Estimation of design impact forces of debris flows

D. Proske, J, Suda, J. Hübl

University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

ABSTRACT: Mountain regions are exposed to a number of natural hazards such as avalanches, debris flows,
rock falls and rock avalanches, flash floods and landslides. Mitigation measures are often employed to reduce
the risks of hazards to humans and human settlements to an acceptable level. The design of structural mitiga-
tion measures are often not regulated and chosen arbitrary. Despite this situation, the design should at least
comply with current rules for the design of structures. this measure has not yet been put in place.. Currently in
Austria a new code of practice for the design of structural mitigation (concrete) measures against debris flow,
is under development. This code deals with the design of debris flow barriers in terms of load cases, such as
reinforcement details, static and dynamic loads. One of the major tasks to establish this new code is the prepa-
ration of flow impact forces for the design process. In this background document all known techniques for the
estimation of such debris flow impacts are investigated in terms of prediction quality. Furthermore, also in-
cluded are theoretical works, miniaturized testing (including tests conducted by the authors) and known real
world measurements. The formulas are further compared (based on sensitivity) against unknown input vari-
ables. This investigation has been extended to include weighting factors according to the First Order Reliabil-
ity Method. Despite the Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering having one of the greatest data files on
natural hazard events (starting around 500 A.C.), the knowledge of debris flow in certain regions, very often
lacks a sufficient amount of data for statistical analysis. Furthermore populations(do you mean data sets?) are
heavily corrupted due to climate change, changing geomorphologic conditions and changing flora. Besides
this the reporting quality of early events is extremely low. Therefore further techniques have been used, such
as Fuzzy sets, Rough sets and Grey numbers. Awareness of the uncertainty and indeterminism of the data
heavily influences the choice of the design impact force and can not be neglected in the choice of its design.
Furthermore partial safety factors for this event have also been chosen.

1 INTRODUCTION such phenomena, however, in the year 2005 alone,

1.1 Debris flow
Alpine regions are exposed to many different natural
hazards, such as avalanches, debris flows, land-
slides, flooding and rock fall. Debris flows are ex-
tremely mobile, highly concentrated mixtures of
poorly sorted sediment in water (Pierson 1986). The
material incorporated is inherently complex, varying
from clay sized solids to boulders of several meters
in diameter. Due to their high density (exceeding
that of water by more than a factor of two) and their
high mobility, debris flows represent a serious haz-
ard for people, settlements, and infrastructure in
mountainous regions. The front of a debris flow can
reach velocities of up to 30 m/s (e.g. Costa 1984,
Rickenmann 1999) and peak discharges tens of
times greater than for floods occurring in the same
catchment (e.g. Pierson 1986; Hungr et al. 2001). It
is difficult to quantify annual economic losses due to
more than 80 million Euro was spent in Austria for
protection measures against torrential hazards (in-
cluding floods, bedload transport, and debris flow).
In debris flow research, the flowing mixture is
mostly divided into the liquid ‘matrix’, composed of
water and fine sediment in suspension, and the solid
phase, consisting of coarse particles dispersed in
fluid. Depending on the relative concentration of
fine and coarse sediment, the prefix ‘viscous’ or
‘granular’ is often used. Since the early seventies,
research has increasingly focused on the topic of de-
bris flow behaviour (Johnson 1970, Costa 1984).
Mudflows and debris flows consisting of a consider-
able amount of fine sediment are often regarded as
homogeneous fluids, where the bulk flow behaviour
is controlled by the ‘rheologic’ properties of the ma-
terial mixture (e.g. Coussot et al. 1998; Cui et al.
2005). This simple rheologic approach has limita-
tions for r debris flows consisting mainly of coarse
particles and water. In the last decades, geotechnical
models have been employed to describe the motion
of (granular) debris flows (e.g. Savage & Hutter
1989, Iversion 1997).
The flow behavior of debris flows can be very
variable, strongly depending on sediment composi-
tion and water content. Moreover, debris flow vol-
ume and bulk flow behavior may change during
travel through a channel by for e.g. entrainment of
loose sediment and/or incorporation of water from a
tributary. For this reason, until now no general ap-
plicable model used in praxis is capable of covering
the range of all possible material mixtures and event
scenarios.
1.2 Design event
For engineers it is important to predict possible trig-
gering zones and deposition areas or runout lengths.
Runout analysis is an essential component for haz-
ard assessment in alpine watersheds, which includes
pre-diction of potential hazard areas and mapping
the distribution of hazard intensity parameters, such
as velocity, flow depth and the thickness of the de-
posits. For the design of mitigation measures – such
as check dams or other torrential barriers – it is es-
sential to makea good estimation of possible impact
forces of debris flow events occurring in a catch-
ment. These impact forces can be considered to de-
pend mainly on:
• mixture composition, and
• dynamic parameters, like flow depth and mean
velocity
Mixture composition depends on the geologic and
geomorphologic background of the watershed,
which of course has a significant influence on the
flow behavior of the mixture. The maximum values
of impact forces may also be a result of material
composition (consider the impact of a debris flow
involving several large boulders vs. a muddy debris
flow with the same dynamic parameters).
There are many parameters influencing debris
flow dynamics, as already mentioned sediment com-
position and water content, but also channel slope,
cross section area, and event magnitude. The prob-
ability of occurrence and the potential event volume
of future debris flows can be regarded as the most
important unknowns for debris flow hazard assess-
ment. According to Rickenmann (1999), the applica-
tion of the concept of ‘recurrence intervals’ and as-
sociated event volumes, as traditionally used in
flood frequency analysis, may be problematic in the
context of debris flow hazard assessment, since (1)
only limited data of historic events is available, (2)
a debris flow event may depend on previous ones.
Zimmermann et al. (1987) found the characteristic
pattern between debris flow magnitude and fre-
quency for a particular catchment, to depend on the
sediment availability and on the lithology of the
catchment. Further different empirical equations can
be found in literature (e.g. Kronfellner-Kraus 1987,
Zeller 1985, Rickenmann & Zimmermann 1993). All
of these equations can be considered a rough estima-
tion of total debris flow volume, based on the most
important morphometric catchment characteristic.
Rickenmann (1999) found that these formulae may
overestimate the actual event volume by up to a fac-
tor of 100. In engineering practice it is therefore rec-
ommended to carry out a geomorphologic assess-
ment of the sediment potential in the watershed. This
– combined with a frequency analysis of precipita-
tion data – might yield a realistic estimate for the
volume of a design debris flow event Additionally
consideration of the uncertainty of the formulas has
to be made– either using probabilistic or other
mathematical techniques.
Using the information from field analysis (event
magnitude, kind of sediment,…) it is necessary to
estimate dynamic parameters such as peak dis-
charge, mean flow velocity and flow depth, either
using empirical relations (Rickenmann 1999) or de-
termined by simulation models (e.g. O’Brien et al.
1993, Pitman & Le 2005).
1.3 Design of structural elements
Unfortunately there is little known about the forces
on structural elements, which might be caused by
debris flows. Until now, barriers have been designed
using some rough rules of thumb. Knowledge might
be adapted to debris flows through the application of
general procedures in the Eurocode, for the devel-
opment of design forces. Structural elements have to
be designed according to codes of practices or other
regulations. Such codes are developed based on
some general procedures or major assumptions. In
the Eurocode the design and construction of build-
ings is heavily based on statistics and probability
theory. This permits the introduction of general rules
independent of the specific material or the specific
type of load. Based on these rules design forces have
been developed for many loads.
Nevertheless many different load types are not
dealt with, either because data is missing or because
people working in specific fields are not aware of
the general rules. For example the Eurocode does
not yet deal with forces from avalanches or debris
flows. This investigation tries to pull together the
procedures according to the Eurocode and in-
formation on the impact forces of debris flow.
However it may also be possible, that the safety
concept of the Eurocode is simply insufficient for
such cases.
2 INVESTIGATION OF DEBRIS FLOW were also investigated using advanced distinct ele-
IMPACT ment models. The estimated impact force for a stone
with 50 cm diameter is then 750 kN.
2.1 Introduction
At the Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, Uni-
versity of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sci-
ences, Vienna, different ways have been used to de-
velop design parameters for debris flow impacts.
These approaches involve measurement of impact
forces by large scale experimental debris flows
(Hübl & Jäger 2004), measurement of miniaturized
laboratory debris flows and investigation of damages
of barrier structures caused by debris flow. All three
procedures are characterized by the amount of data
available and assumptions made thereby. For exam-
ple the measurement of real scale debris flow is very
limited, whereas the number of tests of the miniatur-
ized debris flow is high. With the result that scale
becomes a problem. The investigation of existing
structures might include the problem of identifica-
tion of the causes of damage and identification of Figure 1. Experimental set-up at the beginning of the test.
the first damage.

2.2 Real scale debris flow impact tests

Large scale debris flow impact tests have been car-
ried out on a test site in the western part of Austria,
in the ‘Schesatobel’ watershed. The test site is situ-
ated in a massive erosion area of moraine material.
By controlling the outflow of a small artificial lake,
debris flows are triggered by erosion processes in
the loose material. At the end of a short transit zone
an artificial barrier structure was installed. The
measurement station is shown in figure 1 before and
figure 2 during the impact of debris flow. The meas-
ured parameters include flow depth, surface velocity
derived from video analysis, and impact forces on up
to nine load cells in total. The tests were done in
2004 (Hübl & Jäger 2004) and 2006.
Since the debris flow is rather heterogeneous, the Figure 2. Experimental set-up at the end of the test.
evaluation of the data of the load cells was con-
trolled by the video used for velocity measurements.
The measured forces were classified into two types:
the dynamic pressure of the debris flow and the im-
pact forces by major stone bodies. During the test
the maximum dynamic water pressure was estimated
to be 40 kN/m2. An example of the flow of the pres-
sure over time is shown in figure 3. Single impact
forces were measured up to 8 kN. Based on the
video material, the stone causing this impact force
was identified. The mass was estimated as 30 kg,
with a velocity of 4 to 5 m/s. Considering that one
Figure 3. Measured dynamic debris flow pressure over time.
stone with a diameter of 1 m was observed on the
video, but lacking the load cells, the possible impact Zhang (1993) used a different measurement set-
forces were estimated assuming the same motion up to estimate the maximal impact force. Instead of
properties as the 30 kg stone, the impact force using load cells, Zhang (1993) used plastic deforma-
should have been about 500 kN. The relationship be- tions as indicators for maximum loads. Zhang col-
tween the impact force and the motion of the stones lected more than 70 impact force graphs for fluid
dynamic pressures and for single impulse forces.
The maximum value found for impact forces was
about 3 MN. This would fit quite well to the esti-
mated impact force of the observed 1 m diameter
stone. Recently Wendeler et al (2007) has carried
out site measurements of debris flows, however us-
ing nets.
2.3 Miniaturized debris impact tests
In addition to the above mentioned real scale tests,
small scale model experiments have been carried out
in a straight rectangular channel of 4 m length (see
figure 4) (Hübl & Holzinger 2003). The width of the
channel was 35 cm with a fixed slope angle of 13.3°.
Within the last third of the flume the impact on an
open sectional barrier with two panels (often termed
‘debris flow breaker’) was measured. The widths of
the two panels were varied resulting in three differ-
ent slit – widths.
Hopper
Gate Working platform
Hoist
Down pipe
Ultrasonic
Flume sensors
Debris flow
Working Debris flow Hopper
structure breaker
Figure 4. Sketch of the experimental flume.
The impact forces at four locations above the
channel bed were continuously registered using sin-
gle point load cells. Two pairs of ultra-sonic (US)
flow depth sensors were installed ‘upstream’ and
‘downstream’ of the barrier structure. Using the data
from the US sensors, the mean flow velocity and the
flow hydrograph (mean and maximum flow depth)
were derived before and after the passage of the
miniaturized debris flow surge, as well as the depo-
sition pattern. The experiments were video recorded
from above and from the side (through a transparent
side wall made of acrylic glass). The roughness co-
efficient of the side walls was made very low in or-
der to reduce the influence of wall friction on the
flow of the mixtures.
The material used was a mixture of loam and wa-
ter, mimicking the debris flow matrix, and gravel of
various concentration levels.
In order to compare the flow regime of the ex-
perimental surges and the maximum impact forces
per unit area (i.e. pressure) on the barrier in a non-
dimensional form the Froude number Fr and a di-
mensionless pressure factor Kp* were derived (Hübl
& Holzinger 2003). The Froude number is calcu-
lated by the equation
Fr = v ⋅ ( g ⋅ hfl ) −0.5 (1)
where v is the mean velocity of the surge before hit-
ting the barrier, hfl is the mean flow depth, and g is
the acceleration due to gravity.
The related pressure factor is calculated using the
hydro-dynamic pressure formulae
K p * = pmax ⋅ ( ρ DF ⋅ v 2 ) −1 (2a)
where pmax is the maximum impact force measured
on the force plates divided by the area of the plate
and ρDF is the density of the debris flow material.
The results of the tests were compared to other
publications, presenting miniaturized tests (Scotton
1996, Ishikawa et al. 2008, Tiberghien et al. 2007)
and to real world measurements (taken from Costa
1984 – Table 1).
The Froude number deviation is generally high,
ranging from 1 to 13, which is in the range of super-
critical clear water flow in an open channel. Froude
numbers calculated based on observations of natural
debris flows are in the range between 1 and 2.
Table 1. List of observed and calculated debris flows
______________________________________________
River County estimated max. pressure
in kN/m2
______________________________________________
Rio Reventado Costa Rica 400-900
Hunshui Gully China 450-850
Bullock Creek New Zealand 100-150
Pine Creek USA 50-700
Wrightwood C.* USA 50-100
Wrightwood C.** USA 150
Lesser Almatinka R. USSR 200-1,000
Nojiri River* Japan 400-450
_____________________________________________
C. – Canyon, R. – River, * 1969 ** 1941
From figure 5 it can be seen that there is a rela-
tionship between the Fr and Kp*. The figure in-
cludes the above mentioned data and a possible re-
gression formula. The formula has not only been
tested using linear regression, but also on robust-
ness.
Again looking at figure 5 it is revealed that the
presented procedure includes a systematic difference
of the proposed formulae in certain Froude-number
regions. Whereas for low Froude-numbers hydro-
static formulas imposed by Lichtenhahn (1973) and
Armanini (1997) may function very well, but for
higher Froude numbers they fail. The inverse is
valid for hydro-dynamic formulas (Hübl &
Holzinger 2003, Watanabe & Ikeya 1981, Egli 2005,
VanDine 1996,
Figure 5. Summary of data of debris flow impacts.
Hungr et al. 1984). Mixed models have also not suc-
ceeded (Kherkheulidze 1967, Arattano & Franzi
2003) although they are not included in figure 5. Al-
so pure empirical models such as the one by Yu
(1992) or the consideration of compressibility has
not resolved the problem.
Here one should return to the general properties
of debris flows presented in the introduction of this
paper. It can be summarized by stating that certain
types of debris flow exist, which are extremely diffi-
cult to represent with a single formula.
The extension of the models towards single im-
pact events (e.g. rock falls) where models are avail-
able (Hertz 1881, Kuwabara & Kono 1987) does not
only require average information about the flow, but
more detailed information, for example about the
rock diameters, which is under normal conditions
completely missing. Unfortunately single stone im-
pacts may dominate the impact (Zhang 1993).
2.4 Backward calculation of existing structures
Based on several historical events, where either bar-
riers were destroyed or houses hit by debris flow, the
opportunity exists to recalculate the forces based on
the structural damages (Strauss et al. 2005).
Such backward calculations involve a major
amount of uncertainty. The structures might have
been damaged before the event or other assumptions
about the impact might not be valid. The backward
calculations were carried out for concrete and steel
reinforced concrete barriers. The finite element pro-
grams ANSYS and ATENA were used. Despite
ANSYS being well established for the modeling of
complex 3D structures (figure 6), it still lacks a good
description of concrete in cracked stages. ATENA
on the other hand is probably the best program for
the estimation of the post-crack behavior; neverthe-
less ATENA is not yet able to consider difficult ge-
ometries. Therefore both programs were used.
Figure 6. Example of a Finite Element Model of a barrier
The problem identified with the backward calcu-
lation include the uncertainty about the point of
loading. There might be the possibility that pressure
of major parts of the structures is combined with a
single hit by a stone. Also the flow depth might
change over the duration of a debris flow due to silt-
ing up.
Nevertheless first computations affirm maximum
dynamic forces up to 3 MN and up to 0.8 MN/m2
dynamic pressure.
For the regulation of design impact forces, as-
sumptions about the stochastic process are required.
2.5 Database of events Besides such physical corruptions of the data-
base, the report quality differs extremely. It is very
The computation of the final debris flow design im- often unclear whether a rock fall, a debris flow or a
pact force and return period requires intensive data rock-ice avalanche occurred. Terms may be insuffi-
about the debris flow catchment area. For example ciently chosen in historic documentations (Figure 8).
hydraulic, climatic, biological and geomorphologic Based on some ontological consideration a classifi-
information are required as mentioned before. Fur- cation has to be carried out (Scheidl et al. 2005).
thermore all such information may be subject to
changes due to climate change, change of usage
yielding to change of plants, change of geomorpho- 3 MODELLING OF INDETERMINACY
logic conditions and are perhaps related to other
phenomena such as earthquakes.
3.1 Introduction
As already mentioned there are several historical
databases in the European Alpine region to provide The aforementioned problems ranging from system-
time series data for several different Mountain haz- atic uncertainties in the chosen model, for impact
ards (StormMe, DisAlp). Furthermore the Institute computation, towards uncertain historical data and
of Mountain Risk Engineering now has collected a unknown systematic changes of the observed popu-
database of historical events in the Austrian part of lation, require an explicit consideration of the over-
the Alps including more then 17,000 events. The da- all indeterminacy. Until now, a wide range of mathe-
tabase starts with the first events dating back to matical techniques have been developed to deal with
about 500 B.C. However the collection of events is such indeterminacy or uncertainty in a certain way.
not necessarily related to the number of events, as Unfortunately to the authors knowledge there exists
figure 7 shows. For example it is widely accepted no general systematic, determining under which con-
that a peak of hazard events occurred around 1875 in ditions, which mathematical technique for
the European Alps. This peak is probably strongly indeterminacy should be applied. Even worse, many
related to the maximum expansion of the glaciers techniques are in competition, for example Bayes
around 1870 and the beginning retreat. statistics versus fuzzy models.
disasters (Salzburg)

500
Number of natural

400
300
200
100
0
1269
1340

1411
1482
1552
1623

1694
1765

1836
1907
1978

Year
Figure 7. Collection of reports about events for the federal state
of Salzburg in Austria from 1270 to about 2000

Weak border of term

Center of term

Sharp border
of term

Figure 8. Vagueness of words (Riedl 2000).

 Datamining nal data set, for example the intensity of a debris

Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Schwarm Intelligence

Gödel's incompleteness theorem

flow, is defined as:
Grey Systems
X (0) = ( x (0) (1), x (0) (2), x (0) (3)...x (0) (k ))
Rough-Sets
Newton’s Mechanic
Laplace’ Daemon
Expert Judgement
whereas the sum of the data is evaluated with:
m
Fractals X (1) (m) = ∑ x (0) (n) , m = 1...k
Fuzzy n =1
Genetic Procedures Producing the sum is called the Accumulated
Artifical neuronal networks Generating Operation (AGO). It yields to a continu-
Fuzzy-Sets
Delphi-inquiry ally growing series and smoothes the data.
Chaostheory Smoothed data is considered as data with a higher
Probability, Statistics information density and a decrease of random dis-
Destiny, Belief
turbances. The exponential model is based on the
300 B.C. 16th cen. 1920 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 following differential equation:
17th cen. dx (1) / dt + a ⋅ x (1) (t ) = b .
Figure 9. Models dealing with indetermination or uncertainty Considering the connection between the two data
(Proske 2008) sets, one can assume:
dx (1)
Currently there are several different techniques → x (1) (k + 1) − x (1) (k ) = x (0) (k + 1)
dt
applied to the available data about debris flow im- and using a whitenisation process
pacts. Such techniques are stochastic models, fuzzy
models, rough sets and Grey numbers. Here only x (1) (t ) → z (1) (k ) = 0.5 ⋅ x (1) (k ) + 0.5 ⋅ x (1) (k − 1)
Grey numbers are introduced. This yields to the equations:
x (0) (2) = − a ⋅ z (1) (2) + b, x (0) (3) = − a ⋅ z (1) (3) + b,
3.2 Grey models
... x (0) (4) = − a ⋅ z (1) (4) + b
Grey model theory is a mathematical description of
uncertainty (Deng 1988). This theory can be used Putting this into matrix form
alone or in connection with other mathematical theo- ⎡ − z (1) (2) 1⎤ ⎡ x (0) (2) ⎤
ries dealing with uncertainty, such as fuzzy theory ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
B = ⎢ − z (1) (3) 1⎥ , Y = ⎢ x (0) (3) ⎥
(Tsaur 2005).
⎢ − z (1) (4) 1⎥ ⎢ x (0) (4) ⎥
Grey model theory is a theory consisting of many ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
different fields, such as Grey theory controlling, one gets:
Grey decision making or Grey model prediction. In ⎡a ⎤ −1
⎢b ⎥ = ( B ⋅ B) ⋅ B ⋅ Y .
T T
general, the degree of Grey describes the informa-
tion content of a number (figure 9). The white num- ⎣ ⎦
ber is perfectly known whereas a black number is Now considering the solution of the aforemen-
not known at all. For Grey numbers rules of calcula- tioned differential equation and using the starting in-
tion exist which can be found, for example at Guo & formation, one gets a general formula:
Love (2005). It is not the focus of the paper to intro- b
duce the concept of Grey models in all details; in- x (1) (k ) = C1 ⋅ e − a⋅k + .
a
stead a simple model should be introduced. Considering boundary conditions given, one gets:
⎛ b⎞ b
xˆ (1) (k + 1) = ⎜ x (0) (1) − ⎟ ⋅ e − a⋅k +
⎝ a⎠ a
and the estimator for the original data using the
Inverse Accumulated Generating Operation data is:
xˆ (0) (k + 1) = xˆ (1) (k + 1) − xˆ (1) (k ) .
The authors have carried out several tests. In
Figure 10. Example of a Grey number principal it can not be stated, that Grey models under
all circumstances perform better than pure statistical
methods, such as regression. According to the ex-
3.3 Grey exponential model perience of the authors the success depends very
Grey model analysis permits the prediction of sys- much on the Grey model chosen, which indeed
tem behavior, such as extrapolation of data. As an needs some assumptions about the behavior of the
introduction the application of Grey models will be data. In the last few years many new Grey models
shown for the so-called Grey exponential model have been developed, such as DGDMMI(1,1,1),
(GM(1,1)), which is the simplest model. The origi- UIRGM(1,1), GDM(2,2,1), GM(0,N) to mention
only a few. There exists also a grey Verhulst which
has already been successfully applied for the predic-
tion of water storm surges in the Netherlands.
4 CONCLUSION
This paper has illustrated the entire chain of steps
for the development of design impact forces for de-
bris flows. It reveals that all steps involve major un-
certainties in many different ways: historical data is
assessable only at different quality levels, is cor-
rupted due to climate change, changing vegetation
covers, changing geomorphologic conditions and
changing hydraulic conditions.
All of these effects must be considered in the
preparation of the design impact forces for engi-
neers, otherwise one may as well keep the extremely
simple models currently in use. Based on the many
different origins of uncertainty it seems to be ques-
tionable that stochastic values alone can cover them.
Therefore in this research project a detailed study on
the origin of the impact equations and data was
carried out and investigated using stochastic and
grey numbers. Further techniques such as rough sets
and fuzzy sets need to be investigated in the future..
5 AKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors want to express there thanks to the Aus-
trian Research Foundation (FWF) for the support of
the study about indeterminacy and safety concepts.
REFERENCES
Arattano, M. & Franzi, L. 2003. On the evaluation of debris
flows dynamics by means of mathematical models. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences (2003) 3: pp. 539-544
Armanini, A. 1997. On the dynamic impact of debris flows.
Recent developments on debris flows, Lecture notes in
Earth Sciences 64, Springer Verlag, Berlin
Costa, J.E. 1984. Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flows. In
Costa, J.E.; Fleischer, P.J. (eds.): Developments and Appli-
cations of Geomorphology. Berlin: Springer: pp. 268 – 317
Coussot, P.; Laigle, D.; Arattano, M.; Deganutti, A. & Marchi,
L. 1998. Direct determination of rheological characteristics
of debris flow. J. Hydr. Eng. 124 (8): pp. 865 – 868.
Cui, P.; Chen, X.; Waqng, Y.; Hu, K. & Li, Y. 2005. Jiangia
Ravine debris flows in south-western China. In Jakob, M.;
Hungr, O. (eds.): Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phe-
nomena. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer: pp. 565 – 594.
Deng, J. 1988. Essential topics on Grey Systems – Theory and
Application. China Ocean Press, Bejing
Deng, Z. 1997. Impact of debris flows on structures and its
mitigation: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Ph.D. thesis
Egli. T.: Objektschutz gegen gravitative Naturgefahren. 2005.
Vereinigung Kantonaler Feuerversicherungen VKF. Bern
Eurocode - EN 1990: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung.
Deutsche Fassung, 10. Januar 2001
Hübl, J. & Holzinger, G. 2003. Entwicklung von Grundlagen
zur Dimensionierung kronenoffener Bauwerke für die Ge-
schiebebewirtschaftung in Wildbächen: Kleinmaßstäbliche
Modellversuche zur Wirkung von Murbrechern. WLS Re-
port 50 Band 3, Im Auftrag des BMLFUW VC 7a
Hübl, J. & Jäger, G. 2004. Real scale debris flow experiments
at Gaschiera/A.. European Geosciences Union, Nice, Fran-
ce
Hungr, O., Morgan, G.C. & Kellerhals, R. 1984. Quantitative
analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial
measures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 21, pp. 663-677
Hungr, O.; Evans, S.G.; Bovis, M.J. & Hutchinson, J.N. 2001.
A review of the classification of landslides of the flow type.
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, VII (3): pp.
221-238.
Ishikawa. N.. Inoue. R.. Hayashi. K.. Hasegawa. Y. & Mi-
zuyama. T.: Experimental Approach on measurement of
impulsive fluid force using debris flow model. Interprevent
2008
Iverson, R.M. 1997. The physics of debris flows. Reviews of
Geophysics 35(3): pp. 245 – 296
Johnson, A.M. 1970. Physical processes in geology. Freeman
and Cooper, San Francisco
Kherkheulidze. I.: Estimation of basic characteristics of mud-
flow („sel“). Proc. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Symp. Floods
Comput.. Vol. II. Leningrad. 1967. Seite 940-948
König, U. 2006. Real scale debris flow tests in the Schesoba-
valley (in German), University of Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Mountain Risk Engi-
neering, Vienna, Austria
Kronfellner-Kraus, G. 1987. Extreme Feststofffrachten und
Grabenbildung in Wildbächen. Proc. Int. Symp. Interprae-
vent, Villach, Austria, Bd. 2, pp. 109-118.
Kuwabara. G & Kono. K.: Restitution coefficient in a collision
between two spheres. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26 (1987) 1230–
1233
Lichtenhahn, C. 1973. Die Berechnung von Sperren in Beton
und Eisenbeton. Kolloquium über Wildbachsperren. Mittei-
lungen der Forstlichen Bundesanstalt Wien, Heft 102, pp.
91-127
McDougall, S.D. & Hungr, O. 2003. Objectives for the devel-
opment of an integrated three-dimensional continuum
model for the analysis of landslide runout. In Rickenmann,
D; Chen, L.C. (eds.): Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Me-
chanics, Prediction, and Assessment. Millpress:pp. pp. 481
– 490.
O’Brien, J.S.; Julien, P.Y. & Fullerton, W.T. 1993. Two-
dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J. Hy-
draulic Engineering 119(2): pp. 244-261.
Pierson, T.C. 1986. Flow behavior of channelized debris flows,
Mount St. Helens, Washington. In Abrahams, A.D. (ed.):
Hillslope Processes. Boston: Allen and Unwin: pp. 269 –
296.
Pitman, E.B.; Le, L. 2005. A two-fluid model for avalanche
and debris flows. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 363(1832): pp.
1573 – 1601.
Proske, D. 2002. Risikobeurteilung historischen Brücken bei
Schiffsanprall. PhD thesis, TU Dresden, Chair of Concrete
Proske, D. 2008 Catalogue of risks, Springer: Berlin
Rickenmann, D. & Zimmermann, M. 1993. The 1987 debris
flows in Switzerland: documentation and analysis. Geo-
morphology 8: pp. 175 – 189
Rickenmann, D. 1999. Empirical relationships for debris flows.
Natural Hazards. 19(1). pp. 47-77
Riedl, R. 2000. Strukturen der Komplexität – Eine Morpholo-
gie des Erkennens und Erklärens. Heidelberg, Springer
Verlag,
Savage, S.B. & Hutter, K. 1989. The motion of a finite mass of
granular material down a rough incline. J. Fluid Mech. 199:
pp. 177 – 215.
Scheidl, C.; Kollarits, S.; Hocevar, A. (2005) Ontologien im
Katastrophenschutz – gibt es einen Nutzen von Wissens-
management? In: Strobl, Roth (2005) GIS und Sicher-
 heitsmanagement 2005, Verlag Wichmann – Heidelberg;
2005 S.188
Scotton. P.: Dynamic Impact of Debris Flows: Experimental
Study. Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile ed Ambientale.
Universita Di Trento. 1996
Strauss, A.; Hübl, J.; Suda, J. & Bergmeister, K. 2005. As-
sessment of existing barrier structures. 3rd Probabilistic
Workshop Technical Systems & Natural Hazards.
Schriftenreihe des Departments. K. Bergmeister, A. Strauss
& D. Rickenmann (Eds.) Heft 7, November 2005, pp.127-
141
Tiberghien. D.. Laigle. D.. Naaim. M.. Thibert. E. and Ousset.
F.: Experimental investigation of interaction between mud-
flow and obstacle. Debris-flow Hazards Mitigation: Me-
chanics. Prediction and Assessment. 4th International Con-
ference on Debris-flow Hazards Mitigation. 2007.
Chengdu. China.
Tsaur, R.-C. 2005. Fuzzy grey GM(1,1) model under fuzzy
systems. International Journal of Computer Mathematics,
Volume 82, Number 2, February 2005, page 141-149
VanDine. D.F.: Debris Flow Control Structures for Forest En-
gineering. British Columbia. Res. Br.. B.C. Min. For.. Vic-
toria. B.C.. Work. Pap. 08/1996
Varnes, D.J. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. R. L.
Schuster & R. J. Krizel (Edr.): Landslides: Analyses and
Control. Transportation Research Board Special Report
176, Washington DC. pp. 11-33
Watanabe, M. & Ikeya, H. 1981. Investigation and analysis of
volcanic mud flows on Mount Sakurajima, Japan. Erosion
sediment transport measurement. International Association
on Hydrol. Florence, Science Publication, 133, pp. 245-256
Wendeler. C.; Volkwein. A.; Denk. M.; Roth A.; Wartmann S.:
Field measurements used for numerical modeling of flexi-
ble debris flow barriers. 4th DFHM Conference 2007.
Chengdu
Yu, F.C. 1992. A study on the impact force of debris-flow.
Proceedings of the national science council, part A: Physi-
cal Science and Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Vol. 16, No.
1: pp. 32-39,
Zeller, J. 1985. Feststoffmessung in kleinen Einzugsgebieten.
Wasser, Energie, Luft 77(7/8), pp. 246-251.
Zhang, S. 1993. A comprehensive approach to the observation
and prevention of debris flow in China. Natural Hazards, 7,
pp. 1-23
Zimmermann, M., Mani, P. & Romang, H. 1997. Magnitude-
frequency aspects of Alpine debris flows. Eclogae Geologi-
cae Helvetiae, 90(3): pp. 415-420