Recent advances in theory and experimen- tation motivate a thorough reassessment of the physics of debris flows. Analyses of flows of dry, granular solids and solid-fluid mixtures provide a foundation for a com- prehensive debris flow theory, and experiments provide data that reveal the strengths and limitations of theoret- ical models. Both debris flow materials and dry granular materials can sustain shear stresses while remaining stat- ic; both can deform in a slow, tranquil mode character- ized by enduring, frictional grain contacts; and both can flow in a more rapid, agitated mode characterized by brief, inelastic grain collisions. In debris flows, however, pore fluid that is highly viscous and nearly incompress- ible, composed of water with suspended silt and clay, can strongly mediate intergranular friction and collisions. Grain friction, grain collisions, and viscous fluid flow may transfer significant momentum simultaneously. Both the vibrational kinetic energy of solid grains (mea- sured by a quantity termed the granular temperature) and the pressure of the intervening pore fluid facilitate motion of grains past one another, thereby enhancing debris flow mobility. Granular temperature arises from conversion of flow translational energy to grain vibra- tional energy, a process that depends on shear rates, grain properties, boundary conditions, and the ambient fluid viscosity and pressure. Pore fluid pressures that exceed static equilibrium pressures result from local or global debris contraction. Like larger, natural debris flows, experimental debris flows of ;10 m 3 of poorly sorted, water-saturated sediment invariably move as an unsteady surge or series of surges. Measurements at the base of experimental flows show that coarse-grained surge fronts have little or no pore fluid pressure. In contrast, finer-grained, thoroughly saturated debris be- hind surge fronts is nearly liquefied by high pore pres- sure, which persists owing to the great compressibility and moderate permeability of the debris. Realistic mod- els of debris flows therefore require equations that sim- ulate inertial motion of surges in which high-resistance fronts dominated by solid forces impede the motion of low-resistance tails more strongly influenced by fluid forces. Furthermore, because debris flows characteristi- cally originate as nearly rigid sediment masses, trans- form at least partly to liquefied flows, and then trans- form again to nearly rigid deposits, acceptable models must simulate an evolution of material behavior without invoking preternatural changes in material properties. A simple model that satisfies most of these criteria uses depth-averaged equations of motion patterned after those of the Savage-Hutter theory for gravity-driven flow of dry granular masses but generalized to include the effects of viscous pore fluid with varying pressure. These equations can describe a spectrum of debris flow behav- iors intermediate between those of wet rock avalanches and sediment-laden water floods. With appropriate pore pressure distributions the equations yield numerical so- lutions that successfully predict unsteady, nonuniform motion of experimental debris flows.

/pdf/the-physics-of-debris-flows-1ncsxf8awr.pdf

The physics of debris flows

The complexity of flow and wide variety of depositional processes operating in subaqueous density flows, combined with post-depositional consolidation and soft-sediment deformation, often make it difficult to interpret the characteristics of the original flow from the sedimentary record. This has led to considerable confusion of nomenclature in the literature. This paper attempts to clarify this situation by presenting a simple classification of sedimentary density flows, based on physical flow properties and grain-support mechanisms, and briefly discusses the likely characteristics of the deposited sediments. Cohesive flows are commonly referred to as debris flows and mud flows and defined on the basis of sediment characteristics. The boundary between cohesive and non-cohesive density flows (frictional flows) is poorly constrained, but dimensionless numbers may be of use to define flow thresholds. Frictional flows include a continuous series from sediment slides to turbidity currents. Subdivision of these flows is made on the basis of the dominant particle-support mechanisms, which include matrix strength (in cohesive flows), buoyancy, pore pressure, grain-to-grain interaction (causing dispersive pressure), Reynolds stresses (turbulence) and bed support (particles moved on the stationary bed). The dominant particle-support mechanism depends upon flow conditions, particle concentration, grain-size distribution and particle type. In hyperconcentrated density flows, very high sediment concentrations (>25 volume%) make particle interactions of major importance. The difference between hyperconcentrated density flows and cohesive flows is that the former are friction dominated. With decreasing sediment concentration, vertical particle sorting can result from differential settling, and flows in which this can occur are termed concentrated density flows. The boundary between hyperconcentrated and concentrated density flows is defined by a change in particle behaviour, such that denser or larger grains are no longer fully supported by grain interaction, thus allowing coarse-grain tail (or dense-grain tail) normal grading. The concentration at which this change occurs depends on particle size, sorting, composition and relative density, so that a single threshold concentration cannot be defined. Concentrated density flows may be highly erosive and subsequently deposit complete or incomplete Lowe and Bouma sequences. Conversely, hydroplaning at the base of debris flows, and possibly also in some hyperconcentrated flows, may reduce the fluid drag, thus allowing high flow velocities while preventing large-scale erosion. Flows with concentrations <9% by volume are true turbidity flows (sensuBagnold, 1962), in which fluid turbulence is the main particle-support mechanism. Turbidity flows and concentrated density flows can be subdivided on the basis of flow duration into instantaneous surges, longer duration surge-like flows and quasi-steady currents. Flow duration is shown to control the nature of the resulting deposits. Surge-like turbidity currents tend to produce classical Bouma sequences, whose nature at any one site depends on factors such as flow size, sediment type and proximity to source. In contrast, quasi-steady turbidity currents, generated by hyperpycnal river effluent, can deposit coarsening-up units capped by fining-up units (because of waxing and waning conditions respectively) and may also include thick units of uniform character (resulting from prolonged periods of near-steady conditions). Any flow type may progressively change character along the transport path, with transformation primarily resulting from reductions in sediment concentration through progressive entrainment of surrounding fluid and/or sediment deposition. The rate of fluid entrainment, and consequently flow transformation, is dependent on factors including slope gradient, lateral confinement, bed roughness, flow thickness and water depth. Flows with high and low sediment concentrations may co-exist in one transport event because of downflow transformations, flow stratification or shear layer development of the mixing interface with the overlying water (mixing cloud formation). Deposits of an individual flow event at one site may therefore form from a succession of different flow types, and this introduces considerable complexity into classifying the flow event or component flow types from the deposits.

The physical character of subaqueous sedimentary density flows and their deposits

▪ Abstract Field observations, laboratory experiments, and theoretical analyses indicate that landslides mobilize to form debris flows by three processes: (a) widespread Coulomb failure within a sloping soil, rock, or sediment mass, (b) partial or complete liquefaction of the mass by high pore-fluid pressures, and (c) conversion of landslide translational energy to internal vibrational energy (i.e. granular temperature). These processes can operate independently, but in many circumstances they appear to operate simultaneously and synergistically. Early work on debris-flow mobilization described a similar interplay of processes but relied on mechanical models in which debris behavior was assumed to be fixed and governed by a Bingham or Bagnold rheology. In contrast, this review emphasizes models in which debris behavior evolves in response to changing pore pressures and granular temperatures. One-dimensional infinite-slope models provide insight by quantifying how pore pressures and granular temperatures c...

Debris-flow mobilization from landslides

Submarine sediment density flows are one of the most important processes for moving sediment across our planet, yet they are extremely difficult to monitor directly. The speed of long run-out submarine density flows has been measured directly in just five locations worldwide and their sediment concentration has never been measured directly. The only record of most density flows is their sediment deposit. This article summarizes the processes by which density flows deposit sediment and proposes a new single classification for the resulting types of deposit. Colloidal properties of fine cohesive mud ensure that mud deposition is complex, and large volumes of mud can sometimes pond or drain-back for long distances into basinal lows. Deposition of ungraded mud (TE-3) most probably finally results from en masse consolidation in relatively thin and dense flows, although initial size sorting of mud indicates earlier stages of dilute and expanded flow. Graded mud (TE-2) and finely laminated mud (TE-1) most probably result from floc settling at lower mud concentrations. Grain-size breaks beneath mud intervals are commonplace, and record bypass of intermediate grain sizes due to colloidal mud behaviour. Planar-laminated (TD) and ripple cross-laminated (TC) non-cohesive silt or fine sand is deposited by dilute flow, and the external deposit shape is consistent with previous models of spatial decelerating (dissipative) dilute flow. A grain-size break beneath the ripple cross-laminated (TC) interval is common, and records a period of sediment reworking (sometimes into dunes) or bypass. Finely planar-laminated sand can be deposited by low-amplitude bed waves in dilute flow (TB-1), but it is most likely to be deposited mainly by high-concentration near-bed layers beneath high-density flows (TB-2). More widely spaced planar lamination (TB-3) occurs beneath massive clean sand (TA), and is also formed by high-density turbidity currents. High-density turbidite deposits (TA, TB-2 and TB-3) have a tabular shape consistent with hindered settling, and are typically overlain by a more extensive drape of low-density turbidite (TD and TC,). This core and drape shape suggests that events sometimes comprise two distinct flow components. Massive clean sand is less commonly deposited en masse by liquefied debris flow (DCS), in which case the clean sand is ungraded or has a patchy grain-size texture. Clean-sand debrites can extend for several tens of kilometres before pinching out abruptly. Up-current transitions suggest that clean-sand debris flows sometimes form via transformation from high-density turbidity currents. Cohesive debris flows can deposit three types of ungraded muddy sand that may contain clasts. Thick cohesive debrites tend to occur in more proximal settings and extend from an initial slope failure. Thinner and highly mobile low-strength cohesive debris flows produce extensive deposits restricted to distal areas. These low-strength debris flows may contain clasts and travel long distances (DM-2), or result from more local flow transformation due to turbulence damping by cohesive mud (DM-1). Mapping of individual flow deposits (beds) emphasizes how a single event can contain several flow types, with transformations between flow types. Flow transformation may be from dilute to dense flow, as well as from dense to dilute flow. Flow state, deposit type and flow transformation are strongly dependent on the volume fraction of cohesive fine mud within a flow. Recent field observations show significant deviations from previous widely cited models, and many hypotheses linking flow type to deposit type are poorly tested. There is much still to learn about these remarkable flows.

Subaqueous sediment density flows: Depositional processes and deposit types

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 18. Landslides are a constant in shaping our landscape. Whether by large episodic, or smaller chronic, mass movements, our mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, and streams bear evidence of change from landslides. Combined with anthropogenic factors, especially the development and settlement of unstable terrain, landslides (as natural processes) have become natural disasters. This book charts our understanding of landslide processes, prediction methods, and related land use issues. How and where do landslides initiate? What are the human and economic consequences? What hazard assessment and prediction methods are available, and how well do they work? How does land use, from timber harvesting and road building to urban and industrial development, affect landslide distribution in time and space? And what is the effect of land use and climate change on landslides? [Book Synopsis]

Landslides: Processes, Prediction, and Land Use

Nearly instantaneous melting of snow and ice by the March 19, 1982, eruption of Mount St. Helens released a 4 × 106 m3 flood of water from the crater that was converted to a lahar (volcanic debris flow) through erosion and incorporation of sediment by the time it reached the base of the volcano. Over the next 81 km that it traveled down the Toutle River, the flood wave was progressively diluted through several mechanisms. A transformation from debris flow to hyperconcentrated streamflow began to occur about 27 km downstream from the crater, when the total sediment concentration had decreased to about 78% by weight (57% by volume). The hyperconcentrated lahar-runout flood wave, transporting immense quantities of sand in suspension, continued to experience progressive downstream dilution. Although turbulence was significantly dampened by the extremely high suspended load, very large standing waves and antidune waves were observed. The hyperconcentrated lahar-runout flow deposited an unusual, faintly stratified, coarse sand which locally contained small, isolated gravel lenses. Very similar deposits in the Quaternary stratigraphy of Mount St. Helens and other Cascades volcanoes suggest that lahars may be more frequent than previously recognized.

Downstream dilution of a lahar : transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated streamflow.

Debris flows at Mount St. Helens, Washington, USA

/pdf/geologic-field-trip-guide-of-volcaniclastic-sediments-from-1ucv38noxm.pdf

Kevin M. Scott

Papers

Downstream dilution of a lahar : transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated streamflow.

Debris flows at Mount St. Helens, Washington, USA

Geologic field-trip guide of volcaniclastic sediments from snow- and ice-capped volcanoes—Mount St. Helens, Washington, and Mount Hood, Oregon