Sie sind auf Seite 1von 45

Real-Scale Test for the Simulation and

Verification of Debris flow and Countermeasures

Chan-Young Yune
(Gangneung-Wonju National University)

Kyung-Jea Jun
(Gangneung-Wonju National University)
1. Introduction

2. Test Site and Facility

3. Test Results
- Basic properties of soil
- Topographic change
- Velocity
- Flow depth
- Impact force

4. Conclusions 2
Annual average precipitation has increased for the past 42 years (1971~2012)

3
1291mm 1429mm

Increase of rainfall about 140 mm (11%) in average after 1996 in Korea


4
33%

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Amount of summer rainfall has increased in recent 10 years


→ tends to pour of intensive rainfall in short period 5
Amount of rainfall and slope hazard are closely related
→ Higher rainfall induces more slope disasters
Occurrence of large number of slope hazards induced by lots of rainfall 6
→ Less slope hazard in next year even with higher precipitation
111
Fatalities (Number)

70

26.7
(Annual average)

1998 2011

Year
Number of fatalities by slope hazard for 24 years in Korea
7
 Debris flow ? (Among various kind of slope disasters)
- Extremely fast
- Causes majority of economic loss and casualties
Photograph from Daily Chosun

8
 Debris flow ?
- Extremely fast
- Causes majority of economic loss and casualties

Ex) Debris flow hazard in Umyeon Mt. Korea (2011)

- Happened in densely populated and the most wealthy area of Seoul


- Three videos were captured by residential people
- Thoroughly investigated for 2 years
- Lots of damages recorded
: 16 fatalities, 30 houses buried, 116 houses damaged by flood

9
 The total number of slope failure that initiated debris flow was about 140.
10
 The number of debris flows was about 33.
Debris flow ?

28 m/sec - Extremely fast


≈100 km/hr - Causes majority of economic loss
and casualties

Mt. Umyeon Seoul Cheonjeon Chuncheon


(16 fatalities) (13 fatalities)

11
 Research Center for River Flow Impingement and Debris Flow
- First mega project on debris flow hazard in Korea(2008 ~ 2013)
- Real-scale test was a one part of the project

Financial Support Mutual cooperation

Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure Korea Agency for Infrastructure Korea Forest
and Transport technology Advancement Korea Forest Service Research Institute

Research Institute

Research Center for River Flow


Impingement and Debris Flow

12
 Test Site

Satellite image of Korea Test site

13
 Overview of test site

Channel length: 824.4 m


Watershed Area: 0.2 km2
Average slope of initiation zone: 34.9˚
Average slope of channel: 9.74˚
Channel width (Max. and ave.): 11.53m, 7.92m

: check dam
: gabion
: countermeasure

Aerial view & LiDAR image of the test site


14
 Construction procedure of debris flow initiation facility

Volume : Total 613.8 m3


[soil tank : 346.3 m3, water tank : 267.5 m3]
Size : 12.6 x 12.0 x 6.4 m [W x L x H]

15
 Test procedure

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

16
 Test procedure

High strength geo-textile was used to cover and protect top soil in initiation area.

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

17
 Test procedure

Two water tankers were used to supply


water.

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

18
 Test procedure

Soils including some gravels were


poured loosely by backhoe.

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

19
 Test procedure

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

20
 Test procedure

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

21
 Test procedure

1. Site preparation and waterproofing


2. Soil and water preparation
3. Installation of sensors and cameras
4. Gate opening

22
 1st test (Sep. 18, 2012)
: After 100 mm of 3 day’s cumulative rainfall
Aerial video was recorded using a helicopter of KFS
Small drainage box was installed in the middle part of gully

 2nd test (Nov. 9, 2012)


: Newly developed countermeasures were constructed.
Before gate opening, water pipe opened for 43 sec.

1st test 2nd test


Soil weight (t) 357 300
Soil volume (m3) 255 214

23
 Locations of video cameras

① ②

sensor drainage box

1st test curved point

24
 Locations of video cameras

② ③

④ ⑤ ①

⑦ ⑧

⑨ ⑩ ⑥

2nd test ⑪ ⑫ ⑬

25
 Locations of video camera

Sensor Drainage box

Upstream of curved point Downstream of curved point

2nd test

26
 Application of developed countermeasures

- Applicable not only in deposition area but also in initiation and transportation area
- Easy to construct, maintain, and repair(or replace)
- Absorbing dynamic energy of debris flow and inducing deposition of sedimentation

27
 Application of developed countermeasures

Construction of developed countermeasures

28
 Density of debris flow
Captured at countermeasures
Case No. 1 2 3 4

Wet density
2.25 2.23 2.18 2.19
(g/cm3)

average 2.21

Comparison with other researches


Wet density
(g/cm3)
Bugnion et al. (2012) 1.91

Chen and Yong (2012) 2.14

Chen et al. (2012) 2.00 ~ 2.30


After
Luna et al. (2012) 1.6
occurrence Density measurement

29
 Density of debris flow
Table. Typical values of natural density (Carter and Bentley, 1991)
Natural density (g/cm3)
Material Bulk density* Dry density
Sands and gravels : very loose 1.7-1.8 1.3-1.4
Sands and gravels : loose 1.8-1.9 1.4-1.5
Sands and gravels : medium dense 1.9-2.1 1.5-1.8
Sands and gravels : dense 2.0-2.2 1.7-2.0
Sands and gravels : very dense 2.2-2.3 2.0-2.2
Poorly-graded sands 1.7-1.9 1.3-1.5
Well-graded sands 1.8-2.3 1.4-2.2
Well-graded sand/gravel mixtures 1.9-2.3 1.5-2.2

Clays : unconsolidated muds 1.6-1.7 0.9-1.1


Clays : soft, open-structured 1.7-1.9 1.1-1.4
Clays : typical, normally consolidated 1.8-2.2 1.3-1.9
Clays : Boulder clays (overconsolidated) 2.0-2.4 1.7-2.2

Red tropical soils 1.7-2.1 1.3-1.8


30
* Assumes saturated or nearly saturated conditions
 Comparison of particle size distribution

USCS : GP USCS : SW

Percentage passing (%)


Percentage passing (%)

Silt, Clay Sand Gravel Silt, Clay Sand Gravel


0.08% 32.44% 67.67% 1.52% 53.38% 45.09%

Particle size (mm) Particle size (mm)

Collected from inside of soil tank Captured at countermeasures

31
 Particle size distributions of debris flows

Debris flow source in Korea

- Clay and silt : 0 ~ 11.5%


- Gravel : 0 ~ 67.5%
- Sand : 32.4 ~ 100%

32
 LiDAR measurement

 Elimination of noise and trees from raw LiDAR point cloud


 TIN construction using filtered LiDAR point cloud
 10㎝ DEM has been resampled for each observation

Raw LiDAR point cloud Filtered LiDAR point cloud Constructed TIN Resampled 10㎝ DEM

33
 Analysis of Topographic Change

 Before and after test

Observation boundary
of 1st experiment
: initiating facility
~ 300m from initiating facility

Topographic change observation result - erosion and deposition Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Profile Analysis
34
Cylinder type

Box type
Countermeasures
Max.
deposition depth
(1.3m, 1.2m)

Elevation change (m)


1.8
0.7
-0.8
-3.6

[ 1st test ] [ 2nd test ] 35


 Estimation of debris flow velocity (front surge)

1) Direct estimation by video recording

v(m/sec)

2) Indirect estimation by arrival time

2nd test

36
Countermeasure

Comparison of velocity estimation (2nd test)

→ Almost identical velocity regardless of estimation method 37


Countermeasure

gabion No.① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫

Comparison between estimated velocities of 1st and 2nd test

→ Countermeasures were constructed in accelerating section of gully


→ Countermeasures can reduce velocity of debris flow for a while
→ Gabions seem to have no effect on debris flow dynamic 38
Countermeasure

Comparison between estimated average depth by 1st and 2nd test

39
Countermeasure

Comparison between velocity and average depth

Countermeasures in the course of debris flow


→ Slow down velocity and deposit sediment → reduce viscosity of a fluid 40
→ Lower flow depth and consequently decrease of impact force and dynamic energy
 Estimation of impact force (I-beam)

- Total length: 2m, Embedded length: 1.2m


- Sensor : 2 load cells

0.8 m

41
 Estimation of impact force
(1) Based on a bending moment of I-beam

(2) Based on the equation


- 𝐹 = 𝐴𝜌𝑣 2 (Hungr et al., 1984)
- 𝐹 = 𝐶𝑝 𝐴𝜌𝑣 2 (Bugnion et al., 2012)
𝐶
- 𝐹 = 𝐷 𝐴𝜌𝑣 2 (Holzinger and Hübl, 2004)
2

42
Before test After test
 Estimation of impact force
(1) Based on the bending moment of I-beam
- Allowable bending moment of I-Beam : 10.71 kN·m
- Impact force on I-beam: higher than 26.78 kN

(2) Based on the equation


- 𝐹 = 𝐴𝜌𝑣 2 (Hungr et al., 1984): 6.15 kN
- 𝐹 = 𝐶𝑝 𝐴𝜌𝑣 2 (Bugnion et al., 2012): 3.69 kN
- 𝐹 = 𝐶𝐷 𝐴𝜌𝑣 2 (Holzinger and Hübl, 2004): 12.98 kN
2

Theoretical or empirical relationships severely underestimate


an impact force!!!

→ Scotton and Deganutti (1997) reported an impact pressure up to twice


the average surge impact pressure
1) Real-scale debris flow tests were conducted to simulate the behavior of real
debris flows and to estimate the efficiency of countermeasures at the test site
located in Jinbu, Korea.

2) In 824m of natural gully, downstream from the debris flow initiation facility, 17
video cameras were installed. Through video analysis, the velocity of debris flow
in the stream channel before and after the installation of countermeasures was
estimated.

3) Using LiDAR measurement, topographic changes were analyzed and the


deposition induced by the countermeasure was confirmed.

4) The countermeasure in the course of debris flow slowed down the velocity in a
short period and lowered the depth of debris flow. Consequently, the
countermeasures could reduce the impact force and dynamic energy of the
debris flow.

5) Impact force was estimated based on the bending moment of I-beam and
existing equations. Existing equations based on the theoretical or empirical
relationships severely underestimates the impact force of a debris flow. 44
Thank you
for your attention !!!