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

羟氨苄青霉素引起大疱性类天疱疮样疹

Landsliding in response to rainfall involves physical processes that operate on disparate timescales. Relationships between these timescales guide development of a mathematical model that uses reduced forms of Richards equation to evaluate effects of rainfall infiltration on landslide occurrence, timing, depth, and acceleration in diverse situations. The longest pertinent timescale is A/D0, where D0 is the maximum hydraulic diffusivity of the soil and A is the catchment area that potentially affects groundwater pressures at a prospective landslide slip surface location with areal coordinates x, y and depth H. Times greater than A/D0 are necessary for establishment of steady background water pressures that develop at (x, y, H) in response to rainfall averaged over periods that commonly range from days to many decades. These steady groundwater pressures influence the propensity for landsliding at (x, y, H), but they do not trigger slope failure. Failure results from rainfall over a typically shorter timescale H2/D0 associated with transient pore pressure transmission during and following storms. Commonly, this timescale ranges from minutes to months. The shortest timescale affecting landslide responses to rainfall is H/g, where g is the magnitude of gravitational acceleration. Postfailure landslide motion occurs on this timescale, which indicates that the thinnest landslides accelerate most quickly if all other factors are constant. Effects of hydrologic processes on landslide processes across these diverse timescales are encapsulated by a response function, R(t*) = t*/π exp (−1/t*) − erfc (1/t*), which depends only on normalized time, t*. Use of R(t*) in conjunction with topographic data, rainfall intensity and duration information, an infinite-slope failure criterion, and Newton's second law predicts the timing, depth, and acceleration of rainfall-triggered landslides. Data from contrasting landslides that exhibit rapid, shallow motion and slow, deep-seated motion corroborate these predictions.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000WR900090

Landslide triggering by rain infiltration

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

A model for the topographic influence on shallow landslide initiation is developed by coupling digital terrain data with near-surface through flow and slope stability models. The hydrologic model TOPOG (O'Loughlin, 1986) predicts the degree of soil saturation in response to a steady state rainfall for topographic elements defined by the intersection of contours and flow tube boundaries. The slope stability component uses this relative soil saturation to analyze the stability of each topographic element for the case of cohesionless soils of spatially constant thickness and saturated conductivity. The steady state rainfall predicted to cause instability in each topographic element provides a measure of the relative potential for shallow landsliding. The spatial distribution of critical rainfall values is compared with landslide locations mapped from aerial photographs and in the field for three study basins where high-resolution digital elevation data are available: Tennessee Valley in Marin County, California; Mettman Ridge in the Oregon Coast Range; and Split Creek on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Model predictions in each of these areas are consistent with spatial patterns of observed landslide scars, although hydrologic complexities not accounted for in the model (e.g., spatial variability of soil properties and bedrock flow) control specific sites and timing of debris flow initiation within areas of similar topographic control.

/pdf/a-physically-based-model-for-the-topographic-control-on-3babhrnl49.pdf

A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding

The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at SLAC is an x-ray Free Electron Laser (FEL) with wavelengths of 0.15 nm to 1.5 nm. The electron beam stability is important for good lasing. While the transverse jitter of the beam is about 10-20% of the rms beam sizes, the jitter in the longitudinal phase space is a multiple of the energy spread and bunch length. At the lower energy of 4.3 GeV (corresponding to the longest wavelength of 1.5 nm) the relative energy jitter can be 0.125%, while the rms energy spread is with 0.025% five times smaller. An even bigger ratio exists for the arrival time jitter of 50 fs and the bunch duration of about 5 fs (rms) in the low charge (20 pC) operating mode. Although the impact to the experiments is reduced by providing pulse-by-pulse data of the measured energy and arrival time, it would be nice to understand and mitigate the root causes of this jitter. The thyratron of the high power supply of the RF klystrons is one of the main contributors. Another suspect is the multi-pacting in the RF loads. Phase measurements down to 0.01 degree (equals 10 fs) along the RF pulse weremore » achieved, giving hints to the impact of the different sources.« less

Identifying Longitudinal Jitter Sources in the LCLS Linac

Debris-flow experiments with a large-scale hillside flume [abs.]

Discussion: Numerical study on the entrainment of bed material into rapid landslides

PEP-II is an e + e - asymmetric B-Factory Collider located at SLAC operating at the Upsilon 4S resonance (3.1 GeV x 9 GeV). It has reached a luminosity of 1.09x10 34 /cm 2 /s and has delivered an integrated luminosity of 884 pb -1 in one day. PEP-II has delivered, over the past seven years, an integrated luminosity to the BaBar detector of over 375 fb -1 . PEP-II operates in continuous injection mode for both beams boosting the integrated luminosity. The peak positron current has reached 2.995 A in 1722 bunches. The electron current has reached 1.78 A. The goal over the next several years is to reach a luminosity of 2.1x10 34 /cm 2 /s. The accelerator physics issues being addressed in PEP-II to reach this goal include the electron cloud instability, beam-beam effects, parasitic beam-beam effects, high RF beam loading, shorter bunches, lower β y * interaction region operation, and coupling control. Figure 1 shows the PEP-II tunnel.

Richard M. Iverson

Papers

Identifying Longitudinal Jitter Sources in the LCLS Linac

Debris-flow experiments with a large-scale hillside flume [abs.]

Discussion: Numerical study on the entrainment of bed material into rapid landslides

A luminosity of 10 34 cm −2 s −1 in the pep-ii b-factory*

Discussion of “Oso, Washington, Landslide of March 22, 2014: Dynamic Analysis” by Jordan Aaron, Oldrich Hungr, Timothy D. Stark, and Ahmed K. Baghdady