Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

International Workshop on the debris flow disaster of December 1999 in Venezuela

RESTORATION OF THE BASINS QUEBRADA SAN JOS DE GALIPN


AND QUEBRADA EL COJO

Aronne Armanini(1), Michele Larcher(1), Bruno Majone(1), Riccardo Rigon(1), Guido Benedetti(2),
Mizuno Hideaki(3)
(1)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Trento, Via Mesiano, 77
38050 Trento, ITALY. Mail: aronne.armanini@ing.unitn.it, michele.larcher@ing.unitn.it,
bruno.majone@ing.unitn.it, riccardo.rigon@ing.unitn.it Tlf: +39-0461-881901, +39-0461-
882612, +39-0461-882610 Fax: +39-0461-882672
(2)
Azienda Speciale di Sistemazione Montana, Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Via Trener, 3
38014 Trento, ITALY. Mail: guido.benedetti@provincia.tn.it Tlf: +39-0461-495970 Fax:
+39-0461-495772
(3)
Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Asahi 1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-
0804, JAPAN. Mail: mizuno@pwri.go.jp Tlf: +81-298-644372 Fax: +81-298-640903

ABSTRACT
In this note we describe the procedures and the design assumptions under the project of
restoration and the hydraulic defence constructions of the Quebrada San Jos de Galipn and
Quebrada el Cojo which has been assigned to the Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Italy) and to the
University of Trento. Of those assumptions, some crucial aspects are emphasised which deserve
further experimental and theoretical studies as the intermittence of sediment supply and the
interplay among hydrology and sediment transport.

INTRODUCTION
After the precipitations events of December 1999 that caused a great loss of lives and enormous
damage to infrastructures and housing, the Provincia Autonoma di Trento agreed with the
Environmental Ministry of Venezuela to design some check dams and defence infrastructures to
prevent future disasters in the basins of Quebrada S. Jos the Galipn and Quebrada el Cojo.
This paper describes the hydrological studies and design assumption of those hydraulics
constructions. Even if the witnesses of the events told that the event was exceptional in depth-
duration, no really reliable precipitation data are available to quantify them at the design time.
Moreover, uncertainty was also on the estimation of the sediment transported which was
evaluated after the events with trips on the fields. Thus, much of the hydrological analyses, as
well as the design performed here, are based on educated guesses about the phenomena
involved and its return time. Worth to remind is that the design of the check dams and the
restoration require conceptual design rainfall and not the exact knowledge of some past events.
Thus, even if more studies of the events are certainly required to better asses the projects, we feel
confident of the design choices described in the following sections.

RAINFALL ANALYSIS
Hydrological analyses were based on rainfall data measured in Macuto since 1975 (Padron et al.,
2000). Those data, however, were not without contradiction: some extra data were shown in
Table 52.1 of Padron et al. (2000) which were not reported in the Allegato 4 that considerably
alter the results of the analysis. Data of Table 5.2.1 have been ignored in the present work.
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

In order to obtain return time for the rainfall heights, the different durations available were
modelled with Gumbel (EV1) distributions:

P(H < h) = ee
( hu )
(1)

The event that caused the disasters in Quebrada S. Jos de Galipn and Quebrada el Cojo were
told by observers to be of 400 mm of rainfall a day, which is a measure that was observed in
many recent extreme events in other parts of the world and sounds credible. According to data
available and to Gumbel model, this event would result of a return time of approximately one
thousand years. This estimation is clearly unreliable since the short time series of data available
and thus requires further heuristic analysis.

Bacino Quebrada San Jose de Galipan


Quebrada S. Jos de Galipn

Quebrada el Cojo
Bacino Quebrada el Cojo

Legenda
Rete Idrografica
Confini dei bacini
Formazione Tacagua 0 500m 1000m

Formazione Las Brisas


Formazione Pena de Mora
Depositi alluvionali

Figure 1 Basins Quebrada San Jos de Galipn and Quebrada el Cojo

If the amount of 400 mm set for daily rainfall is included in the data, its estimated return time
decreases to around 150 years which seems a more reasonable estimation. Accepting or
discarding this insertion in the data set can ultimately be done only on the basis of further

2
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

acquisition and validation of the data, however it can be justified on the basis of other arguments.
The key hydrological quantity to assign is in fact water discharge depending on a design
ietograph of choice (and chosen return time) and it argued that this can be done reliably even with
no really reliable data available. As traditionally done in Italy, first it is used a power law
deterministic function to describe rainfall height h as a function of rainfall duration t:

h = a tn (2)

These curves are obtained interpolating, in a bi-logarithmic plane, rainfall heights derived from
the Gumbel model versus precipitation time as shown in Figure 2. The first of the two plots does
not include the 400 mm daily rainfall while the second does. Obviously, both the coefficients of
the depth-duration curves vary considerably in the two cases, but it can be observed that this
variations have almost negligible effects on the total volume for rainfall durations of few hours.

401.7107 401.7107
Tr = 30 years
Tr = 50 years
Tr = 100 years
Tr = 200 years

147.7811 147.7811

h[mm] h[mm]
Tr = 30 years
Tr = 50 years
Tr = 100 years
54.3656 Tr = 200 years 54.3656

20 20
1 2.71828 7.38906 20.08554 1 2.71828 7.38906 20.08554
Tp [hours] Tp [hours]

Figure 2 Rainfall height (eq. (2)) including the 400 mm daily rainfall (right) and not (left)

Table 1 Parameters a and n of eq. (2) not including the 400 mm daily rainfall
Tr = 30 years a=57.25 mm h n n=0.249 Tr = 100 years a=68.91 mm h n n=0.251
Tr = 50 years a=62.22 mm h n n=0.250 Tr = 200 years a=75.58 mm h n n=0.251

Table 2 Parameters a and n of eq. (2) including the 400 mm daily rainfall
Tr = 30 years a=47.43 mm h n n=0.462 Tr = 100 years a=56.22 mm h n n=0.481
Tr = 50 years a=51.17 mm h n n=0.471 Tr = 200 years a=61.27 mm h n n=0.488

DISCHARGE ANALYSIS

The discharge analysis was performed with the use of a simple rainfall-runoff model based on a
width function geomorphologic unit hydrograph (e.g. Rodriguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo, 1997) and
the use of the SCS (e.g. Dingman, 1994) model for effective rainfall evaluation. The width
functions of the basins were derived from digitized 1:10000 maps of the basins while the Curve
Numbers for the SCS method were derived from literature under the assumption that rainfall
antecedent the event saturated completely the basins. Soil use and geology analysis has been

3
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

reported by Cerato and Veronese (2000). The water discharge at the outlet of the basin is then
given by:

Q(t ) = GIUH (t ) J eff ( ) d (3)


0

l max
GIUH (t ) = W (x )( f h f cx )(t ) (4)
l =1

J eff (t ) =
d
(V(t)- 0.2 Smax)2/(V(t)-0.8 Smax) (5)
dt

where GIUH(t) is the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph which is given by adding
the contribution of all the streams in the basin at a given distance, fh is the distribution of
residence time in the hillslope, fcx is an appropriate solution of the parabolic equation for
discharge in channels parametrized by the distance x (Rinaldo et al., 1991). W(x) is the width
function, i.e. the number of hillslope sites at a given distance x measured along the network.
Precisely:

1 t
fh = e = A
(6)


(ct x )2
1
f cx = e 4 DL t
(7)
4DL t 3

where A is the hillslope contributing area, and two suitable coefficients, c is the flood wave
celerity and DL a diffusion coefficient, (e.g. Rinaldo et al., 1991). Jeff is the effective rainfall, V(t)
is the total rainfall volume at time t and Smax is the water storage available in the basin.
The crux of the matter for solid discharge estimation and construction design is to determine the
peak discharge for each of the basins which requires, under our design rainfall assumptions, to
estimate the critical rainfall duration i.e. the duration of rainfall which gives the maximum of the
peak discharge. This task was performed numerically and is shown in figures 3a and 3b. Being
the concentration time around four hours for both of the basins, the inclusion of a daily rainfall of
400 mm in the previous analysis is not so delicate and can be considered as a safety assumption
with respect to the design which follows.
Precisely, for Cojo basin concentration time increases with a return time from 3.7 hours, 43 m3s-1
for thirty years, to 52 m3s-1 at 4.5 hours of rainfall for 100 years of return time to 57 m3s-1 at 4.5
hours for 200 years of return time. For the Quebrada S. Jos de Galipn, peak discharge is 108
m3s-1 after 3.8 hours and 30 years of return time; 130 m3s-1 after 3.8 hours and 100 years of return
time and 143 m3s-1 after 3.8 hours and 200 of return time. These discharges appear low because
they do not include the solid transport which makes them increase, as we show in the next
section. In spite of the uncertainty of the rainfall estimation, discharges values can be considered
reliable if rainfall intensities averaged over the concentration times were not very much more
intense than 400 mm/day.

4
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

However, discharges variations can be caused also by the partial filling or the obstruction of the
torrent bed by debris, with the creation of small dams and their subsequent break. This issue,
however, has not been theoretically assessed yet and requires further studies.
60 160
Qmax= 57.3 m3s after T = 4.5 hours Qmax = 143.2 m3s after T = 3.8 hours

Qmax= 52.1 m3s after T = 4.5 hours 140 Qmax = 130.4 m3s afterT = 3.8 hours
50

Qmax = 42.9 m3s after T = 3.7 hours


120 Qmax = 107.8 m3s after T = 3.8 hours
40
100
Q [m3/s]
Q [m 3/s]
30 80
Tp = 3 hours Tr = 30 years Tp = 3 hours Tr = 30 years
Tp = 3 hours Tr = 100 years 60 Tp = 3 hours Tr = 100 years
20 Tp = 3 hours Tr = 200 years Tp = 3 hours Tr = 200 years

40
10
20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
T [hours] T [hours]

Figure 3 Hydrographs of Quebrada el Cojo (left) and Quebrada S. Jos de Galipn (right)

SOLID DISCHARGE ANALYSIS


According to the arguments already told above, it was assumed that the debris were mobilized by
two subsequent rainfalls of 200 year return time of large volume but not of very large average
intensity. The first rainfall saturated the basins and the second was responsible of the
mobilization. The peak debris flow discharge was computed by means of Takahashis volumetric
method (1978), based on the conservation equations for the front of the debris flow, on the
assumption that the volume corresponding to the liquid peak discharge has to be added to the
solid volume and to the pre-existent fluid in saturation conditions.
The transported material is characterized by a diameter of 0.3 m in the Quebrada El Cojo and of
0.1 m in the Quebrada San Jos de Galipn. Thus, according to Takahashi, in the Cojo Basin
upstream the first check dam, with a slope of 9%, a width of the channel of 45 m and a Stricklers
coefficient Ks=20 m1/3s-1, incipient motion conditions should take place for a water depth of 27
cm and a liquid discharge of 30 m3s-1. Considering that on the hillslope this condition can not
take place as a direct consequence of the rainfall, we can hypothesize that the triggering of the
debris flow was probably due to a collapse at the base of the hillslope caused by the removal of
the armouring layer and in hillslope to a reduction of the soil resistance due to the total saturation.
Many criteria exist for evaluating the peak discharge Qdf of a debris flow, but the most
widespread is the volumetric one proposed by Takahashi (1978, 1981).

C*
Q df = Q 0 P = Q 0
C * -C df (8)

where Qo represents the peak liquid discharge, P an amplification coefficient, Cdf the
concentration of the granular mixture and C* the maximum possible concentration. In this case
we assumed C*=0.65, whereas, for slope angle minor than 20, Cdf can be assumed as follows:

tan
C df =
(tan - tan ) (9)

5
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

where =(s-)/ is the relative density of the submerged material, is the slope angle of the
channel and the friction angle of the granular material.
However Takahashis theory does not consider the non uniformity of the basin and of the
granular material, factors that are often responsible of the intermittence of the solid discharge.
This effect, that is more evident for mild slopes, is very important because it is responsible of the
decrease of the duration of the debris flow and, therefore, the increase of peak discharge. Because
of the uncertainty of the available data, and only for design purposes, it was decided to amplify
the liquid discharge with P=4.5. In this way, referring to a return time of 200 years, a design peak
discharge of 270 m3s-1 is obtained.

Different is the case of the Quebrada San Jos de Galipn. The size of the transported material is
smaller (d90=0.1 m), the slope of the last part of the basin 4% and the total transported liquid
volume 3 millions of m3 (much more than the estimated deposited volume of sediments). These
facts lead to think that the basin was globally interested by an intense sediment transport and only
locally by shallow landsliding but not by debris flows. Because of that we amplified the 200
years return time liquid discharge by a smaller 1.3 factor, and therefore decided to utilize a design
peak discharge of 200 m3s-1.

The above assumption were checked for el Cojo with the deposited volume of sediments
observed in the alluvial fan in the downstream part of the basins. Referring to the flood
hydrograph in Figure 3, relative to a return time Tr=200 years, the effective liquid volume can be
considered of about 550000 m3, which is obtained excluding the first part of the volume, too
small for making the bed unstable, and the flood recession, surely not responsible of the intense
sediment mobilization. Therefore, the amplification coefficient, P, obtained for el Cojo of 1.3 let
estimate the total volume of deposited debris of about 700000 m3, that is comparable with the
one estimated on site by Cerato and Veronese (2000) who referred of about one million cubic
meters of deposit. This agreement makes also consistent the choice of 200 years as return time
of the event. The same analysis is meaningless for the Galipn basin since debris were deposited
under the sea level and the dynamic of the sediment production and generation was different.

DESIGN OF THE CHECK DAMS


On the basis of the above analyses and to sustain similar events, it is proposed the construction of
three slit check dams on the Quebrada El Cojo and of two slit check dams on the Quebrada San
Jos de Galipn. The building site and the works type have been chosen by Cerato and Veronese
(2000) after a technical survey of the two basins.

Considering that the entering data are few and uncertain, the use of sophisticated models is
actually not adequate and, for what the works dimensioning is concerned, the use of simple and
immediately applicable formulas is suggested. In particular, it must be pointed out that the grain-
size distribution curves of the river material are not available and that in some cases the river
width, when the topographic survey 1:500 was not available, has been reproduced by means of
aerial pictures on reduced scale, in which vegetation has often represented a limit for determining
the section effectively useful to the current run-off. For this reason the deposit height zo has
been calculated utilizing the simplified expression (10) reported by Armanini and Larcher (2000).
In this way, we obtain a simple ratio bounding the deposit height zo, the uniform flow depth

6
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

h u on the deposit and the constriction ratio R=B/(Cc b), in which b represents the slit width, B the
average river width upstream each work along a 100-200 m reach and Cc=beff/b a contraction
coefficient.

z 0
= R 1 (10)
hu

In fact, calculating the constriction ratio R, the contraction of the water vein has been taken into
consideration, the effect of which consists of an ulterior reduction of the section necessary for the
run-off. The introduction of a contraction coefficient Cc allows to obtain the effective width beff of
the flow knowing the width b of the slit.
The value to be given to the contraction coefficient has been thoroughly investigated both with
theoretical and experimental techniques, as reported in Larcher (1998). Being the results obtained
through the various methods very different from each other, for what the hydraulic check of the
slits is concerned we had to refer essentially to experimental data, which could be considered
more reliable. For this purpose, the contraction coefficient had to be slightly reduced, considering
the fact that the ideal conditions of a laboratory flume are not present in real rivers and that the
check dams have more than one slit, therefore the contraction effect of the vein is more marked.
Upstream each check-dam it has been possible to calculate the river mean slope i along a 100-200
m reach by means of a cartography which has been drawn after the alluvial event in December
1999 had taken place. Because of the uncertainties relative to the diameter of the material D and,
in some cases, to the width value B, we referred to the slope i and not to theoretical equations for
calculating the uniform flow depth h u upstream each work.

3
Q
5

hu = 1


(11)
BK s i
2

In eq. (11) K s is the Stricklers coefficient that, for ordinary sediments transport phenomena, can
be calculated referring both to the material D 50 and to the D 90 .

26 21.1
Ks = 16
Ks = 16 (12)
D90 D50

In case of hyper-concentrated sediments transport or debris flow, Stricklers coefficient can be


obtained using the following expression:

2 hu (C + 1) 1 6
Ks = g hu
s a sin( )
(13)
5 D

in which D represents the diameter of the material, the friction angle, a a coefficient that,
according to Takahashi, is assumed to be equal e 0.35, the linear concentration, bound to the
volume concentration C and to the maximum concentration C* (usually C*=0.65) through eq.

7
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

(14). The volume concentration C is a function of the slope i, of the friction angle of the material
e of the density relative to the submerged material =(s-)/ .

C1 3 i
= C=
(C *)1 3 C 1 3 (tan i ) (14)

The width of the slit b must be dimensioned so that for the design discharge Qdesign all the stored
volume available upstream the check-dam can be exploited, i.e. the deposit height zo is equal to
the slit height H (Figure 4).
L
b a
n
1
H

Figure 4 Schematic representation of a slit check-dam.

WEIR DIMENSIONING
It is suggested to dimension the weir with a height a and a width at the base L (Figure 4) large
enough to allow the run-off of the design discharge, assuming for safety reasons the contribution
given by the slit to the run-off to be equal to zero. It is also suggested to dimension the weir
hypothesising its shape to be rectangular, with a base equal to L, and a height equal to a. If the
bank slope is such to allow n<4, it is possible to compensate the effect due to the water vein
concentration. The height of the weir can be obtained using Belangs formula:

2
Qdesign 3

a= (15)
0.38L 2 g

A result is obtained that only slightly differs from this last one if the conservation of energy
between the dam and a near upstream section is imposed, hypothesising that the slit is completely
clogged, and therefore does not contribute to the run-off, that in the weir critical conditions are
present and that the contribution given by the kinetic energy is negligible in the upstream section.

1
3 Qdesign
2 3

a= (16)
2 gL2

8
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

If the check-dam built is laterally supported by good quality not erodable rocks, it is possible to
allow the overflowing on the wings of the weir. For this reason and considering the fact that the
maximum height of the works has static and economic constraints, it has been chosen to build
particularly high slits, in order to increase the stored volume, and reduced size weirs.

DYNAMIC IMPACT OF THE DEBRIS FLOW


The overpressure p generated by the dynamic impact of the debris flow front against a check-
dam can be determined applying mass and momentum balances, as obtained by Armanini and
Scotton (1993):

p = a p df vimpact
2 (17)

in which df represents the debris flow density, vimpact the front penetration rate (which can be
greater than the uniform flow velocity of the debris flow) and a p is a coefficient for the
evaluation of possible secondary effects, which varies from 2, for quite slow and not very fluid
debris flows (suggested at least for the Cojo), to 0,7 for faster an more fluid debris flows.
The front mean penetration rate can be assumed as maximum value between the debris flow
penetration rate in uniform flow conditions vu and the front penetration rate in the dam-break case
vdam-break.

3
Q 5

vu = K s i hu = 2 ghu = 2 g vimpact = max {vu , v dambreak } (18)


1 2
2 3
v dambreak 1

BK s i
2

It is to be noticed that vdam-break is obtained in the simplifying hypothesis that the bottom slope and
energy line slope are equal. For this reason, in case of channels characterised by great roughness
the real front velocity is overestimated, while if the channel is strongly sloping the real velocity is
underestimated.
For what the static dimensioning is concerned, it is necessary to consider that the overpressure
determined by the impact is not isotropic, but directional (oriented according to the flow direction
of the fluid). This has to be taken into account in the case of impact against a surface not
orthogonal to the direction of the flow, in order to avoid to overestimate the intensity of the
impact pressure. However, it must be observed that the proposed method is based on one-
dimensional hypothesis and therefore represents a first approximation value, therefore it is
suggested to use an adequate safety factor acting on the overpressures entity and distribution.

DESIGN PARAMETERS
Quebrada el Cojo
The works built in the Quebrada el Cojo basin have been dimensioned for hyper-concentrated
sediments transport phenomena, with a design total discharge of 270 m3s-1 and a diameter of the
river material equal to 0.3 m. The most important design parameters, calculated using the
methods proposed in the previous paragraphs, are reported in Table 3, while the reference
symbols are shown in Figure 4. The numeration of the dams is in mounting progression from
upstream to downstream.

9
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

It must be observed that b represents the amount of all the slits widths, without counterforts or
other structures which could reduce the space for the run-off. In particular, it is suggested to be
very careful introducing eventual filtering elements or wood collection slopes which could lead to
the obstruction of the slit.
The Stricklers coefficient has been calculated by means of equation (13). In the case of check-
dam 2, Ks=12.8 m1/3s-1 has been obtained, but for safety reasons it has been preferred to reduce
this value to 10 m1/3s-1. The slit width has been chosen so that the deposit height zo could be
equal to the slit height H in concomitance of the design discharge, in order to maximise the stored
volume of sediments.

Dimensioning the weir of check-dam 1 and check-dam 2, it has been considered that the works
are laterally supported by unerodable good quality rocks, therefore it is not necessary that the
run-off section determined by the weir is sufficient to drain off the design discharge. For this
reason and considering that the works maximum height which could be obtained had building
and economic constraints, it has been chosen to build quite high slits, in order to increase the
stored volume, and small size weirs. In particular check-dam 1 is overtopped if the discharge is
150 m3s-1 and check-dam 2 if it is 80 m3s-1.
Check-dam 3 is quite different from the others, its weir has to ensure the run-off of the design
discharge. In this case, the weir allows the discharge of 270 m3s-1 with a security margin of
0.65m. The weir is overtopped, if discharges larger than 360 m3s-1 occur.

Table 3 Design parameters of the dams


slit weir
Qprogetto i Ks vimpatto B slits number Cc H b L a
3 -1 1/3 -1 -1
[m s ] [-] [m s ] [ms ] [m] [-] [-] [m] [m] [m] [m]
Cojo - Check-dam 1 270 10.0% 8.3 7.5 55.0 3 0.74 7.3 12.4 17.3 3.0
Cojo - Check-dam 2 270 7.5% 10 9.0 30.0 3 0.74 6.4 9.8 17.0 2.0
Cojo - Check-dam 3 270 8.6% 10 7.8 45.0 4 0.86 4.0 14.4 26.4 4.0
Galipn - Check-dam 1 200 10.0% 10 6.9 45.0 2 0.7 7.0 10.0 16.0 3.5
Galipn - Check-dam 2 200 3.8% 25 5.3 70.0 3 0.80 2.5 12.0 18.4 4.4

Quebrada San Jos de Galipn


The downstream check-dam, built in the Quebrada San Jos de Galipn basin, has been
dimensioned for intense sediment transport phenomena, with a design discharge of 200 m3s-1 and
a diameter of the river material equal to 0.1 m. For what the design of the upstream check-dam is
concerned, it has been considered the fact that in this section according to Cerato and Veronese
(2000) in December 1999 a debris flow has been passing through. The most important design
parameters, calculated using the methods proposed in the previous paragraphs, are reported in
Table 3. The Stricklers coefficient, calculated by means of equations (12), results equal to 32
m1/3s-1. For precautionary reasons check-dam 2 has been checked assuming Ks=25 m1/3s-1. Check-
dam 1, since it was interested by a debris flow event, has been checked both for Ks=10 m1/3s-1 and
for Ks=25 m1/3s-1.
Check-dam 1 has to be built in a rocky narrowing that does not offer any possibility of lateral
erosion, the run-off section of the weir is accepted to be inferior than the one needed to drain off
the design discharge. Therefore it has been chosen to build particularly high slits, in order to

10
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

increase the stored volume, and a reduced size weir which is overtopped if the discharge is 170
m3s-1.
For ordinary sediments transport phenomena (Ks=25 m1/3s-1) the total width of the slits results to
be overdimensioned, with a reduction of the hydraulic efficiency of the work which entirely
exploits the upstream stored volume for discharges largely superior (500 m3s-1) than the design
discharge (200 m3s-1) . Otherwise, in case of hyper-concentrated transport (Ks=10 m1/3s-1), the
storing capacity is totally exploited for the design discharge.
Check-dam 3 is quite different from the others, its weir has to ensure the run-off of the design
discharge. In this case, the weir allows the discharge of 200 m3s-1 with a security margin of 0.9
m. The weir is overtopped, if discharges larger than 2800 m3s-1 occur. In this case, the slits result
to be underdimensioned from an hydraulic point of view.

REFERENCES
Armanini, A., Lecture notes on river training, University of Trento, Italy, 1994.

Armanini, A., Benedetti, G., Sulla larghezza di apertura delle briglie a fessura, XXV Convegno
di Idraulica e Costruzioni Idrauliche, Torino 16-18 Settembre 1996, Atti-Volume III, pp. 13-24,
1996.

Armanini, A., Dellagiacoma, F., Ferrari, L., From the check dam to development of functional
check dams, Fluvial Hydraulics of Mountain Regions. Lecture Notes on Earth Sciences, n.37,
Springer-Verlag, pp. 331-344, 1991.

Armanini, A., Larcher, M., A rational criterion for designing the opening of a slit check dam,
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, in press, 2000.

Armanini, A., Larcher, M., Majone, B., Rigon, R., Benedetti, G., Relazione tecnica sulla
sistemazione dei bacini Quebrada San Jos de Galipn e Quebrada El Cojo (Vargas
Venezuela), University of Trento, Italy, 2000.

Benedetti, G., Analisi teorica e sperimentale del funzionamento delle briglie aperte. Tesi di
Laurea in Ingegneria Forestale, University of Trento, Italy, 1995.

Boyd, M. J. , A storage-routing model relating drainage basin Hydrology and geomorphology,


Water Resour. Res. , 14(5), 921-928, 1978.

Brass , R.L., Hydrology: an introduction to hydrology science, Addison Wesley, 1990.

Busnelli, M. M., Stelling, G., Larcher, M., Numerical morphological modelling of open check
dams, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, in press, 2000.

Cerato, M., Veronese, L., Relazione Tecnica sulla sistemazione dei bacini Quebrada el Cojo e
Quebrada San Jos de Galipn (Vargas Venezuela), Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Italy,
2000.

Dingman, Physical hydrology, Prentice Hall, 1994.

11
A. Armanini, M. Larcher, B. Majone, R. Rigon, G. Benedetti and H. Mizuno

Ghetti, A., Idraulica, Edizioni Libreria Cortina, Padova, Italy, 2nd Edition, 1980.

Larcher, M., Analisi sperimentale del processo di riempimento a monte di briglie a fessura in
moto vario, Tesi di Laurea in Ingegneria per l'Ambiente e il Territorio, University of Trento,
Italy, 1998.

Larcher, M., Armanini, A., Dimensionamento della larghezza dellapertura delle briglie a
fessura, XXVII Convegno di Idraulica e Costruzioni Idrauliche, Genova 12-15 Settembre 2000,
Atti-Volume I, pp. 289-297, 2000.

Larcher, M., Armanini, A., Design criteria of slit check dams and downstream channels for
debris flows, submitted to the International Workshop on the Debris Flow Disaster of December
1999 in Venezuela, 2000.

Mizuyama, T., Mechanism of the movement of grains and logs in Debris Flow.
INTERPREAVENT 1984 Vol. 3, pp. 189-196, 1984.

Padron, M. M. et al., Desastre natural de Diciembre de 1999 zona norte-centro-costera de


Venezuela. Aspectos Climatologicos, Febrero 2000.

Rinaldo, A., Marani, A. and Rigon, R., Geomorphological dispersion, Water Resources
Research, 27(4), 513-525, 1991.

Rodriguez Iturbe I. and Rinaldo, A., Fractal river basins, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Takahashi T., Mechanical characteristics of debris flow, J. Hydraulics Div., ASCE, Vol.104,
N HY8, pp. 1153-1169, 1978.

Takahashi T., Debris flow, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., Vol.13, pp. 57-77, 1981.

Takahashi, T., Debris flow, IAHR Monograph. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1991.

blagger, G., Retendieren, Dosieren und Sortieren. Kolloquium ber Wildbachsperren. Mitt. der
FBVA Wien vol.102, pp. 335-372, 1972.

Zollinger, F., Die verschiedenen Funktionen von Geschieberckhalte-bauwerken.


INTERPRAEVENT 1984 vol.1, pp. 147-160, 1984.

12

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen