A Dilatant, Two-Phase Debris Flow Model for Hazard Mitigation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Meyrat
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Practical Problem ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Flow Behavior ◽  
Test Site ◽  
Recent Analysis ◽  
Water Type ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Flow Measurements ◽  
Multi Phase

<p>Guillaume Meyrat, Brian McArdell, Ksenyia Ivanova, Perry Bartelt</p><p>WSL Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland</p><p> </p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: Debris flows, multi-phase models, dilatancy, shear stress, density distribution</p><p> </p><p>To implement an accurate numerical tool to simulate debris flow hazard is a longstanding goal of natural hazard research and engineering. In Switzerland the application of numerical debris flow models has, however, been hampered by many practical and theoretical difficulties. One practical problem is to define realistic initial conditions for hazard scenarios that involve both the rocky (granular solid) and muddy (fluid) material. Still another practical problem is to model debris flow growth by entrainment [1]. These problems are compounded by theoretical uncertainties regarding the rheological behavior of multi-phase flows. Recent analysis of debris flow measurements at the Swiss Illgraben test-site [2] (shear and normal stresses, debris flow height) show that the shear force, and therefore the entire debris flow behavior, is largely influenced by the debris flow composition, i.e. the amount of solid particle and muddy fluid at any specific location within the debris flow body (front, tail, etc.). The debris flow composition is, in turn, determined by the initial and entrainment conditions for a specific event. As a consequence, we have concluded that the very first step to construct a robust numerical model is to accurately predict the space and time evolution of the solid/fluid flow composition for any set of initial and boundary conditions. To this aim, we have developed a two-phase dilatant debris flow model [3, 4, 5] that is based on the idea that the dispersion of solid material in fluid phase can change over time. The model is thus able to predict different flow compositions (rocky fronts, watery tails), using shallow-water type mass, momentum and energy conservation equations. This helps to predict when the solid phase deposits, and when muddy fluid washes and channel outbreaks in the runout zone can occur. The parameters controlling the evolution of debris flow density and saturation have been derived by direct comparison to the full-scale measurements performed at the Illgraben test site.</p><p> </p><p><strong>References</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p>

scholarly journals A two-phase shallow debris flow model with energy balance

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Bouchut ◽  
E.D. Fernández-Nieto ◽  
A. Mangeney ◽  
G. Narbona-Reina
Keyword(s):  
Energy Balance ◽  
Debris Flow ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Two Phase

An Experimental Study of Mist/Air Film Cooling With Fan-Shaped Holes on an Extended Flat Plate—Part II: Two-Phase Flow Measurements and Droplet Dynamics

2017 ◽  
Vol 140 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reda Ragab ◽  
Ting Wang
Keyword(s):  
Flow Behavior ◽  
Data Rate ◽  
Main Flow ◽  
Shear Stresses ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Flow Measurements ◽  
Droplet Dynamics ◽  
Mist Flow ◽  
Film Layer ◽  
Upper Boundary

A phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) system is employed to measure the two-phase mist flow behavior including flow velocity field, droplet size distribution, droplet dynamics, and turbulence characteristics. Based on the droplet measurements made through PDPA, a projected profile describing how the air–mist coolant jet flow spreads and eventually blends into the hot main flow is prescribed for both cylindrical and fan-shaped holes. The mist film layer consists of two layers: a typical coolant film layer (cooling air containing the majority of the droplets) and a wider droplet layer containing droplets outside the film layer. Thanks to the higher inertia possessed by larger droplets (>20 μm in diameter) at the injection hole, the larger droplets tend to shoot across the coolant film layer, resulting in a wider droplet layer than the coolant film layer. The wider droplet layer boundaries are detected by measuring the droplet data rate (droplet number per second) distribution, and it is identified by a wedge-shaped enclosure prescribed by the data rate distribution curve. The coolant film layer is prescribed by its core and its upper boundary. The apex of the data rate curve, depicted by the maximum data rate, roughly indicates the core region of the coolant film layer. The upper boundary of the coolant film layer, characterized by active mixing with the main flow, is found to be close to relatively high values of local Reynolds shear stresses. With the results of PDPA measurements and the prescribed coolant film and droplet layer profiles, the heat transfer results on the wall presented in Part I are re-examined, and the fundamental mist-flow physics are analyzed. The three-dimensional (3D) droplet measurements show that the droplets injected from the fan-shaped holes tend to spread wider in lateral direction than cylinder holes and accumulate at the location where the neighboring coolant film layers meet. This flow and droplet behavior explain the higher cooling performance as well as mist-enhancement occurs between the fan-shaped cooling holes, rather than along the hole's centerline as demonstrated in the case using the cylindrical holes.

An Experimental Study of Mist/Air Film Cooling On a Flat Plate With Application to Gas Turbine Airfoils—Part II: Two-Phase Flow Measurements and Droplet Dynamics

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Zhao ◽  
Ting Wang
Keyword(s):  
Film Cooling ◽  
Flow Behavior ◽  
Droplet Size Distribution ◽  
Main Flow ◽  
Reynolds Stresses ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Flow Measurements ◽  
Cooling Effectiveness ◽  
Droplet Dynamics ◽  
Air Film

A phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) system is employed to measure the two-phase mist flow behavior including flow velocity field, droplet size distribution, droplet dynamics, and turbulence characteristics. Based on the droplet measurements made through PDPA, a projected profile describing how the air-mist coolant jet flow spreads and eventually blends into the hot main flow is proposed. This proposed profile is found to be well supported by the measurement results of the turbulent Reynolds stresses. The coolant film envelope is identified with shear layers characterized by higher magnitudes of turbulent Reynolds stresses. In addition, the separation between the mist droplet layer and the coolant air film is identified through the droplet measurements—large droplets penetrate through the air coolant film layer and travel further into the main flow. With the proposed air-mist film profile, the heat transfer results on the wall presented in Part I are re-examined and more in-depth physics is revealed. It is found that the location of the optimum cooling effectiveness coincides with the point where the air-mist coolant stream starts to bend back towards the surface. Thus, the data suggests that the “bending back” film pattern is critical in keeping the mist droplets close to the surface, which improves the cooling effectiveness for mist cooling.

scholarly journals Back calculation of the 2017 Piz Cengalo–Bondo landslide cascade with r.avaflow: what we can do and what we can learn

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 505-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Mergili ◽  
Michel Jaboyedoff ◽  
José Pullarello ◽  
Shiva P. Pudasaini
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Rock Avalanche ◽  
Simulation Software ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Three Phase Flow ◽  
Glacier Ice ◽  
Future Work

Abstract. In the morning of 23 August 2017, around 3×106 m3 of granitoid rock broke off from the eastern face of Piz Cengalo, southeastern Switzerland. The initial rockslide–rockfall entrained 6×105m3 of a glacier and continued as a rock (or rock–ice) avalanche before evolving into a channelized debris flow that reached the village of Bondo at a distance of 6.5 km after a couple of minutes. Subsequent debris flow surges followed in the next hours and days. The event resulted in eight fatalities along its path and severely damaged Bondo. The most likely candidates for the water causing the transformation of the rock avalanche into a long-runout debris flow are the entrained glacier ice and water originating from the debris beneath the rock avalanche. In the present work we try to reconstruct conceptually and numerically the cascade from the initial rockslide–rockfall to the first debris flow surge and thereby consider two scenarios in terms of qualitative conceptual process models: (i) entrainment of most of the glacier ice by the frontal part of the initial rockslide–rockfall and/or injection of water from the basal sediments due to sudden rise in pore pressure, leading to a frontal debris flow, with the rear part largely remaining dry and depositing mid-valley, and (ii) most of the entrained glacier ice remaining beneath or behind the frontal rock avalanche and developing into an avalanching flow of ice and water, part of which overtops and partially entrains the rock avalanche deposit, resulting in a debris flow. Both scenarios can – with some limitations – be numerically reproduced with an enhanced version of the two-phase mass flow model (Pudasaini, 2012) implemented with the simulation software r.avaflow, based on plausible assumptions of the model parameters. However, these simulation results do not allow us to conclude on which of the two scenarios is the more likely one. Future work will be directed towards the application of a three-phase flow model (rock, ice, and fluid) including phase transitions in order to better represent the melting of glacier ice and a more appropriate consideration of deposition of debris flow material along the channel.

scholarly journals A dilatant, two-layer debris flow model validated by flow density measurements at the Swiss illgraben test site

Landslides ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Meyrat ◽  
B. McArdell ◽  
K. Ivanova ◽  
C. Müller ◽  
P. Bartelt
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Solid Material ◽  
Test Site ◽  
Solid Particles ◽  
Solid Matrix ◽  
Flow Density ◽  
Free Fluid ◽  
Void Space ◽  
Granular Fluid

AbstractWe propose a dilatant, two-layer debris flow model validated by full-scale density/saturation measurements obtained from the Swiss Illgraben test site. Like many existing models, we suppose the debris flow consists of a matrix of solid particles (rocks and boulders) that is surrounded by muddy fluid. However, we split the muddy fluid into two fractions. One part, the inter-granular fluid, is bonded to the solid matrix and fills the void space between the solid particles. The combination of solid material and inter-granular fluid forms the first layer of the debris flow. The second part of the muddy fluid is not bonded to the solid matrix and can move independently from the first layer. This free fluid forms the second layer of the debris flow. During flow the rocky particulate material is sheared which induces dilatant motions that change the location of the center-of-mass of the solid. The degree of solid shearing, as well as the amount of muddy fluid and of solid particles, leads to different flow compositions including debris flow fronts consisting of predominantly solid material, or watery debris flow tails. De-watering and the formation of muddy fluid washes can occur when the solid material deposits in the runout zone. After validating the model on two theoretical case studies, we show that the proposed model is able to capture the streamwise evolution of debris flow density in time and space for real debris flow events.

scholarly journals A two-phase debris flow model with boulder transport

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-402
Author(s):  
C. Martinez ◽  
R. Garcia-Martinez ◽  
F. Miralles-Wilhelm
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Two Phase

A general two-phase debris flow model

2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (F3) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiva P. Pudasaini
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Two Phase

An Experimental Study of Mist/Air Film Cooling With Fan-Shaped Holes on an Extended Flat Plate: Part 2 — Two-Phase Flow Measurements and Droplet Dynamics

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reda Ragab ◽  
Ting Wang
Keyword(s):  
Flow Behavior ◽  
Droplet Size Distribution ◽  
Data Rate ◽  
Main Flow ◽  
Shear Stresses ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Lateral Direction ◽  
Flow Measurements ◽  
Droplet Dynamics ◽  
Film Layer

A Phase Doppler Particle Analyzer (PDPA) system is employed to measure the two-phase mist flow behavior including flow velocity field, droplet size distribution, droplet dynamics, and turbulence characteristics. Based on the droplet measurements made through PDPA, a projected profile describing how the air-mist coolant jet flow spreads and eventually blends into the hot main flow is prescribed for both cylindrical and fan-shaped holes. The mist film layer consists of a typical coolant film layer and a wider droplet layer. The droplet layer is identified by a wedge-shaped enclosure prescribed by the data rate (droplet number per second) distribution. The apex of the enclosure, depicting by the maximum data rate, roughly indicating the core region of the coolant film. The upper boundary of the film layer, characterized by active mixing with the main flow, is found to be close to relatively high values of local Reynolds shear stresses. Thanks to higher inertia possessed by larger droplets (>20 μm in diameter) at the injection hole, the larger droplets tend to shoot across the coolant layer, resulting in a wider droplet layer than the cooling film layer. With the prescribed coolant film and droplet layer profiles, the heat transfer results on the wall presented in Part 1 are reexamined. The 3-D droplet measurements show that the droplets injected from the fan-shaped holes tend to spread wider in lateral direction than cylinder holes and accumulate at the location where the neighboring coolant film layers meet. This flow and droplet behavior explains the higher cooling performance as well as mist-enhancement occurs between the fan-shaped cooling holes, rather than along the hole’s centerline as demonstrated in the case using the cylindrical holes.

A two-phase dilatant debris flow model based on full scale shear stress and pore pressure measurements

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Meyrat
Keyword(s):  
Shear Stress ◽  
Debris Flow ◽  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Debris Flows ◽  
Flow Model ◽  
Fluid Composition ◽  
Geophysical Research ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Fluid Pore Pressure

<p>Since 2004, observations of shear and normal stresses have been collected at the base of naturally-triggered debris flows at the Illgraben observation station (Wallis, Switzerland) [1].   Because flow height and the normal force are simultaneously measured, and limited observations of basal fluid pore pressure are available, it is possible to investigate how the solid/fluid contents of the flow influence the measured shear stress.  The experimental results have emphasized two debris flow properties: (1) Debris flows are characterized by rocky or boulder-rich front, following by a fluidized tail. Consequently, the mass density varies from large values at the front of the flow to lower values towards the tail. A comparison between different debris flow events, however, likewise reveals that the streamwise change in density can vary dramatically between two different events. (2) The relationship between the measured shear and normal tress is highly non-linear. </p><p>Operating on the assumption that the streamwise change in density (or equivalently change in streamwise composition) is primarily responsible for the observed non-linear stress behavior, we develop a rheological model describing two-phase debris flow motion. The underlying idea behind the model is that the granular content of the flow can dilate, changing the solid/fluid composition of the flow, and thereby alter the bulk flow density. The model allows us to estimate the correct debris flow composition for different classes of debris flow varying from granular to muddy fluid. Based on these results, we are then able to reproduce the measured shear stress data when we simulate the measured events numerically.  The results appear to confirm dilatant-type flow models proposed by Takahashi [2], and later developed in detail by Iverson and George [3]. The model is used to back-calculate recent debris flow events that occurred near Davos Switzerland in 2018/2019.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>REFERENCES</p><ol><li>McArdell, B.W., Bartelt, P. and Kowalski, J. (2007): Field observations of basal forces and fluid pore pressure in a debris flow, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, No. L07406.</li> </ol><p> </p><ol><li>Takahashi, T. (2007): Debris flows: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures, Taylor and Francis / Balkema, 448pp.</li> </ol><p> </p><ol><li>George, D. L., & Iverson, R. M. (2011). A two-phase debris-flow model that includes coupled evolution of volume fractions, granular dilatancy, and pore-fluid pressure. Italian journal of engineering geology and Environment, 43, 415-424.</li> </ol>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document