Soils and Foundations 2012;52(2):356367

The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Dissipated energies and friction coefcients

in granular ow by ume tests
Takaji Kokushoa,n, Yuki Hiragab,1
a

Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University, Japan
b
Graduate School, Chuo University, Japan
Available online 29 March 2012

Abstract
Laboratory ume tests on granular ow were conducted in order to investigate the inuences of water content, grain size distribution,
grain shape, nes content and ume angle on dissipated energy in the granular ow. Energy dissipated during the ow is evaluated from
initial/residual potential energies and kinetic energy at the outlet of the ume. Though all parameters addressed here have measurable
impact on the energy dissipation and the corresponding equivalent friction coefcient m, it should be noted that the increase in nes
content Fc up to a certain threshold tends to increase the equivalent friction coefcient m. Beyond that threshold, the m-value suddenly
decreases due to a change in soil fabrics, transforming slow-speed granular ow to a high-speed mud ow. The evaluated m-values for all
tested cases have been found to be dependent on slope gradient.
& 2012 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Granular ow; Flume test; Energy dissipation; Fines content; Friction coefcient

Introduction
Debris ows are natural disasters occurring with increasing frequency recently because of rapid urbanization in
mountainous areas and also due to climate changes all
over the world (Kokusho, 2005). Despite their frequent
occurrence and devastation, the mechanism of debris ow
has yet to be fully understood. Though debris ow is a
high speed mass movement of granular materials mixed
with water with a density 1.52.3 t/m3 (Japanese
n

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kokusho@civil.chuo-u.ac.jp (T. Kokusho).
1
Now, Japan Railway East, Japan.

Geotechnical Society, 2003), it has been studied in uid

mechanics more often than in solid or granular mechanics.
In the laboratory, debris ow behavior was basically
investigated by ume tests (e.g. Takahashi, 1980; Yasuda
et al., 2008). Consequently, important geotechnical properties such as grain size distribution, grain shape, nes
content have not been sufciently considered in studying
debris ow behavior.
In this laboratory test program, a series of ume tests
have been performed on granular ows with special emphasis on the effect of geotechnical parameters. Energy dissipation and the corresponding equivalent friction coefcient in
granular ow have been evaluated based on the energy
balance in the ume test and compared among tests of
different conditions to identify important parameters.

0038-0806 & 2012 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and

hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Test method and soil material

Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.02.011

Production and hosting by Elsevier

The umes used in the tests for the energy calculation

were 200 mm deep and 120 mm wide in inner cross-section
and 3600 mm in length inclined with the angle y as
illustrated in Fig. 1. The upper 800 mm of the length was

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

300 mm

l=2 8 0

shutter

0 mm

3 6 0h0 m

h1

h2

mm

m
280 0 m

m
800 m
The initial
Centroid
ofcentroid
soil-water

200

Electronic
balance

O: Outlet of flume

sectioned from the main part of the ume by a pneumatically driven gate, behind which granular soil mixed with
water is placed just before the test. The slope angle y of the
ume was varied step by step from 201 to 301. A dry soil
mass of totally 10 kg, was slightly wetted rst, placed
behind the gate of the ume and added with a given

l1
l2

l3

lj

Fig. 1. Cross sectional sketch of test ume and its dimensions.

me
flu
c
i
l
cry

x
z0 = 100mm

357

quantity of water to make soilwater mixture of prescribed

water content wc. Once the granular ow starts by opening
the gate, its discharge velocity v at the outlet of the ume
was continuously measured by a digital image sensor as
indicated in Fig. 2, together with the mass discharge MD
by an electronic balance as shown in Fig. 1.
Soil materials used in the tests were uvial sands/gravels
of semi-round shapes of hard quality. Tested soil samples
with parametrically varied mean grain size D50, uniformity
coefcient Uc and nes content Fc as well, were prepared in
a different series of tests by appropriately mixing different
sized particles. Rock our from lime stone was used for
non-plastic nes (particle size smaller than 0.075 mm) to be
mixed with granular soils.
An acrylic ume was basically used for the tests, though
a wooden ume was also used to examine the effect of the
skin friction. Although it seems difcult to quantify the
skin frictions exactly, a simple index test to evaluate their
mutual differences was carried out, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Namely, a lump of dry soil (mean grain size D50 1.84 mm
shown later in Fig. 5), laterally constrained in a thin plastic
lm wall (400 g in weight, 10 cm square in the horizontal
dimension), was placed on a slope so that it was in direct
contact with the ume surface materials. Then the slope
angle was raised slowly by a potable lift until the soil
started to slide to determine the skin friction coefcients
from the critical slope angle ycr as mskin tan ycr. The mskinvalues thus obtained for the acrylic and wooden umes
were 0.43 and 0.50, respectively.

Energy balance considered in the test

The cumulative energy balance governing a granular
ow in the ume test from the start to the end, is expressed
as follows:
ED EPI EK EPR

Fig. 2. Trajectory of ying soil particles of granular ow at the outlet

of ume.

where ED is the dissipated energy in granular ow, EPI the

initial potential energy, EK the kinetic energy preserved at
the ume end and EPR the residual potential energy at the
end of the test. Based on the measured values, the kinetic

Flume skin material

A lump of dry soil laterally constrained

in square shaped thin plastic film wall
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration how to measure ume skin friction mskin.

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

energy at the outlet of the ume EK can be calculated as

X
EK
mD iDtviDt2 =2
2
i

where the mass discharge increment mD(iDt) at ith time

increment (Dt a time increment), can be calculated from
the mass discharge MD as
mD iDt MD iDtMD i1Dt

The ow velocity of grains at the outlet v may be

evaluated from the trajectory, shown in Fig. 2, of ying
grains, which is monitored by the digital image sensor. The
basic equations used here are from Newtonian physics;
x vt cos y and z vt sin y gt2 =2, for the horizontal and
vertical distances from the outlet (Point O in Fig. 2) at a
time t, respectively. By deleting t in these equations
z x sin y=cos y gx2 =2v2 cos2 y
can be easily derived. Hence, the ow velocity of grains at
the outlet v(iDt) at ith time increment in Eq. (2) is
calculated as
r
g
viDt
UxiDt
4
z0 1 cos2yxiDtsin 2y
here, g is the acceleration of gravity, z z0 the drop height
from Point O (100 mm constant), x(iDt) the horizontal
ying distance for grains corresponding to the vertical
distance z0 at ith time increment. The ow velocity
measured in this way, though not yet calibrated by other
methods, seems to be reliable because it is based only on
the very simple kinematic equations and two test results
from the same test condition generally show satisfactory
repeatability as will be mentioned later.
The residual potential energy EPR in Eq. (1) can be
calculated by measuring residual soil mass in individual
sections of the ume after the end of the test as
X
EPR g mR jUhj
5
j

where, mR(j) is the residual soil mass at jth interval

(200 mm each) of the ume, and hj the height at the center
of each interval from the ume outlet O as indicated in
Fig. 1. The initial potential energy is
EPI MgH

where H the height measured from the outlet of the ume,

Point O, to the centroid of the soilwater mixture, Point C,
initially charged behind the gate. The total mass of the
soilwater mixture M can be expressed as
X
X
M
mD iDt
mR j
7
i

X
X
 mD iDtviDt2 =2g mR jUhj
i

The time increment Dt was chosen as 0.0200.017 s in

the measurement of mD(iDt) and v(iDt) above.
It is easy to understand that the dissipated energy eD for
unit soil mass to ow in unit horizontal distance can be
calculated from the energy loss ED in Eq. (8) as
,
!
X
X
mrj lj
eD E D
L mD iDt
9
i

where, L the horizontal distance from the initial centroid

(Point C) of soilwater mixture behind the gate to the
ume outlet O, and lj horizontal distance from Point C to
the center of the jth section of the ume. This value eD may
represent the average energy dissipated in a soil block of
unit mass as illustrated in Fig. 4 to ow in a unit horizontal
distance during a single ow test from start to end. Here,
the units of length such as L, lj and mass such as MD, mrj
are chosen as m and kg, respectively so that the unit of eD
is J/kg/m.
The potential energy change for the same soil mass
owing in the unit horizontal distance is g tan y. Hence, the
ratio of the dissipated energy in the granular ow to the
corresponding potential energy denoted here as Rd is
Rd eD =gtan y

10

The dissipated energy ratio Rd can serve as an index,

such that the smaller the Rd-value, the longer the granular
ow may travel. An equivalent friction coefcient m tan f
between the soil mass and the ume (f friction angle) is
introduced, here. The value m actually reects energy loss
not only by the ume skin friction but also by inter-particle
movements. Then, the dissipated energy for a unit mass
shown in Fig. 4 to ow in unit horizontal distance is
eD mg cos y  1=cos y mg
Hence from Eq. (10), the equivalent friction coefcient
manifested on average during a single ow event is
Dissipated energy for unit soil mass
flowing in unit horizontal distance:
eD = gcos(1/cos) = g
m=1
me

Flu

s
1/co

Thus, the energy dissipated in the soil mass during a

single batch test from the start to the end of a ow, ED,
was evaluated from Eq. (1) using Eqs. (2)(7) as
"
#
X
X
ED gH
mD iDt
mR j
i

l=1

g

cos

mg = g

gcos

358


Fig. 4. Illustration of unit soil mass owing in unit horizontal distance on
the ume and its loss energy eD.

Table 1
Test conditions and results for G-series (variable parameters: y, wc, D50, Uc, ume skin friction, particle shape).
Total Water D50 Uc
mass cont. (mm)
(kg)
(%)

G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-11
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
G-16
G-17
G-18
G-19
G-20
G-21
G-22
G-23
G-24

Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl
Acryl

30
30
30
30
30
30
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
30
30
30
30
30
30

15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0

50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
50
50
50
50
50

G-25
G-26
G-27
G-28

Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood

30
30
20
20

15.0
13.5
15.0
13.5

50
35
50
35

Uc

Grain MD
shape (kg)
R/C

14.43 4.25 1.03 R

14.43 4.25 1.03 R
5.77 4.22 0.94 R
5.77 4.22 0.94 R
1.84 4.26 1.01 R
1.84 4.26 1.01 R
14.43 4.25 1.03 R
14.43 4.25 1.03 R
5.77 4.22 0.94 R
5.77 4.22 0.94 R
1.84 4.26 1.01 R
1.84 4.26 1.01 R
14.43 4.25 1.03 R
14.43 4.25 1.03 R
5.77 4.22 0.94 R
5.77 4.22 0.94 R
1.84 4.26 1.01 R
1.84 4.26 1.01 R
6.11 12.22 0.63 R
6.23 5.59 1.57 R
6.25 2.29 1.17 R
6.11 12.22 0.63 C
6.23 5.59 1.57 C
6.25 2.29 1.17 C
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.84

4.26
4.26
4.26
4.26

1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01

R
R
R
R

(ljmj) Initial
Kinetic Resid.
Dissip.
(kg m) potent.
energy potent.
energy
energy EP Ek (J)
energy EPR ED (J)
(J)
(J)

Dissip.
Rd eDP/ Friction Max. dev. of
energy eD (g tan y) coeff.
m divided by
m eDP/g av. of m
(J/m/kg)

2.58
2.57
2.58
2.57
2.58
2.57
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.79
2.78
2.79
2.78
2.79
2.78
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58

0.08
0.12
0.12
0.23
0.56
0.64
0.65
0.70
0.28
0.19
1.26
0.89
0.25
0.10
0.34
0.27
1.08
1.16
0.17
0.04
0.00
0.37
0.12
0.06

232.3
209.5
232.2
207.4
232.3
207.7
221.2
198.8
211.3
188.9
210.2
187.9
183.7
164.1
182.1
163.1
182.3
162.7
232.3
232.8
232.4
232.3
232.2
232.3

82.8
63.1
78.6
58.9
62.4
42.6
61.9
49.2
60.7
41.0
42.4
31.3
36.5
33.2
36.9
30.0
25.1
20.8
62.7
78.4
83.3
55.5
68.9
75.6

1.9
3.0
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.4
7.0
7.3
2.8
1.7
7.2
5.1
3.6
4.1
2.7
2.2
5.7
5.4
1.1
0.3
0.1
3.2
1.1
3.0

147.6
143.4
151.9
145.8
166.1
160.7
152.4
142.3
147.8
146.2
160.6
151.5
143.6
126.8
142.5
131.0
151.6
136.6
168.4
154.0
149.1
173.7
162.2
153.7

3.85
4.16
3.95
4.26
4.36
4.73
3.72
3.86
3.71
4.06
4.14
4.31
3.48
3.44
3.46
3.54
3.75
3.77
4.37
3.98
3.85
4.55
4.21
4.02

0.680
0.735
0.699
0.754
0.771
0.836
0.762
0.791
0.759
0.830
0.848
0.882
0.856
0.847
0.853
0.873
0.923
0.929
0.773
0.703
0.681
0.804
0.744
0.711

0.392
0.424
0.404
0.435
0.445
0.483
0.380
0.394
0.378
0.414
0.423
0.440
0.355
0.351
0.353
0.362
0.382
0.385
0.446
0.406
0.393
0.464
0.430
0.411

0.012
0.002
0.023
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.022
0.028
0.001
0.031

2.58
2.57
2.84
2.83

1.67
1.13
1.33
1.19

232.2
207.7
163.2
145.6

67.3
33.1
19.7
8.2

10.6
7.3
9.1
6.0

154.3
167.3
134.4
131.4

4.18
5.00
3.35
3.60

0.738
0.883
0.940
1.008

0.426
0.510
0.342
0.367

0.039
0.015
0.006
0.006

MR Initial
(kg) centr.
height H
(m)

Horiz.
ow
dist. L
(m)

14.85
13.37
14.84
13.22
14.54
12.97
15.03
13.49
14.76
13.38
14.00
12.79
14.72
13.23
14.62
13.19
14.12
12.61
14.86
15.00
15.00
14.65
14.89
14.79

0.15
0.24
0.16
0.27
0.46
0.53
0.76
0.80
0.32
0.20
1.01
0.71
0.40
0.39
0.36
0.34
0.88
0.89
0.14
0.04
0.01
0.35
0.11
0.22

1.58
1.57
1.58
1.57
1.58
1.57
1.43
1.42
1.43
1.42
1.43
1.42
1.24
1.23
1.24
1.23
1.24
1.23
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.58

13.66
12.59
13.65
12.49

1.34
0.91
1.35
1.02

1.58
1.57
1.11
1.10

0.014
0.006
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.001
0.008
0.014
0.018
0.006
0.006
0.019

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

Test Flume y
no. skin
(1)

359

360
Table 2
Test conditions and results for FC-series for variable nes content (acrylic ume, y 301, Roundish grain, H 1.58 m, L 2.58 m) (variable parameters: Materials-A and -B, Fc 0100%,
wc 50%, 35%).
Total
mass
(kg)

Water
content
(%)

Uc
D50
(mm)

Uc

Fc MD
(%) (kg)

P
MR
(ljmj)
(kg) (kg m)

0 14.22 0.78 1.27

5 14.10 0.90 0.67
10 13.85 1.15 1.62

Initial potent.
energy EP (J)

Kinetic
energy Ek
(J)

Residual potential
energy EPR (J)

Dissip.
energy ED
(J)

Friction
eD (J/ eDP/
m/kg) (g tan y) coeff. m

Max. dev. of m
divided by av. of m

232.3
232.3
232.3

72.1
57.8
50.2

4.5
10.0
7.9

155.6
164.5
174.2

4.10
4.44
4.66

0.725
0.785
0.824

0.418
0.453
0.476

0.021
0.032

FC-1
FC-2
FC-3

15
15
15

50
50
50

1.24
1.12
0.99

12.2 0.61
15.5 0.66
22.5 0.78

FC-4
FC-5
FC-6
FC-7
FC-8
FC-9

15
15
15
15
15
15

50
50
50
50
50
50

0.85
0.77
0.68
0.58
0.08
0.05

29.1
41.8
60.0
72.8
69.4
14.8

0.74 15
0.89 20
0.79 25
0.28 30
0.46 50
1.46 100

13.35
14.80
14.00
14.75
11.87
12.79

1.65
0.20
1.00
0.25
3.13
2.21

2.11
0.28
1.21
0.33
0.90
1.02

232.3
232.3
232.3
232.3
232.3
232.3

44.9
62.9
64.4
87.2
69.1
70.7

12.6
1.4
8.0
1.8
43.6
28.4

174.7
167.9
159.8
143.3
119.6
133.2

4.78
4.37
4.28
3.73
3.79
3.92

0.844
0.772
0.757
0.660
0.670
0.692

0.488
0.446
0.437
0.381
0.387
0.400

0.023
0.011
0.018
0.019
0.012
0.001

FC-10
FC-11
FC-12
FC-13
FC-14

13.5
13.5
13.5
15
15

35
35
35
50
50

1.24
1.12
0.99
2.00
1.86

12.2
15.5
22.5
20.2
24.5

0.61
0.66
0.78
0.74
0.78

0
5
10
0
5

12.43
12.20
12.40
13.55
12.75

1.07
1.30
1.10
1.45
2.25

1.56
1.90
1.50
1.72
3.10

209.0
209.0
209.0
232.3
232.3

47.9
33.0
28.0
77.4
70.5

7.2
8.8
8.0
12.1
16.1

154.0
167.3
173.0
142.8
145.7

4.58
5.01
5.17
3.89
4.04

0.809
0.886
0.913
0.688
0.715

0.467
0.511
0.527
0.397
0.413

0.037
0.036
0.010
0.005
0.023

FC-15
FC-16
FC-17
FC-18
FC-19
FC-20

15
15
15
15
15
15

50
50
50
50
50
50

1.71
1.55
1.39
1.12
0.90
0.08

42.4
81.6
101.0
153.9
206.4
41.7

1.09
1.59
1.40
0.87
0.35
1.02

10
15
20
25
30
50

14.25
13.65
13.95
14.21
14.60
11.32

0.75
1.35
1.05
0.80
0.21
3.68

0.83
1.46
1.33
0.85
0.31
2.83

232.3
232.3
232.3
232.3
229.2
232.3

69.0
56.1
88.5
85.9
82.1
73.6

6.2
12.0
8.2
7.2
4.4
42.0

157.0
164.2
135.6
139.3
142.7
116.6

4.18
4.48
3.63
3.71
3.76
3.65

0.738
0.791
0.642
0.656
0.664
0.645

0.426
0.457
0.371
0.379
0.384
0.372

0.019
0.039
0.012
0.013
0.070
0.031

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

Test no.

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

m eD =g Rd tan y

11

Test results and energy calculations

In a series of tests (Hiraga, 2008), test conditions were
changed parametrically as listed in Tables 1 and 2. In
G-series (from G-1 to G-28) of Table 1, mean grain size
(D50 1.8414.4 mm), grain shape (roundish or angular),
ume angle (y 20301) were parametrically varied using
the acrylic or wooden ume. The value of water content was
chosen as wc 35% or 50% in this test, which corresponds to
the density, 1.8 t/m3 or 1.67 t/m3 assuming the average solid
density as 2.5 t/m3 and the water saturation in actual debris
ows. In FC-series (from FC-1 to FC-20) of Table 2, the
nes content Fc (weight percentage of nes, grain size
o0.075 mm) of two granular materials (A and B) was
changed stepwise from 0% to 100% mainly for wc 50%,
using the acrylic ume of y 301. Tables 1 and 2 show
pertinent test conditions, calculated energies and the equivalent friction coefcients m for all the tests.
In most case, the same test was repeated twice under the
same conditions to know its reproducibility in the test
result. The deviation of the equivalent friction coefcient m
dened as mmax mmean =mmean , (mmax=the maximum or
larger value in the repeated tests, mmean=the mean value) is
listed for each test at the last column in the tables, while
the blank line there indicates that the test was done only
once in that particular case. The deviation of m shown in
Tables 1 and 2 is mostly less than a few percent though the
maximum value is 7%, indicating that the repeatability in
measuring the energy and the friction coefcient is generally well despite apparent difculty in repeating the test
in exactly the same way in every detail.

mean grain size D50 in the acrylic ume with the angle
y 301. Fig. 6(a) exemplies the time histories of the ow
velocity at the outlet of the ume measured by the digital
image sensor and calculated by Eq. (4). The velocity is
extremely variable with time, starting with high velocity for
less than a second, followed by much lower velocity for a
few seconds with intermissions of no ow in between. The
mass discharge for the same test shown in Fig. 6(b)
measured by the electronic balance is spiky reecting the
inertia of large gravels dropping on the balance. In order
to eliminate the spikes, the signal is approximated by a
curve of an exponential function, which indicates that
primary mass discharge occurred in the rst one second
despite sustained ow in the later time. Two test results
under the same condition shown in Fig. 6(a) and (b) are
almost coincidental, indicating good repeatability in
this case.
In Fig. 7(a) and (b), time histories of ow velocity and
mass discharge, respectively, which were obtained from
tests repeated twice for wc 35% and the ume angle
6

Acrylic flume
wc = 35%
 = 30
Flow velocity (m/s)

expressed as

361

D50 = 14.43 mm

1st test
2nd test

0
0

Effects of grain size curves and grain shape

Three soil samples with parallel grain size curves on the
semi-log chart in Fig. 5 were used to examine the effect of

3
Time (s)

20

100

Mass discharge (kg)

80

60

50

20

0
0 .1

10

Original data (1st & 2nd)

Average curve (1st)
Average curve (2nd)

D50=14.43 mm

40

D50=5.77 mm

D50=1.84 mm

Percentage finer by weight (%)

15

0
0

Time (s)
1

10

100

Grain size (mm)

Fig. 5. Grain size curves of granular materials with different D50.

Fig. 6. Time histories of ow velocity at the outlet of ume measured by

digital image sensor (a) and mass discharge measured by electronic
balance (b) (Test G-2).

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

362

y 301 are shown for the materials of D50 14.43, 5.77 and
1.84 mm. The larger the D50-value, the faster the ow
velocity and mass discharge, though the difference is not so
signicant. Fig. 7 shows that the granular ow is obviously
transient; its velocity and discharge rate greatly change

Acrylic flume

Flow velocity (m/s)

wc = 35%
 = 30

The legends are

the same as (b).

0
0

Time (s)

Mass discharge (kg)

15

10

D 5 0 =14.43 mm
D 5 0 = 5.77 mm

D 5 0 = 1.84 mm

with time. In the following data reductions, however, the

cumulative energies as a batch test are considered as a
whole. Namely, the kinetic energy at the ume outlet EK
summed up during the test in Eq. (2) and the residual
potential energy of soils in the ume at the end of the test
EPR calculated in Eq. (5) are subtracted from the initial
potential energy EPI in Eq. (6) to quantify the cumulative
dissipated energy ED during the batch test as in Eq.(1). The
dissipated energy ratio Rd eDP =gtan y in Eq.(10) and
the equivalent friction coefcient m Rd tan y in Eq.(11)
for tests of the ume angle y 301 are tabulated in Table 1
(from G-1 to G-6). Similarly, Rd and m are calculated for
the corresponding test results for y 26.51 and 22.51 and
listed in Table 1 (from G-7 to G-18).
All these values are plotted versus the mean grain size
D50 in Fig. 8. Both Rd and m tend to decrease gently with
increasing D50, indicating that granular ow of smaller
particle size tends to dissipate more energy for all the water
contents and ume angles tested here. The difference is
12% maximum between D50 1.84 mm and 14.43 mm.
Then, soils with grain size curves illustrated in Fig. 9 of
almost the same D50 but different uniformity coefcients
were tested in the acrylic ume under the condition of
wc 50% and y 301. Not only uvial soils of roundish
particles but also articially crushed stones of angular
particles with exactly the same grain size curves were tested
to compare the results. The values Rd and m are listed at
G-19G-24 in Table 1 and also plotted versus Uc in
Fig. 10. It can be seen from the gure that the dissipated
energy becomes 14% larger with increasing Uc from 2.29
to 12.22, and also that the particle angularity tends to
increase the energy dissipation by only 46%.

Effects of flume angle and water content

0
0

Time (s)

Fig. 7. Time histories of ow velocity (a) and mass discharge (b) for the
mean grain size D50 14.43, 5.77, 1.84 mm.

The ume angle was parametrically changed to investigate its effect on the energy dissipation in the granular
ow. For the acrylic ume, 3 ume angles (y 22.51, 26.51,

Dissipated energy ratio Rd or

Equivalent friction coefficient 

1.0

wc

Rd
0.8

0.6

0.4

Acrylic flume

 (deg)

50%

30

50%

26.5

50%

22.5

35%

30

35%

26.5

35%

22.5

0.2
1

10

Mean grain size D50 (mm)

Fig. 8. Effect of mean grain size D50 on dissipated energy ratio Rd and equivalent friction coefcient m for variable wc and y.

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

363

100

U c = 2.3

80

U c = 5.6
U c = 12.2

60

Flow velocity (m/s)

Percentage finer by weight (%)

40

Acrylic flume
wc = 50%
D50 = 1.84 mm

The legends are

the same as (b).

20

1
0
0 .1

10

100

Grain size (mm)

3
Time (s)

Fig. 9. Grain size curves of granular materials with different Uc.

15
1.0

Angular

0.8

Mass discharge (kg)

Dissipated energy ratio Rd or

Equivalent friction coefficient 

Roundish
Rd

0.6


10
 = 30
 = 2 6.5
 = 22.5
5

0.4

0.2
0

5
10
Uniformity coefficient Uc

15

Fig. 10. Effect of uniformity coefcient Uc on dissipated energy ratio Rd

and equivalent friction coefcient m for roundish and angular particles.

301) were chosen for 3 soil materials shown in Fig. 5 with

the water content wc 35%, 50%, whereas, for the wooden
ume, 2 ume angles (y 201, 301) for the soil of D50 1.84
mm with wc 35%, 50%. Fig. 11(a) and (b) depicts time
histories of ow velocity for the tests using the acrylic
ume and the soil of D50 1.84 mm. Quite reasonably, the
ow velocity and mass discharge become faster as the
ume angle gets higher from y 22.51 to 301. The Rd and
m-values calculated from the test results are listed at G-1 to
G-18 for the acrylic fume and at G-25 to G-28 for the
wooden ume in Table 1 and also plotted versus y in
Fig. 12. It is observed that the dissipated energy ratio
Rd eD =g tan y tends to decrease with increasing y regardless of D50 and wc both for the acrylic and wooden umes.
In contrast, the friction coefcient m eD =g tends to
increase with increasing ume angle y. Two horizontal
lines in the diagram represent the skin frictions already
mentioned, indicating that the wooden ume has a little
higher value than the acrylic ume. It is obvious that the
m-values tend to be either lower or higher than the
mskin-values due to changing geotechnical parameters even

3
Time (s)

Fig. 11. Time histories of ow velocity (a) and mass discharge (b) for
slope angle y 301, 26.51, 22.51.

under the same ume angle. The absolute value of friction

coefcient is higher in the wooden ume, than in the
acrylic ume if the results for the same water content is
compared, presumably reecting the difference in the
measured mskin, though the mskin-values may not exactly
represent skin frictions actually exerted during the ume
test due to differences in water content and other
conditions.
Effect of fines content
For test series FC1FC20 in Table 2, two granular
materials with different grain size distributions (D50 1.24,
Uc 12.2, Cc 0.61 and D50 2.00, Uc 20.2, Cc 0.74)
were prepared by mixing sands and gravels (Cc stands for
the coefcient of curvature). Then, non-plastic nes made
from rock our ner than 0.075 mm in grain size were
added stepwise to each of them from Fc 0% to 100% to
make two types of materials of different nes content Fc
(named here Materials-A and -B) as illustrated in Fig. 13.
They were used to examine the effect of Fc in the acrylic

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

364

D50 (mm) Wc(%)

Dissipated energy ratio Rd or

Equivalent friction coefficient 

1.0

Rd

0.8

Rd

0.6

Acrilic flume
14.4
5.77
1.84
14.4
5.77
1.84
Wooden flume
1.84
1.84

50
50
50
35
35
35
50
35

skin = 0.50 : Wooden Flume


0.4

skin = 0.43 : Acrylic Flume

0.2
20

35

25
30
Angle of Flume  (deg.)

100

Fc = 0%
Fc = 5%
Fc = 10%
Fc = 15%
Fc = 20%
Fc = 25%
Fc = 30%
Fc = 50%
Fc = 100%

50

0.01

0.1
1
Particle size (mm)

10

Flow velocity (m/s)

Acrylic flume
 = 30

wc = 50%
The legends are

the same as (b).

100
0
0

50

3
Time (s)

15

0.01

0.1
1
Particle size (mm)

10

Fig. 13. Grain size curves of granular materials, A and B, with

parametrically varying Fc. (a) A-grading and (b) B-grading.

ume of y 301. In Fig. 14(a) and (b), time histories of

ow velocity and mass discharge are shown for Material-A
of Fc 0, 15, 30, 100% and wc 50%. Though there are
some differences between the repeated tests of the same
conditions, the trend is obvious that higher velocity
sustains longer and mass discharge occurs faster for
Fc 30% in particular and that the mass discharge rate is
much slower for Fc 15% than other Fc-values.

Mass discharge (kg)

Percentage finer by weight (%)

Percentage finer by weight (%)

Fig. 12. Effect of ume angle y on dissipated energy ratio Rd and equivalent friction coefcient m for acrylic and wooden umes.

10

Fc = 0%
Fc = 15%

Fc = 30%
Fc = 100%
0
0

3
Time [s]

Fig. 14. Time histories of ow velocity (a) and mass discharge (b) for nes
content Fc 0%, 15%, 30%, 100%.

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

From all the test results of FC-series using Materials-A

and -B, dissipated energy ratio Rd eDP =g tan y and the
equivalent friction coefcient m Rd tan y are calculated
and tabulated in Table 2 (from FC-1 to FC-20). All these
values are plotted versus nes content Fc in Fig. 15. Both
Rd and m rst increase until FcA15% (both for wc 50%
and 35%), then show sudden downturn to the lowest
values at FcA2030%, which is followed by an almost
constant low value up to Fc 100%. The trends are almost
identical for Materials-A and -B, though the changes in B
are slightly lagged compared to A presumably due to the
difference in the grain size curves.
Superposed on the same diagram are the extents of
critical nes content CFc (12.615.4% for A and 11.1
14.4% for B) evaluated from the theoretical equation
(Kokusho, 2007)
CFc nc nc nf =1nc nf

12

here, the porosity of coarse soil (sand and gravel) nc and

that of ne soil nf are calculated from nc rsc rdc =rsc

365

and nf rsf rdf =rsf , respectively, where rsc , rsf solid

densities for coarse and ne soil particles and rdc , rdf soil
dry densities for coarse and ne soils. The values of the soil
particle density; rsc , rsf , minimum and maximum dry
densities; rdmin , rdmax which were obtained using the standardized test method for gravelly soils (the Japanese
Industrial Standard JIS 1224: 2009), and the extents of
values in nc, nf corresponding to the minimum and
maximum dry densities are listed in Table 3 for Materials-A and -B. The extents of CFc calculated from Eq. (12)
for the two materials are also listed in the table assuming
that the maximum or minimum density occurs at the same
time in the coarse and ne soils.
The critical nes content CFc is an index often used in
granular mechanics which corresponds to the state where
ne particles saturate the void of coarser grains and start
to overow, changing the soil fabric from grain-supporting
to matrix supporting. Because the peaks for Rd and m occur
within the extent of CFc-values both for Materials-A and B as observed in the gure, the soil fabric change seems to

Dissipated energy ratio Rd or Equivalent friction coefficient 

1.0
Material-A wc = 50%
Material-A wc =35%
Material-B wc =50%

0.8
Rd

0.6

0.4


CFc = 12.4-15.6%: Material-A
CFc = 10.9-14.4%: Material-B

0.2
20

40
60
Fines content Fc (%)

80

100

Fig. 15. Effect of nes content Fc on dissipated energy ratio Rd and equivalent friction coefcient m for 2 granular materials, A and B, tested in the
acrylic ume.

Table 3
Critical nes contents CFc and related values for Materials-A and -B.
Soil material

Soild density rs
(g/cm3)

Min. soil density

rdmin (g/cm3)

Max. soil density

rdmax (g/cm3)

Extent of values corresponding to min.max.

soil density
Porosity of sand
and gravel nc

Porosity of nes
nf

CFc

Material-A

Sand and gravel

Fines

2.65
2.74

1.68
0.88

2.11
1.54

0.3660.204

0.6790.438

0.1560.126

Material-B

Sand and gravel

Fines

2.70
2.74

1.74
0.88

2.21
1.54

0.3440.181

0.6790.438

0.1440.110

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

366

dramatically decrease the dissipated energy and the associated friction coefcient, facilitating a transition from
granular ow to high speed mud ow. It may well be
inferred qualitatively that a similar mechanism may also be
involved in actual debris ow.

Discussions
All the friction coefcients obtained by the ume tests
listed in Tables 1 and 2 are plotted again versus the ume
gradient b with different symbols on the same diagram in
Fig. 16. The plots are all on or below the diagonal line
m b quite logically because otherwise the ow could not
occur. The m-values tend to increase slightly with increasing slope gradient b in the both umes at almost the same
rate as already indicated in Fig. 12, too.
Equivalent friction coefcients were quantied in situ
previously from debris ows induced by rains and earthquakes, which were found to be dependent on various
parameters. Among the parameters, it is known that the
greater the debris volume, the friction coefcient tends to be
smaller (e.g. Hsu, 1975). The same trend has also been found
in case studies of a number of slope failures during the 2004
Niigataken Chuetsu earthquake by Kokusho et al. (2009).
In this test series, in which the effect of slope gradient
was focused rather than the debris volume, the increasing
trend of friction coefcient with slope gradient has been
clearly observed both in acrylic and wooden umes as
shown in Fig. 16. However, the increasing rate seems
moderate compared to the m b line. Since the skin friction
does not seem to change with slope angle, inter-particle
movements inside the ow may increase the equivalent
friction coefcient with increasing slope gradient. Much
more research is certainly needed to know exactly how the

Acryl (without fines: wc = 35, 50%,

D50 = 1.84-14.43mm, R/C).
Wood (without fines:wc = 35,50%,
D50 = 1.84mm )
Acryl (with fines: Material-A, B
Fc = 0-100%,wc = 35, 50%)

Equivalent friction coefficient:  = tan

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

energy dissipation inside the granular ow changes due to

changing slope gradient.
Conclusions
A series of ume tests were conducted for soil samples
with different geotechnical parameters to study energy
dissipation mechanisms in granular ow from the granular
mechanics point of view, yielding the following major
ndings:
(1) With decreasing mean grain size D50, the dissipated
energy ratio Rd and the equivalent friction coefcient m
tend to increase for water contents and slope angles
tested in the acrylic ume, though their increments are
not so large (12% maximum between D50 14.43 and
1.84 mm). The Rd and m-values tend to increase with
increasing uniformity coefcient Uc (14% between
Uc 2.29 and 12.22). Particle angularity tends to
increase the energy dissipation only 46% if uvial
gravels and articial crushed stones are compared.
(2) The dissipated energy ratio Rd tends to decrease with
increasing y regardless of D50 and wc both for the
acrylic and wooden umes, while the friction coefcient m tends to increase with increasing y. The absolute
value of friction coefcient is higher in the wooden
ume than in the acrylic ume, presumably reecting
the difference in the measured skin friction.
(3) According to the tests using two materials with slightly
different grain size curves, both Rd and m tend to
increase to peak values with increasing nes content Fc
up to Fc 15%, then suddenly turn down to the lowest
values at Fc 2030%, followed by almost constant
low values up to Fc 100%.
(4) This value of Fc corresponding to the peak almost
coincides with critical nes content CFc of sandgravel
mixture at which nes saturate the voids of sands and
gravels and start to overow, changing the soil fabric
from grain-supporting to matrix-supporting.
(5) This may indicate that the granular ow may change to
mud ow with lower equivalent friction coefcient near
CFc. Thus, the effect of nes content Fc of non-plastic
nes seems important because it may potentially
change the ow type from slow-speed granular ow
to high speed mud ow with a slight change in Fc.
(6) It is shown in this test series that the measured friction
coefcients tend to increase moderately with increasing
slope gradient both in acrylic and wooden umes. Since
the skin friction does not seem to change with slope
angle, increasing inter-particle movements with increasing
slope gradient seem to be responsible for this.

0.2
0.2

0.3

0.4
0.5
Slope gradient:  = tan

0.6

0.7

Fig. 16. Equivalent friction coefcient m tan j plotted versus ume

gradient b tan y for all test results with different materials and test
conditions.

Acknowledgments
A part of this research was supported by Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology,

T. Kokusho, Y. Hiraga / Soils and Foundations 52 (2012) 356367

Earthquake damage in active-folding areascreation of a

comprehensive data archive and suggestions for its application to remedial measures for civil-infrastructure systems of
Japan Science and Technology Agency. Graduate and
under-graduate students, who contributed to this laborious
laboratory experiments between 2005 and 2010 in Civil
Engineering Department of Chuo University are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Hiraga, Y., 2008. Evaluation of Dissipated Energy in Debris Flow for
Granular Materials in Flume Test. M.S. Thesis. Graduate School of
Chuo University.
Hsu, J., 1975. Catastrophic debris streams generated by rockfalls.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 86 (50117), 129140.

367

Japanese Geotechnical Society, 2003. Debris Flow. Geotechnical Note 12.

JGS.
Kokusho, T., 2005. Extreme events in geohazards in Asia. In: Proceedings
of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for
Disaster Mitigation and Rehabilitation. Singapore, pp. 120.
Kokusho, T., 2007. Liquefaction strengths of poorly-graded and wellgraded granular soils investigated by lab tests. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Thessaloniki, Springer, pp. 159184.
Kokusho, T., Ishizawa, T., Nishida, K., 2009. Travel distance of failed slopes
during 2004 Chuetsu earthquake and its evaluation in terms of energy.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 11591169 (Elsevier).
Takahashi, T., 1980. Debris ow on prismatic open channel. Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers 106 (HY3), 381396.
Yasuda, M., Endo, N., Sunamura, T., 2008. Laboratory experiments of
debris ows triggered by spontaneous failure of a sediment pile: a
scaling law of the friction coefcient considering water content and
ow mass. Transactions, Japanese Geomorphological Union 29 (2).