArdell BW, Rickenmann D, Volkwein A, Roth A,
Denk M (2006) Field testing and numerical modelling of flexible
debris flow barriers. Proc Int Conf Phys Model Geotech, Hong
Kong
Zhang S (1993) A comprehensive approach to the observation and
prevention of debris flow in China. Nat Hazards 7:1–23