Experimental study on the effects of physical

conditions on the interaction between debris

flow and baffles
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0046670
Submitted: 05 February 2021 . Accepted: 05 April 2021 . Published Online: 04 May 2021

Haiqing Yang (杨海清 ), Md. Emdadul Haque, and Kanglei Song (宋康磊 )

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Acoustic response of turbulent cavity flow using resolvent analysis

Physics of Fluids 33, 056102 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0047281

Robust and unstable axisymmetric vortices, including neutral vortices, of a new two-
dimensional vortex family
Physics of Fluids 33, 054103 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0048128

Airborne transmission of COVID-19 and mitigation using box fan air cleaners in a poorly
ventilated classroom
Physics of Fluids 33, 057107 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050058

Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0046670 33, 056601

© 2021 Author(s).
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

Experimental study on the effects of physical

conditions on the interaction between debris flow
and baffles
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Submitted: 5 February 2021 . Accepted: 5 April 2021 .
Published Online: 4 May 2021

Haiqing Yang (杨海清),1,2,a) Md. Emdadul Haque,1,2,b) and Kanglei Song (宋康磊)1,2,c)

AFFILIATIONS
1
State Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and Control, School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University,
Chongqing 400045, China
2
National Breeding Base of Technology and Innovation Platform for Automatic-Monitoring of Geologic Hazards, Chongqing
Engineering Research Center of Automatic Monitoring for Geological Hazards, Chongqing 400042, China

a)
E-mail: yanghaiqing06@163.com and yanghaiqing@cqu.edu.cn
b)
Electronic mail: emdadulhaque@cqu.edu.cn
c)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: sklei@cqu.edu.cn

ABSTRACT
The gravitational debris flow, such as the agent forming alluvial cones in the mouths of mountain canyons, could bring about devastating disaster
to downstream structures in mountainous areas. In the present study, a series of model tests were conducted on the sand and the ceramsite to
systematically explore the interaction between debris flow and baffles. During the runout process, the impact force exerted by debris flow was
measured by dynamometers. The runout distance, velocity of the flow, and flow depth were monitored by a video camera and a high-speed cam-
era in a real time. The dynamic interaction under different particle sizes of dry granular materials, slop angles, and baffle configurations was simu-
lated. Experimental results show that the smaller size material is favorable for the frictional energy dissipation during the sliding process, giving
rise to the smaller runout distance. The present findings provide important references for the debris flow control engineering.
Published under license by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0046670

I. INTRODUCTION
Large volume landslides frequently carry disastrous high-speed
debris flows, which causes loss of much property and fatality.1–5
Available data have indicated that annual global landslide disaster
would cause 1000 deaths and $4 million property loss,6,7 almost 70%
of which are attributed to the high-speed and long-distance rock ava-
lanches.8 To avoid such hazardous phenomenon, rigid or flexible bar-
riers9 combined with isolated baffles are commonly employed.10 Such
debris-resisting structure can promote the energy loss of debris flow
and suppress further flow of debris.11–17
Baffle configurations have significant effects on the mobility of
debris flow.18,19 A simple baffle may alter the original flow direction
only in the vicinity of the contact surface, while an array of baffles can
change the flow pattern such that the gravity-driven flow slows down
as it approaches each baffle and then accelerates toward the next row
to facilitate energy dissipation.20–24 Therefore, the energy dissipation
characteristics of baffle with different layouts and shapes have been
widely investigated. Choi et al.20 found that tall baffles are beneficial to
suppress overflow, while the second staggered row of short, staggered
baffles could not affect in reducing the kinetic energy of debris. On the
basis of experiments and numerical simulations, Chen et al.25,26 con-
cluded that the increases in length and width of the energy dissipation
structure improve the energy dissipation ratio. Furthermore, Wang
et al.27 studied the velocity reduction effects and energy dissipation
capacities of deceleration baffles through a series of indoor experi-
ments. In the experiments, the influences of debris-flow density, baffle
shape, and row spacing were systemically investigated. For the com-
bined baffle-avalanche wall system, Bi et al.28 numerically investigated
the effects of the size of the retaining wall and layout of the baffle-
avalanche wall system on energy dissipation capacity. However, the
above-mentioned investigations mainly focus on the deflecting dams
in the runout zone. Actually, retarding structures in the deposition
zone are also widely been used. By comparison, retarding structures
also have a high capacity in dissipating the kinetic energy of debris
flows. Therefore, Fei et al.29 explored the effects of baffle pile layouts
on their energy dissipation capacity by experiment and numerical

Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670 33, 056601-1

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
simulation. Baffle piles were installed on the horizontal runout zone.
But the impact force acting on piles and velocity of debris flow were
still unclear.
It is widely accepted that debris flows are multi-phase medium
with particle–fluid,30–35 which means that the flow mechanisms of the
debris are difficult to predict. Previous research has extensively aimed
at the pore pressure characteristic36–38 and the frictional character-
istic39–41 of the debris during the sliding process, while the debris–baf-
fle interaction mechanisms, which are important to evaluate debris
mobility, have not yet received enough attention. Although the move-
ment mechanism of debris is difficult to predict, laboratory experi-
ments can help us to better understand the physical processes.
Combined with model tests, researchers have also begun to
explore the effects of a series of factors such as landslide material, the
volume of landslide on debris flow. Different dry granular materials
releasing to inclined chute were usually applied to simulate the debris
flow.42 For example, Okura et al.43 developed an almost real-size slope
model to study the process of landslide fluidization under torrential
rain conditions; it was found that the three-stage characteristic of land-
slide fluidization occurs simultaneously. Lu et al.44 employed four
types of dry granular materials with particle size ranging from 2 to
80 mm and studied the effect of particle size and volume of the slide
material on the entrainment process. The experimental results indi-
cated that the energy of debris flow increases with the growth of parti-
cle size and volume. Thus, the particle size of the sliding material
should be one of the crucial parameters when analyzing the energy dis-
sipation during sliding process, especially when evaluating the
debris–baffle impact mechanism. Furthermore, a new model was pro-
posed to estimate the overrun area and volume in terms of known
mobility data by Pudasaini and Miller.8 However, due to the lack of
energy dissipation mechanism during the sliding process, the impact
momentum of the landslide could not be accurately calculated.45
Considering this limitation, a landslide model experiment involving
the impact energy dissipation was constructed by Wu et al.46 The
impact momentum of a landslide was calculated. The results indicate
that the impact energy increases remarkably with the increase in the
debris particle size.
In this study, a series of model tests were conducted on the sand
and the ceramsite to study the interaction between debris flow and baf-
fles. The influences of dry granular materials, slop angles and baffle
configurations on runout distance, impact force, and debris frontal
velocity were investigated.
II. MODEL TEST SETUP OF GRANULAR–STRUCTURE-
INTERACTION
Baffles are commonly installed in front of barriers (e.g., Lantau
Island, Hong Kong) or in open stream courses (e.g., Kennedy Town,
Hong Kong) according to Choi et al.12 However, the design of baffles
is typically designed using empirical methods, so that the debris–baffle
interaction mechanism is not well understood. So, investigating on the
effect of baffle configuration in terms of different particle sizes, slope
angles, and installation distances plays a vital role in the field baffle
design and arrangement. Therefore, a series of laboratory model tests
were carried out to study the baffle–debris interaction mechanism.
Details on experimental devices and test program are illustrated in
Secs. II A and II B.
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
A. Experimental materials and devices
The sand and ceramsite were selected to simulate the debris flow
in the experiment. The sand has a bulk unit weight of 16.3 kN=m3
with the average particle size of 0.25 mm. The ceramsite has a bulk
unit weight of 9.28 kN=m3 with the average particle size of approxi-
mate 10 mm. The volume of the material used in each test is 0.002 m3 .
During the landslide, the bulk density of the sand flow ranges from
1300 to 1700 kg=m3 , while the bulk density of the ceramsite flow
varies from 300 to 1000 kg=m3 . According to Iverson,39 the Savage
number and the Bagnold number of the sand are 0.2 and 400, respec-
tively. The values of the ceramsite are estimated to be 0.03 and 120,
respectively. That is to say, the sand represents the collisional debris
flow (Sav > 0.1), and frictional stresses from grains are more impor-
tant (Bag > 200). The ceramsite represents the frictional debris flow
(Sav < 0.1), and viscous stresses from grains are more important
(Bag > 200). As shown in Fig. 1(a), the experimental devices mainly
consist of an inclined chute, a storage container, a horizontal chute,
dynamometers, a video camera, and a high-speed camera. The sizes of
inclined chute and horizontal runout plate are set as 0.26
0:5 m2 and
0.7 mm
0:9 m, respectively. Dynamometers were employed to mea-
sure the impact force of the debris flow acting on the baffles. While the
velocity of the flow and flow depth can be monitored by a video cam-
era and a high-speed camera.47 According to Ng et al.,19 dynamic sim-
ilarity is obtained by the Froude number, Fr , which is given by
  
Fr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; (1)
gh cos ðhÞ
where  is the frontal velocity in m=s; g is the gravitational accelera-
tion in m=s2 ; h represents the flow depth in m, and h stands for the
channel inclination. In the experiment, the Froude number is set as 3,
which stands for a frontal velocity of 10 m=s and a flow depth of 1 m.
In addition, a black line is marked inside the storage container, so
that the same volume of the sliding body was determined in each test.
A movable plate was designed at the bottom of the storage container
to release the granular material stored at the top of the inclined chute.
Once the movable plate is removed in short time (1–2 s) by hand,
which, to a great extent, avoids the potential influence of the removing
process on the experimental results, then the sliding body runs out of
the storage container and starts to slide along the inclined chute. Both
of the inclined chute and the horizontal chute are marked with 0.02

0:02 m2 grid cells for the sake of determining the location of the
sliding body in real-time during each experiment. We chose cube glass
blocks with the edge length (w) of 0.05 m to simulate the baffles and
used dry sand and ceramsite as an analogue to the sliding material.
A video camera and a high-speed camera were used to capture
the dynamic process of debris flow. The high-speed camera used in
the experiment is Basler daa2500  14 um made in Germany, which
can capture 5
106 pixels of images and 14 frames of images per sec-
ond. The two cameras were, respectively, installed above and aside the
model, which work synchronously with a timer placed on a flat plate
to record the sliding process on the inclined chute and the overrun
phenomenon on the horizontal chute. According to dynamic photo-
graphs of the landslide, the velocity of the sliding body can be calcu-
lated by comparing the same point of the sliding body at different
times. To measure the impact force, each glass block is connected with
a dynamometer. The dynamometer used in the experiment is
33, 056601-2
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup: (a) 3D view with scaled ratio
1:100; (b) top view of the array of baffles.
MARK-10-M7, with a range of 0–400 N and a minimum scale of
0.05 N. The accuracy can meet the experimental requirements.
B. Testing program
23 groups of model tests were carried out by releasing dry granu-
lar materials (dry sand and ceramsite, as shown in Fig. 2) onto the
inclined chute. To analyze the influence of baffles on debris mobility,
three kinds of the baffle configurations were presented: a single baffle
(one glass block), one row of baffles (three blocks in one line), and two
rows of baffles (two glass blocks in front and three glass blocks behind,
referring to Ng et al.19); also, three initial distances (D) between the
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 2. Dry granular materials employed in the experiment: (a) sand; (b)
ceramsite.
inclined chute and the front of baffles are set: 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 m.
Each case of the baffle configuration is schematically delineated in Fig.
1(b). It should be noted that the arrangement of one single baffle can
be used as a control group when comparing the influence of the baffles
beside the middle baffle on the debris flow, although the single baffle
may be rare in the field. Besides, to analyze the effect of slope angle on
the sliding process of debris flow, the inclined angles of slope were set
as 30 ; 45 ; and 45 , respectively.
The experimental results are summarized accordingly in Table I.
We used the “Sand_40 _5 cm” symbols as an example to explain
the meaning of these test IDs. “Sand” represents the sand group with
only one baffle, “40 ” represents the slope angle is 40 , and “5 cm”
represents the installation distance is 0.05 m (5 cm) from the inclined
chute.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Due to the existence of prepositioned baffles, the mobility of
debris flow will be slowed after contacting the baffles, which simulta-
neously results in different runout distance and velocity changes at dif-
ferent points in the sliding body. For the convenience of presentation
and analysis, we defined front, middle, and tail of the sliding body
with the following specific meaning:48 front refers to the leading edge
of the landslide body; middle represents the middle part of landslide
body that slides out of the storage container at half of the entire sliding
distance; tail is the trailing edge of the landslide body.
33, 056601-3
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

TABLE I. The design of test groups.

Test ID Baffle Slope angle (deg) Baffle distance (cm) Material type

Sand_30 No 30  Sand

Sand_40 No 40  Sand
Sand_45 No 45  Sand
Ceramsite_40 No 40  Ceramsite
Ceramsite_45 No 45  Ceramsite
Sand_40 _5 cm Single 40 5 Sand
Sand_40 _10 cm Single 40 10 Sand
Sand_40 _15 cm Single 40 15 Sand
Ceramsite_40 _5 cm Single 40 5 Ceramsite
Ceramsite_40 _10 cm Single 40 10 Ceramsite
C1_S40_D15 Single 40 15 Ceramsite
Sand_30 _5 cm One row 30 5 Sand
Sand_40 _5 cm One row 40 5 Sand
Sand_45 _5 cm One row 45 5 Sand
Ceramsite_30 _5 cm One row 30 5 Ceramsite
Ceramsite_40 _5 cm One row 40 5 Ceramsite
Ceramsite_45 _5 cm One row 45 5 Ceramsite
Sand_30 -2 or 10 cm Two rows 30 2 or 10 Sand
Sand_40 -2 or 10 cm Two rows 40 2 or 10 Sand
Sand_45 -2 or 10 cm Two rows 45 2 or 10 Sand
Ceramsite_30 _2 or 10 cm Two rows 30 2 or 10 Ceramsite
Ceramsite_40 _2 or 10 cm Two rows 40 2 or 10 Ceramsite
Ceramsite_45 _2 or 10 cm Two rows 45 2 or 10 Ceramsite

A. Runout distance
Runout distance is an essential physical parameter for evaluating
the hazardous consequences and risks from landslides and debris
avalanches.6–8 This parameter substantially reflects the final form of
energy dissipation of the debris flow after it experiences gravity-driven
falls, frictional slides on slope surface, interactions with obstacles in
flow path, and dispersive flows in deposit zone.48 During this dynamic
process, runout is also affected by the coefficient of restitution, which
governs energy dissipated in the flow.22 Since the inclined and hori-
zontal chutes are both installed with fixed surface roughness, we can
mainly focus on other dominant parameters such as particle size of
granular material, slope angle, baffle location, and configuration to
explore the mobility of debris flow. In order to study the problem of
the sliding distance after the landslide body interacts with the baffle,
the following discussion is presented.
1. Size of granular materials
To explore the influence of particle size on runout distance of
sliding body, the ceramsite and the sand were employed in the experi-
ment. The slope angle is set as 45 . Experimental results were depicted
in Fig. 3. As illustrated in Fig. 3(a), the runout distance increases with
the increase in sliding time despite different particle sizes (ceramsite
for Ceramsite_45 and sand for Sand_45 ), then the distance remains
constant. The maximum runout distance of the ceramsite at different
parts is bigger than those of the sand at corresponding parts.
Especially, the runout distance of sand is up to 23 % less than that of
ceramsite in the front part of the sliding body. Nevertheless, in addi-
tion to the difference in particle size, the unit weight of the ceramsite
and the sand differs greatly. To highlight the influence of particle size
on runout distance, the ratio of runout distance to the unit weight was
calculated, as shown in Fig. 3(b). Generally, the trends of ratios in this
figure are similar with that in Fig. 3(a). Besides, it is also observed that
the maximum ratio for the ceramsite at middle part is more than that
for the sand at front part. The maximum ratio for the ceramsite at tail
part is more than that for the sand at middle part. That is to say, the
effect of particle size is more influential. This phenomenon is due to
the fact that the average diameter of the ceramsite (10 mm) is much
greater than that of the sand (0.25 mm). Under the same volume, the
specific surface area of the ceramsite is smaller than that of the sand.
In the case of identical slope angles, the kinetic energy loss of the
ceramsite caused by friction is smaller than that of the sand during the
sliding process. In addition, as the particle size of the sand is smaller
than that of ceramsite, after the sand hits the baffle, the collision fre-
quency of the sand must be higher than that of the ceramsite, which
consumes more kinetic energy. Therefore, the runout distance of
ceramsite is longer. Similar findings are provided by Li et al.49 who
reported that the fine-grained granular material has a large specific
surface area and a significant larger frictional energy consumption
than the coarse-grained granular material, which can result in serious
energy dissipation inside the sliding body, inhibit particle collision and
leap, and therefore limit the impact of the sliding body on baffles.

Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670 33, 056601-4

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 3. The change of the final runout distance (a) and the ratio of runout distance
to the unit weight (b) of sliding materials for different parts of the sliding body. The
slope angel is 45 .
The contour line of the deposit area is shown in Fig. 4. It is found
that the main part of the spreading on deposit area reveals fan-shape
despite different materials and particle sizes, which indicates that
ceramsite and sand have a similar landslide dynamic process under
the same slope angle. From Fig. 4(a), a conclusion is drawn that the
runout distance of ceramsite is greater than the sand, that is, because
an increase in coarse particles leads to larger runout distances by
increased grain collisional forces, this phenomenon has also been
mentioned in the research of de Haas et al.50 In addition, there is still
some extra scatter in ceramsite debris deposit area [Figs. 4(b) and 4
(c)]. The final deposit area of sand is 0.14 m2 , while the main deposit
area of ceramsite is 0.15 m2 with an additional debris scattered area of
0.17 m2 . The main accumulation area of ceramsite accounts for 46.5 %
of the total accumulation area.
The mobility of a landslide or debris flow is expressed as the ratio
between the runout distance (L) and height of fall (H).51 The value of
L=H provides a very useful information on the flow dynamics and
runout of a landslide or a debris flow. Pudasaini and Miller8 showed
using physical and rheological arguments that the wide scatter
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
observed for very large mass wasting events in different environments
collapses to a single relationship between event volume or inundation
area and mobility. They defined mobility (or hypermobility) to be the
reciprocal of the effective friction coefficient mue , where the scale-
dependent mue is derived analytically as a function of the mechanical,
volumetric, and topographical parameters of the flow
 
l ð1  KÞcT H 0
le ¼ c n1 1 ; (2)
S V 1n
where le represents the theoretical effective friction coefficient, lc rep-
resents the Coulomb friction coefficient, K represents the ratio
between basal pore fluid pressure and total normal stress, c represents
the volumetric parameter, T represents the topographic parameter, H 0
represents the mean flow depth, S is the volume-area slope that
includes the physical, mechanical, and geometrical parameters, and V
represents the debris volume and n ¼ 3=2.
Pudasaini and Miller8 also derived an explicit functional relation-
ship between the event volume and the inundation area
fA ¼ SV 1=n g; (3)
where A is the inundation area. Assuming a linear relationship
between the inundation area A and the deposition area Ad ,8
Ad ¼ c2 A, we obtain
 
L 1
¼ ¼ FAd 1=2 ; (4)
H le
 
1
F ¼ 1=2 0
; (5)
c2 lc ð1  KÞcTH
where F stands for a unified parameter and 1/le represents the theo-
retical hypermobility function.
Pudasaini and Miller8 utilized the model to calculate the theoreti-
cal hypermobility of different extra-terrestrial, non-volcanic, volcanic,
and submarine mass flow events, and very well compared with the
data. Here, HL from Eq. (4) is used to our debris flow experiments in
connection to the final deposition area. The value of F can be approxi-
mated by considering the mean values of the parameters involved in
F, which we obtain is about 4.2.
2. Slope angle
During the landslide, in addition to the size of slope materials,
the slope angle is a decisive factor influencing the formation and evo-
lution mechanisms of landslides. The parameter controls not only the
direction of the landslide but also the size of the landslide.
According to the tests, it was found that the inclination angle is
conducive to the kinetic energy of slide mass, causing the increase in
the sliding distance. Obviously, the increase in inclination angle
increases the component of gravity to accelerate of the sliding mass,
causing the increase in acceleration of the sliding mass during the run-
out process. In addition, according to the field investigation on surface
failure that occurs in southern Fukushima Prefecture, Okura et al.52
pointed out that the correlation between the inclination angle and
internal friction coefficient of the slip surface is positive. Thus, the
increase in slop angle decreases the energy consumption of sliding
body during the landslide, which gives rise to the rapid growth of run-
out distance.
33, 056601-5
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 4. (a) The contour line of the deposit area; (b) actual distribution of the ceramsite’s deposit area; (c) actual distribution of the sand’s deposit area.
3. Distribution of baffles
Specific locations and configurations of baffles have pivotal role
in attenuating the mobility and flow energy of debris avalanches.20 In
the experiment, the distribution of baffle involves the installation dis-
tance from the inclined chute (D) and the rows of baffle. In detail, the
length of the cubic glass block is w ¼ 0.05 m, and the slope angle is
40 . The installation distances were set as w, 2, and 3w (corresponding
to Sand_40 _5 cm, Sand_40 _10 cm, and Sand_40 _15 cm in Table I,
respectively). Additionally, baffle rows were adopted as no baffle, sin-
gle baffle, one row of baffles (three baffles), and two rows of baffles
(five baffles), as shown in Fig. 5.
Figure 6 shows the variations of runout distance (L) for different
parts of the sand sliding body and installation distance (D). It is clear
that during the sliding process, the similar movement trends of the
sliding front, middle, and tail parts are found for different installation
distances, in general: the runout distance increases with the increase in
the installation distance but not systematically. The closer the installa-
tion distance, the smaller the runout distance along the horizontal
unit. Moreover, the closer the installation distance is, the earlier the
sliding body collides with the baffle model, which simultaneously
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
results in earlier energy dissipation, so the sliding distance becomes
decreased. Additionally, the rank order of sliding distance for different
part of the landslide body is as follows: the front part > the middle
part > the tail part. The main reason for this phenomenon is that dif-
ferent positions of the baffles have different effects on the frontal speed
(Figs. 13 and 14), which results in different sliding distances. When
the slope angle is 40 , the baffle is increased from one row [Fig. 13(a):
Sand_40 _5 cm] to two rows [Fig. 14(a): Sand_40 _2 or 5 cm], the
speed of the frontal part is reduced by 14 %, which implies the signifi-
cant role of baffle arrangement in controlling debris flow. Of course,
Fig. 13 also contains very rich information, which will be analyzed in
detail in later chapters.
Figure 7 shows the variations of runout distance of the front of
the flow for different baffle configurations. Obviously, in the case of
sand and ceramsite, the variations of sliding distance show the similar
trend. Sliding distance increases gradually with time at first. After
about 0.75 s, the value reaches a stable state. In addition, except for
some individual cases, the fewer the baffles, the longer the runout dis-
tance. Specifically, in the case of the sand, runout distances reduce by
15 %, 8%, and 19% for single, one row, and two rows of baffles, respec-
tively [Fig. 7(a)]. As for the ceramsite particles [Fig. 7(b)], the runout
33, 056601-6
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 6. The variations of final runout distance with time for different parts of the
sand sliding body and installation distances.
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 5. Arrangement of baffles: (a) no
baffle; (b) single baffle; (c) one row of baf-
fles (three baffles); (d) two rows of baffles
(five baffles).
distances under single, one row, and two rows of baffles reduce by
10%, 14%, and 27%, respectively.
It is worth noting that lines in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) are not simply
parallel, but there are crossovers. The reason for this is that the land-
slide body speed varies as time goes on. According to the Choi et al.,12
debris flow goes through the transient state and the quasi-steady state
sequentially in the impact process. Specifically, after the collision, the
flow is highly incoherent, causing the overflow and backwater effects.
As a result, more debris is stagnant upstream of the baffles, and the
kinetic energy decreases rapidly. The process is called as the transient
state. After that, the mobility of flows keeps at the quasi-steady state.
Compared with a baffle plate, when adopting a row of baffles, the sand
and the baffle strike more violently, resulting in a temporary increase
in the speed of the sand and a crossover phenomenon. For the test
conducted on ceramsite, the crossover phenomenon is not obvious,
indicating that the velocity of materials with larger particle sizes will be
less affected after collision with the baffle. Therefore, the runout dis-
tance has a positive correlation with the slope angle and the particle
size of the sliding body.
33, 056601-7
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 7. The variations of runout distance of the frontal part for different baffle con-
figurations: (a) sand; (b) ceramsite.
B. Impact force
In order to investigate the impact of the landslide body and the
baffle on the magnitude and change of the impact force, the impacting
force acting on the baffles is discussed under different parameters.
Barriers may bear increasing risks from the high-speed debris flow
when the baffle is unable to withstand the impact forces induced by
the sliding body. The impact force acted on each baffle can be recorded
by the dynamometers in real time. The impact force can reflect the
frontal runout distance of the sliding body and the flow velocity of the
debris avalanche.
1. Influence of the distribution of baffles on the runout
behaviors
The process of the debris flow is associated with the dissipation
of gravitational potential energy of the slide materials due to the fric-
tion and collision energy dissipation. So, concerning the same initial
potential energy, baffles at different installation distances will be sub-
jected to different impact forces. The slope angle is fixed at 40 . For
comparison, three groups of sand (Sand_40 _5 cm, Sand_40 _10 cm,
and Sand_40 _15 cm) and three groups of ceramsite
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
(Ceramsite_40 _5 cm, Ceramsite–Sand-10 cm, and Ceramsite–Sand-
15 cm) were employed for analysis in this section.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the impact force and
time for sand and ceramsite under different installation distances. In
the sand group, when the front of the sliding body hits the baffle, the
impact force has an abrupt increase. After the peak impact force,
impact force basically keeps at a constant value. This phenomenon is
especially noticeable for the installation distance of 0.10 m
(Sand_40 _10 cm). In the ceramsite group, the similar variation trend
is also observed except for Ceramsite_40 _10 cm. Besides, it is seen
that the peak impact force caused by ceramsite flow is relative larger
than that of sand. This phenomenon can be explained by Hertz con-
tact theory.53 In Hertz equation, the impact force can be calculated as
follows:
 
4E pffiffiffi 35
F¼ Rd ; (6)
3
where F is the impact force, E represents the effective elastic modulus
of particles, R denotes the radius particles, and d stands for the elastic
deformation. Equation (6) shows that the impact force is proportional
to the square root of the grain size. Therefore, the impact force caused
by ceramsite is more than that of the sand.
It is apparent that the impact force decreases as the installation
distance of the baffle increases. Compared to the installation distance
of w, the impact force for the installation distance of 3 w can almost
decrease 4.25 times in the sand group, whereas it is 5.95 times in the
ceramsite group. This distinction is due to the dynamic frictional dissi-
pation to slow down the motion. Thus, on the horizontal chute, the
farther the installation distance is, the smaller the impact force is. Such
position dependent dynamic interaction with obstacle has also been
performed in Kattel et al.22 and Kafle et al.10 for two-phase debris
flows.30 This result shows that it is important to give the landslide
body a buffer distance and then build the baffles in practical engineer-
ing. This is due to the suddenly reduced gravity in the runout zone
and the dynamic frictional dissipation that slows down the motion.
Therefore, considering different materials, specific distance ahead of
the baffles needs to be appropriately determined in protection and
treatment of landslides.
FIG. 8. The relationship between the time and the impact force in the case of one
single baffle.
33, 056601-8
 Physics of Fluids
2. Influence of slope angle on the runout behavior
Slope angle is a very important parameter in determining the
landslide dynamic and the frictional energy dissipation. We chose
both of the sand group (Sand_40 _5 cm and Sand_45 _5 cm) and the
ceramsite group (Ceramsite_30 _5 cm, Ceramsite-40 _5 cm, and
Ceramsite_45 _5 cm) with the slope angles of 430 ; 40 ; and 45 to
analyze the slope effect.
Figures 9 and 10 show curves of the impact force vs time for sand
and ceramsite in the case of one row of baffles. By comparing Figs. 9
and 10, the general changes of all the curves are similar. After the start
of the impact, the impact force increases rapidly first, then tends to a
stable value and eventually remains unchanged. Some curves will
increase first and then decrease to a stable value, this is, because at the
moment of the impact, the impact force reaches a maximum value;
after the landslide body is stabilized, the impact force is further
reduced and finally stabilized. In the case of a row of baffles, they are
called B1, B2, and B3 from left to right according to the installation
position [Fig. 1(b)].
The curve in Fig. 9 is obtained from two parallel experiments
using a small particle size material (sand). It can be seen from Fig. 9
that in the case of slope angles of 40 and 45 , the impact force of B2 is
the largest, so we can draw a conclusion that the middle landslide
body part has the fastest speed, which also causes B2 to be the first to
be impacted. In the test of B1 (Sand_40 _5 cm), the final impact force
became 0, which was due to the test error. Although the position dis-
tribution of B1 and B3 is placed symmetrically, the landslide body is
not strictly symmetrical during the sliding process, which results in
that the impact forces of B1 and B3 are not completely equal. As the
slope angle increases, the impact force value on each baffle increases
significantly. Compared with 45 , the maximum impact force of B2 is
reduced by about 62 % at the slope angel of 40 .
The curves in Fig. 10 are obtained from three parallel experi-
ments using a larger particle size (ceramics). It can also be concluded
that the impact force of B2 is the largest, and the impact force values
of B1 and B3 are not much different. Under three different landslide
angles, the impact force of the middle baffle B2 reaches the maximum
value before the other two baffles B1 and B3. In Fig. 9, when analyzing
the force of B2, compared with 45 , the impact force is reduced by
FIG. 9. The relationship between the time and the impact force under the condition
of one row baffles by using sand.
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 10. The relationship between the time and the impact force under the condi-
tion of one row baffles by using ceramsite.
37% when the slope angel is 40 , also, when the inclination angle is
30 , the impact force is even reduced to 64%.
By comparing Figs. 9 and 10, we drag the conclusion that under
the same conditions, the middle baffle B2 receives the largest impact
force, while the impact force between B1 and B3 is not much different.
It shows that during the collision of the landslide body and the baffle,
the middle baffle will be subjected to a greater impact force. In the pre-
vention project, it is especially necessary to strengthen the baffle in the
middle position. At the same time, the second conclusion is that, if the
landslide body is composed of a larger particle size material, then if
the landslide body of the same volume falls from the same position, it
will cause greater impact force. When the slope angel is 40 , the
impact force of the ceramsite to the baffle is 62 % more than the sand;
when the slope angel is 45 , the impact force of the ceramsite to the
baffle is 38% more than the sand.
For one row configuration of baffles, the impact force of the baffle
in the middle is significantly greater than that on both sides of the baf-
fles. Similar findings have been presented by Li et al.49 who used a
three-dimensional discrete element method to study the apparent
impact force and apparent impact position of the sliding body. The
results showed that under the same conditions, the horizontal distribu-
tion position of the apparent impact force of the sliding body was
mainly concentrated near the central axis of the sliding body, which
approximately agrees with the impact force distribution on the three
baffles in one row observed during current flume tests. As a result, we
can conclude that in prevention and control of the landslides induced,
the middle baffles should be especially reinforced compared with the
other side baffles.
C. Debris flow velocity
A series of experiments were carried out in order to explore the
problems related to the magnitude of the front velocity of the landslide
body and the change law after the landslide body interacted with the
baffle. In this section, the influence of baffles configuration and slope
angle on the velocity reduction of the debris flow are examined. The
kinetic energy of the sliding body is related to the square of the velocity
of the sliding body. The effects of slope angle, installation distance,
and baffle configuration are discussed in Secs. III C 1–III C 3.
33, 056601-9
 Physics of Fluids
1. Influence of slope angle on the runout velocity
At different slope angles, the kinetic energy carried by the sliding
body is also different. When analyzing the influence of slope angle, the
sand groups of Sand_30 , Sand_40 , and Sand_45 are used similarly,
and the velocities under the slope angle of 30 ; 40 ; and 45 are
analyzed.
Figure 11 presents curves of the time variation vs the velocity of
different parts of the sliding body (front, middle, and tail) under differ-
ent slope angles (30 ; 40 ; and 45 ). As the slope angle increases, the
velocities of the front, middle, and tail parts of the sliding body
increase as well. During the sliding process, the velocities of front, mid-
dle, and tail parts increase with time, then decrease, and finally drop to
zero. When the slope angle was varied from 45 to 30 , the maximum
front velocity of the landslide is reduced by 32%. Besides, according to
the maximum velocity of the debris flow, Froude number Fr of frontal
and middle part of sliding body can be obtained. When the slope angle
is 30 ; Fr values of frontal and middle parts of sliding body are 3.42
and 2.06, respectively. For the slope angle of 40 , the values are 4.74
and 4.01, respectively. In the case of slope angle of 45 ; Fr values are
5.32 and 4.75. This difference implies that the slope angle also has pos-
itive effect on controlling the velocity of sliding body.
2. Influence of installation distance on the runout
velocity
The effect of installation distance on the velocity is also analyzed
focusing on the sand group (Sand_40 _5 cm, Sand_40 _10 cm, and
Sand_40 _15 cm). The slope angle was fixed at 40 , and the installa-
tion distance is set w (0.05 m), 2 w (0.1 m), and 3 w (0.15 m) as afore-
mentioned. Figure 12 shows the relationship between time and
velocity of different parts of the sliding body. It is clear that as the
installation distance of the baffle increases, the velocities of front, mid-
dle, and tail parts of the sliding body increase, which can be attributed
to the fact that the sliding body loses the kinetic energy after colliding
with the baffle. When the installation distance is reduced from 3
w to w, the maximum velocity of the leading edge of the landslide can
be reduced by 21%. Thus, the influence of the installation distance has
a nonlinear and positive correlation with the sliding body velocity.
FIG. 11. The relationship between the time and the velocity of different parts of the
sliding body under different slope angles.
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 12. The relationship between the time and the velocity of different parts of the
sliding body under different installation distances.
3. Influence of baffle configuration on the runout
velocity
12 groups of control experiments were chosen to explain how the
landslide’s frontal velocity is influenced by baffles. The arrangement of
baffles is chosen using one row and two rows. Besides, another case of
no baffle is considered for the sake of comparison.
Figures 13(a) and 14(a) show the relationships between time and
the frontal velocity for one-row and two-row baffle configuration. The
frontal velocity of the sliding body increases with the increase in the
slope angle, which is similar to the variation previously shown in Fig.
11. In addition, it can be seen from Figs. 13(b) and 13(c) that the dis-
tribution of sand and ceramsite when a row of baffles is set. Similarly,
it can be seen from Figs. 14(b) and 14(c) that the distribution of sand
and ceramsite after sliding when two rows of baffles are set. Generally
speaking, in each case (including the combination of different land-
slide body materials, different slope angles, and different baffle
arrangements), the changing trends are similar. During the slide pro-
cess, the speed of the landslide body increased first to the maximum
value, then decreased to zero. By comparing Figs. 13(a) and 14(a), we
found that in the case of two rows, some of the landslide bodies spend
less time to reach the maximum frontal speed, which is due to the dif-
ferent arrangement of the baffles [see Fig. 1(b)]. In the case of two
rows, some of the baffles are closer to the inclined chute, which results
in that these baffles can contact the landslide body faster, which can
reduce the speed of the landslide body faster. But there are some spe-
cial cases, such as the test “Sand_30 _2 or 5 cm,” in this case, the sand
took longer to reach the maximum speed value than in the case of a
row of baffles. This is because the particle size of sand is smaller than
that of ceramsite. Therefore, in the same case, the probability of sand
being blocked is greater than ceramsite, so the speed of the sand con-
tinues to increase after the collision with baffles. Another conclusion
can be drawn here is that in the actual prevention of landslides, debris
flow, and other disasters, one point to consider is the particle size of
the landslide body, and different protection measures should be
adopted based on different particle sizes. Under a row of baffles, the
change law of the six parallel tests is similar about 0.5 s before. After
0.5 s, the speed of the sand test (Sand_45 _5 cm) decreases fastest, this
is because after the sand hits the baffle at a faster speed, the internal
33, 056601-10
 Physics of Fluids
collisions between the inner parts cause the speed of the sand to
decrease rapidly. This also leads to the conclusion that if the quality of
the baffle is good enough, the baffle will block the faster debris flow
more efficiently. The same rule can be found with two rows of baffles
(Sand_45 _2 or 5 cm).
By comparing the two figures, a conclusion can be drawn that
with a smaller slope angle, the time required for the landslide body to
decrease to zero velocity is longer. This is because when the slope angle
is small, the speed of the landslide body hitting the baffle will not be
very large, the energy dissipation is not large, resulting in that there is
still some remaining energy for taxiing. Therefore, it is also necessary
to consider the slope angle in the prevention project. If the angle is
small, more baffles are required to be set; of course, the relationship
between the baffle’s configuration and the slope angle still needs to be
further explored.
By comparison, the maximum speed of ceramsite is higher than
sand at the same installation distance and angle. As the number of baf-
fles increased from one to two, the maximum speed of ceramsite
decreased by about 14.17% at a landslide angle of 45 , while the maxi-
mum speed of sand decreased by about 17.86%. The types of hazards
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 13. (a) The relationships between
time and the frontal velocity for one-row
baffle configuration; (b) sand experiment
with one row of baffles; (c) ceramsite
experiment with one row of baffles.
caused by landslides depend largely on the velocity of landslides,6,7 but
the mechanism of controlling the velocity is not fully understood.
Johannesson et al.54 built an empirical relationship based on snow ava-
lanche mitigation, which illustrates that the velocity reduction arising
from obstacles is proportional to the degree of blockage. Furthermore,
the Johannesson’s results reveal that the frontal velocity reduction is
influenced by the arrangement of baffles. Taking these findings into
consideration, the influence of different rows of baffles is explained in
the following part.
Figure 15 shows the relationship between the time and the
frontal velocity for varying rows of baffles. In the absence of baffles,
the maximum frontal velocity of sand can reach up to 1.32 m=s. In
the case of one row baffles, the maximum frontal velocity of the
landslide can reach up to 1.06 m=s. In the case of two rows baffles,
the frontal velocity of the sliding body can decrease to 0.91 m=s.
Compared to velocity in the absence of baffles, adopting up to a
row and two rows baffles leads to 20 % and 31% reduction in frontal
velocity, respectively.
A series of laboratory model experiments were conducted to
explore the debris–baffle interaction mechanisms and energy
33, 056601-11
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 14. (a) The relationships between

time and the frontal velocity for two-row
baffle configuration; (b) sand experiment
with two rows of baffles; (c) ceramsite
experiment with two rows of baffles.

dissipations during the sliding process. Based on the control method,

FIG. 15. The relationship between the time and the frontal velocity for different
rows of baffles.
the effects of slope angle, baffle’s installation distance, and baffle con-
figuration were examined.
After analysis on the energy dissipation and conversion rule, it is
obvious that the particle size and slope angle have a significant effect
on the intensity of motion. For the bigger size particle material,
decreasing the slope angle from 45 to 30 , the maximum impact force
can be reduced by approximately 64%. Varying baffle configuration is
effective in reducing the runout distance and velocity. Adding one row
of baffles in the flow path of debris flow leads to 20% reduction in
maximum frontal velocity; furthermore, arranging two rows of baffles
leads to 31% reduction in maximum frontal velocity. The maximum
impact force can decrease up to 5.95 times in the ceramsite group and
4.25 times in the sand group when the installation from 1 w to 3w, and
the front velocity can decrease up to 21%, where w represents the
width of the glass block. Although we have carried out research on the
interaction between the baffle and debris flow, these tests results are
yet to be confirmed with the field data. We have shown that the
Pudasaini and Miller8 mobility model very well represents the experi-
mental mobility as a non-liner function of the deposition area of the

Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670 33, 056601-12

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
flow. The observations would provide important references for the
designing of defense structures.
The research in this article has important practical significance.
The research results show that the baffle arrangement plays an impor-
tant role in the control of debris flow, e.g., by setting up baffles, the
impact velocity of the debris flow can be effectively lowered, and the
sliding distance of the debris flow can be reduced. By reasonably arrang-
ing the position and spacing of the baffles, when a landslide and debris
flow disaster occur, the best protection effect can be achieved, thereby
reducing the damage to buildings and human lives caused by geological
disasters such as debris flow and reducing property losses. At the same
time, the results of the experimental research can be used to guide the
construction of landslide and debris flow protection projects.
The experimental results have a high economic and social value.
In addition, the results of this study can not only be applied to particle
flow through blocking structures (such as baffle piles) but can also be
used as a reference for avalanches blocked by tall buildings (or trees)
in sedimentary areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Professor Shiva P. Pudasaini for his guidance and
revision of this paper, as well as the proofreading of the English
language of this article. The financial support from the fundamental
research funds for the National Key Research and Development
Program of China (No. 2018YFC1505504) and graduate research
and innovation foundation of Chongqing, China (Grant No.
CYB19015) is greatly appreciated.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
There are no financial and personal relationships received with
other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence
our work. There is no professional or other personal interest that
could be construed as influencing the review of this manuscript.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
1
E. A. Castellanos Abella and C. J. Van Westen, “Generation of a landslide risk
index map for cuba using spatial multi-criteria evaluation,” Landslides 4,
311–325 (2007).
2
M. Mergili, A. Emmer, A. Juricova, A. Cochachin, J.-T. Fischer, C. Huggel, and
S. P. Pudasaini, “How well can we simulate complex hydro-geomorphic pro-
cess chains? the 2012 multi-lake outburst flood in the Santa Cruz valley (cordil-
lera blanca, peru),” Earth Surf. Processes Landforms 43, 1373–1389 (2018).
3
M. Mergili, B. Frank, J.-T. Fischer, C. Huggel, and S. P. Pudasaini,
“Computational experiments on the 1962 and 1970 landslide events at
Huascaran (peru) with r.avaflow: Lessons learned for predictive mass flow sim-
ulations,” Geomorphology 322, 15–28 (2018).
4
Z. Ren, X. Zhao, and H. Liu, “Numerical study of the landslide Tsunami in the
South China Sea using Herschel-Bulkley rheological theory,” Phys. Fluids 31,
056601 (2019).
5
L. Chen, H. Yang, K. Song, W. Huang, X. Ren, and H. Xu, “Failure mecha-
nisms and characteristics of the Zhongbao landslide at Liujing village, Wulong,
China,” Landslides 18, 1445 (2021).
6
A. Kumar, A. K. L. Asthana, R. S. Priyanka, R. Jayangondaperumal, A. K.
Gupta, and S. S. Bhakuni, “Assessment of landslide hazards induced by
extreme rainfall event in Jammu and Kashmir Himalaya, Northwest India,”
Geomorphology 284, 72–87 (2017).
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
7
S. D. Pardeshi, S. E. Autade, and S. S. Pardeshi, “Landslide hazard assessment:
Recent trends and techniques,” Springerplus 2, 523 (2013).
8
S. P. Pudasaini and S. A. Miller, “The hypermobility of huge landslides and
avalanches,” Eng. Geol. 157, 124–132 (2013).
9
C. Wendeler, A. Volkwein, A. Roth, B. Herzog, N. Hahlen, and M. Wenger,
“Hazard prevention using flexible multi-level debris flow barrier,” in
Proceedings of the 11th Interpraevent Congress (Citeseer, 2008), pp. 547–554.
10
J. Kafle, P. Kattel, M. Mergili, J.-T. Fischer, and S. P. Pudasaini, “Dynamic
response of submarine obstacles to two-phase landslide and tsunami impact on
reservoirs,” Acta Mech. 230, 3143–3169 (2019).
11
C. Choi, Flume and Discrete Element Investigation of Granular Flow
Mechanisms and Interaction with Baffles (Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, 2013).
12
C. E. Choi, C. W. W. Ng, D. Song, J. H. S. Kwan, H. Y. K. Shiu, K. K. S. Ho, and
R. C. H. Koo, “Flume investigation of landslide debris-resisting baffles,” Can.
Geotech. J. 51, 540–553 (2014).
13
M. Naghipour, K. M. Niak, M. Shariati, and A. Toghroli, “Effect of progressive
shear punch of a foundation on a reinforced concrete building behavior,” Steel
Compos. Struct. 35, 279–294 (2020).
14
M. Shariati, M. Lagzian, S. Maleki, A. Shariati, and T. Nguyen Thoi,
“Evaluation of seismic performance factors for tension-only braced frames,”
Steel Compos. Struct. 35, 599–609 (2020).
15
L. Razavian, M. Naghipour, M. Shariati, and M. Safa, “Experimental study of
the behavior of composite timber columns confined with hollow rectangular
steel sections under compression,” Struct. Eng. Mech. 74, 145–156 (2020).
16
M. Shariati, M. Grayeli, A. Shariati, and M. Naghipour, “Performance of com-
posite frame consisting of steel beams and concrete filled tubes under fire load-
ing,” Steel Compos. Struct. 36, 587–602 (2020).
17
M. Shariati, A. Shariati, T. Nguyen Thoi, P. Shoaei, F. Ameri, N. Bahrami, and
S. N. Zamanabadi, “Alkali-activated slag (aas) paste: Correlation between dura-
bility and microstructural characteristics,” Constr. Build. Mater. 267, 120886
(2021).
18
C. W. W. Ng, C. E. Choi, J. S. H. Kwan, R. C. H. Koo, H. Y. K. Shiu, and K. K.
S. Ho, “Effects of baffle transverse blockage on landslide debris impedance,” in
Proceedings of the Third Italian Workshop on Landslides: Hydrological
Response of Slopes through Physical Experiments, Field Monitoring and
Mathematical Modeling, Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, Vol. 9, edited
by L. Picarelli, R. Greco, and G. Urciuoli, 2014, pp. 3–13.
19
C. W. W. Ng, C. E. Choi, D. Song, J. H. S. Kwan, R. C. H. Koo, H. Y. K. Shiu,
and K. K. S. Ho, “Physical modeling of baffles influence on landslide debris
mobility,” Landslides 12, 1–18 (2015).
20
C. E. Choi, C. W. W. Ng, R. P. H. Law, D. Song, J. S. H. Kwan, and K. K. S. Ho,
“Computational investigation of baffle configuration on impedance of channel-
ized debris flow,” Can. Geotech. J. 52, 182–197 (2015).
21
Y. Baek, Y. Choi, O. Kwon, and S.-I. Choi, “Hazard prevention using multi-
level debris flow barriers,” J. Korean Geoenviron. Soc. 11, 15–23 (2010).
22
P. Kattel, J. Kafle, J.-T. Fischer, M. Mergili, B. M. Tuladhar, and S. P.
Pudasaini, “Interaction of two-phase debris flow with obstacles,” Eng. Geol.
242, 197–217 (2018).
23
H. Teufelsbauer, Y. Wang, S. P. Pudasaini, R. I. Borja, and W. Wu, “Dem simu-
lation of impact force exerted by granular flow on rigid structures,” Acta
Geotech. 6, 119–133 (2011).
24
J. Chen, S. M. Han, and W. R. Hwang, “Effective Navier-slip in non-
Newtonian fluid flows over corrugated surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 32, 113103
(2020).
25
J. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Li, and F. Wang, “An experimental study of dilute debris
flow characteristics in a drainage channel with an energy dissipation structure,”
Eng. Geol. 193, 224–230 (2015).
26
J.-G. Chen, X.-Q. Chen, H.-Y. Chen, and W.-Y. Zhao, “Characteristics of vis-
cous debris flow in a drainage channel with an energy dissipation structure,”
J. Mountain Sci. 13, 223–233 (2016).
27
F. Wang, X. Chen, J. Chen, and Y. You, “Experimental study on a debris-flow
drainage channel with different types of energy dissipation baffles,” Eng. Geol.
220, 43–51 (2017).
28
Y. Bi, S. He, Y. Du, X. Sun, and X. Li, “Effects of the configuration of a baffle-
avalanche wall system on rock avalanches in Tibet Zhangmu: Discrete element
analysis,” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 78, 2267–2282 (2019).
33, 056601-13
 Physics of Fluids
29
J. Fei, Y. Jie, X. Sun, and X. Chen, “Experimental investigation on granular
flow past baffle piles and numerical simulation using a mu(i)-rheology-based
approach,” Powder Technol. 359, 36–46 (2020).
30
S. P. Pudasaini, “A general two-phase debris flow model,” J. Geophys. Res.-
Earth Surf. 117, F03010 (2012).
31
S. P. Pudasaini and M. Mergili, “A multi-phase mass flow model,” J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth Surf. 124, 2920–2942, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005204 (2019).
32
S. P. Pudasaini, S.-S. Hsiau, Y. Wang, and K. Hutter, “Velocity measurements
in dry granular avalanches using particle image velocimetry technique and
comparison with theoretical predictions,” Phys. Fluids 17, 093301 (2005).
33
S. P. Pudasaini, “Some exact solutions for debris and avalanche flows,” Phys.
Fluids 23, 043301 (2011).
34
N. Martin, I. R. Ionescu, A. Mangeney, F. Bouchut, and M. Farin, “Continuum
viscoplastic simulation of a granular column collapse on large slopes: Mu(i)
rheology and lateral wall effects,” Phys. Fluids 29, 013301 (2017).
35
C.-H. Lee, Y. M. Low, and Y.-M. Chiew, “Multi-dimensional rheology-based
two-phase model for sediment transport and applications to sheet flow and
pipeline scour,” Phys. Fluids 28, 053305 (2016).
36
O. Hungr, S. Leroueil, and L. Picarelli, “The Varnes classification of landslide
types, an update,” Landslides 11, 167–194 (2014).
37
L. Olivares and L. Picarelli, “Modelling of flowslides behaviour for risk mitiga-
tion,” Physical Modelling in Geotechnics (General Report, Hong Kong, 2006),
Vol. 1, pp. 99–113.
38
G. Wang and K. Sassa, “Factors affecting rainfall-induced flowslides in labora-
tory flume tests,” Geotechnique 51, 587–599 (2001).
39
R. M. Iverson, “The physics of debris flows,” Rev. Geophys. 35, 245–296,
https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426 (1997).
40
R. M. Iverson and J. W. Vallance, “New views of granular mass flows,”
Geology 29, 115–118 (2001).
41
P. Si, H. Shi, and X. Yu, “Development of a mathematical model for submarine
granular flows,” Phys. Fluids 30, 083302 (2018).
42
D. Mancarella and O. Hungr, “Analysis of run-up of granular avalanches
against steep, adverse slopes and protective barriers,” Can. Geotech. J. 47,
827–841 (2010).
Phys. Fluids 33, 056601 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0046670
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
43
Y. Okura, H. Kitahara, H. Ochiai, T. Sammori, and A. Kawanami, “Landslide
fluidization process by flume experiments,” Eng. Geol. 66, 65–78 (2002).
44
P. Lu, T. Hou, X. Yang, M. Hao, and J. Zhou, “Physical modeling test for
entrainment effect of landslides and the related mechanism discussion,” Chin.
J. Rock Mech. Eng. 35, 1225–1232 (2016).
45
I. L. Singer, “Friction and energy-dissipation at the atomic-scale—A review,”
J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 12, 2605–2616 (1994).
46
Y. Wu, D. Liu, and M. Li, “Landslide model experiment for energy dissipation
law in sliding and impact processes,” Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/
Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 30, 693–701 (2011).
47
H. Q. Yang, S. G. Xing, Q. Wang, and Z. Li, “Model test on the entrainment
phenomenon and energy conversion mechanism of flow-like landslides,” Eng.
Geol. 239, 119–125 (2018).
48
S. P. Pudasaini, B. Domnik, and S. A. J. E. Miller, “Multi-scale coupling strategy
for fully two-dimensional and depth-averaged models for granular flows,”
Geophys. Res. Abstr. 15, EGU2013–7283 (2013).
49
C. Li, M. Wang, and K. Liu, “A decadal evolution of landslides and debris flows
after the Wenchuan earthquake,” Geomorphology 323, 1–12 (2018).
50
T. de Haas, L. Braat, J. R. F. W. Leuven, I. R. Lokhorst, and M. G. Kleinhans,
“Effects of debris flow composition on runout, depositional mechanisms, and
deposit morphology in laboratory experiments,” J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf.
120, 1949–1972, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003525 (2015).
51
G. Devoli, F. V. De Blasio, A. Elverhi, and K. Heg, “Statistical analysis of
landslide events in Central America and their run-out distance,” Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 27, 23–42 (2008).
52
Y. Okura, H. Kitahara, A. Kawanami, and U. Kurokawa, “Topography and vol-
ume effects on travel distance of surface failure,” Eng. Geol. 67, 243–254
(2003).
53
K. L. Johnson, Contact Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).
54
T. J ohannesson, P. Gauer, M. Barbolini, U. Domaas, T. Faug, K.
Hakonard ottir, C. Harbitz, D. Issler, F. Naaim-Bouvet, M. Naaim, and L.
Rammer, The Design of Avalanche Protection Dams, Recent Practical and
Theoretical Developments (International Symposium on Mitigative Measures
against Snow Avalanches, Egilsstadir, Iceland, 2008).
33, 056601-14