World Library  

Add to Book Shelf
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Book

A Comparative Assessment of Two Different Debris Flow Propagation Approaches – Blind Simulations on a Real Debris Flow Event : Volume 15, Issue 4 (07/04/2015)

By Stancanelli, L. M.

Click here to view

Book Id: WPLBN0003975961
Format Type: PDF Article :
File Size: Pages 12
Reproduction Date: 2015

Title: A Comparative Assessment of Two Different Debris Flow Propagation Approaches – Blind Simulations on a Real Debris Flow Event : Volume 15, Issue 4 (07/04/2015)  
Author: Stancanelli, L. M.
Volume: Vol. 15, Issue 4
Language: English
Subject: Science, Natural, Hazards
Collections: Periodicals: Journal and Magazine Collection, Copernicus GmbH
Publication Date:
Publisher: Copernicus Gmbh, Göttingen, Germany
Member Page: Copernicus Publications


APA MLA Chicago

Stancanelli, L. M., & Foti, E. (2015). A Comparative Assessment of Two Different Debris Flow Propagation Approaches – Blind Simulations on a Real Debris Flow Event : Volume 15, Issue 4 (07/04/2015). Retrieved from

Description: University of Catania, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123, Catania, Italy. A detailed comparison between the performances of two different approaches to debris flow modelling was carried out. In particular, the results of a mono-phase Bingham model (FLO-2D) and that of a two-phase model (TRENT-2D) obtained from a blind test were compared. As a benchmark test the catastrophic event of 1 October 2009 which struck Sicily causing several fatalities and damage was chosen. The predicted temporal evolution of several parameters of the debris flow (such as flow depth and propagation velocity) was analysed in order to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the two models in reproducing the global dynamics of the event. An analysis between the models' results with survey data have been carried out, not only for the determination of statistical indicators of prediction accuracy, but also for the application of the Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) approach. Provided that the proper rheological parameters and boundary conditions are assigned, both models seem capable of reproducing the inundation areas in a reasonably accurate way. However, the main differences in the application rely on the choice of such rheological parameters. Indeed, within the more user-friendly FLO-2D model the tuning of the parameters must be done empirically, with no evidence of the physics of the phenomena. On the other hand, for the TRENT-2D the parameters are physically based and can be estimated from the properties of the solid material, thus reproducing more reliable results. A second important difference between the two models is that in the first method the debris flow is treated as a homogeneous flow, in which the total mass is kept constant from its initiation in the upper part of the basin to the deposition in a debris fan. In contrast, the second approach is suited to reproduce the erosion and deposition processes and the displaced mass can be directly related to the rainfall event. Application of both models in a highly urbanized area reveals the limitation of numerical simulation which is inadequate in describing some disturbances of the flows that occurred during the alluvial event (e.g. the cars, the volume of debris within buildings etc.) which have a crucial influence on the evaluation of the maximum and final flow depths.

A comparative assessment of two different debris flow propagation approaches – blind simulations on a real debris flow event

Arattano, M. and Marchi, L.: Measurements of debris flow velocity through cross-correlation of instrumentation data, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 137–142, doi:10.5194/nhess-5-137-2005, 2005.; Armanini, A., Fraccarollo, L., and Rosatti, G.: Two-dimensional simulation of debris flows in erodible channels, Comput. Geosci., 35, 5, 993–1006, 2009.; Armento, M.C., Genevois, R., and Tecca, P.R.: Comparison of numerical models of two debris flows in the Cortina d'Ampezzo area, Dolomites, Italy, Landslides, 5, 143–150, 2008.; Bagnold, R. A.: Experiments on a gravity-free dispersion of large solid spheres in a Newtonian fluid under shear, P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 225, 1160, 49–63, 1954.; Baum, R. L., Godt, J. W., and Savage, W. Z.: Estimating the timing and location of shallow rainfall-induced landslides using a model for transient, unsaturated infiltration, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F03013, doi:10.1029/2009JF001321, 2010.; Bertolo, P. and Wieczorek, G. F.: Calibration of numerical models for small debris flows in Yosemite Valley, California, USA, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 993–1001, doi:10.5194/nhess-5-993-2005, 2005.; Boniello, M. A., Calligaris, C., Lapasin, R., and Zini, L.: Rheological investigation and simulation of a debris-flow event in the Fella watershed, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 989–997, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-989-2010, 2010.; Fraccarollo, L., Capart, H., and Zech, Y.: A Godunov method for the computation of erosional shallow water transient, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 41, 951–976, 2003.; Iverson, R. M., Reid, M. E., and LaHusen, R. G.: Debris Flow mobilization from landslides1, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 25, 85–138, 1997.; Julien, P. Y. and O'Brien, J. S.: Dispersive and turbulent stresses in hyperconcentrated sediment flows, unpublished paper, 1998.; Julien, P. Y. and Paris, A.: Mean Velocity of Mudflows and Debris Flows, J. Hydraul. Eng., 136, 967–679, 2010.; Marchi, L., Arattano, M., and Deganutti, A.M.,: Ten years of debris-flow monitoring in the Moscardo Torrent (Italian Alps), Geomorphology, 46, 1–17, 2002.; Nocentini, M., Tofani, V., Gigli, G., Fidolini, F., and Casagli, N.,: Modeling debris flows in volcanic terrains for hazard mapping: the case study of Ischia Island (Italy), Landslides, published online, doi:10.1007/s10346-014-0524-7, 2014.; O'Brien, J. D.: FLO-2D User's Manual, Version 2007.06, FLO Engineering, Nutrioso, 2007.; O'Brien, J. S.: Physical process, rheology and modeling of mudflows, PhD thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 172 pp., 1986.; O'Brien, J. S. and Julien, P. Y.: Physical processes of hyperconcentrated sediment flows, in: Proc. of the ASCE Specialty Conference on the Delineation of Landslides, Floods, and Debris Flow Hazards in Utah, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Series UWRL/g-85/03, 260–279, 1985.; O'Brien, J. S. and Julien, P. Y.: Laboratory analysis of mudflow properties, J. Hydrol. Eng., 114, 877–887, 1988.; Rosatti, G., Zorzi, N., Begnudelli, L., and Armanini, A.,: Evaluation of the Trent2D Model Capabilities to Reproduce and Forecast Debris-Flow Deposition Patterns Through a Back Analysis of a Real Event, Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, 2, 1629–1633, 2015.; Takahashi, T.: Mechanical characteristics of debris flow, J. Hydraul. Div.-ASCE, 104, 1153–1169, 1978.; TRENT2D User's Manual: available at: (last access: November 2014), 2011.; Wu, Y.-H., Liu, K.-F., and Chen, Y.-C.: Comparison between FLO-2D and Debris-2D on the application of assessment of granular debris flow hazards with case study, J. Mt. Sci., 10, 293–


Click To View

Additional Books

  • A Southeastern Mediterranean Pv Streamer... (by )
  • Tsunami Vulnerability and Damage Assessm... (by )
  • Evaluation of Future Hydrological Cycle ... (by )
  • The Relationship Between Landslide Activ... (by )
  • Amalgamation in Landslide Maps: Effects ... (by )
  • Coupling X-band Dual-polarized Mini-rada... (by )
  • Modelling the Benefits of Flood Emergenc... (by )
  • Comparison of Ground Motions Estimated f... (by )
  • Identification of Storm Surge Events Ove... (by )
  • The December 2008 Crammont Rock Avalanch... (by )
  • Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment ... (by )
  • Fuzzy Approach to Analysis of Flood Risk... (by )
Scroll Left
Scroll Right


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Hawaii eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.