Keaton2011 - Debris Flow As A Failure Triggering Mechanism

US Society on Dams
Workshop on Dam Break Analysis

Applied to Tailings
Denver, CO, USA – August 24, 2011
Debris Flow as a
Failure Triggering Mechanism
Jeffrey R Keaton, PhD, D.GE
AMEC, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Utah Geological Survey, 2005 Arizona Geological Survey, 2008

Today’s Debris-Flow Path
Objective –
Identify hazards to tailings dams posed by natural debris flows
Probable failure mode is blocking channels and diverting flood flows
Debris flows are secondary processes triggered by primary
precipitation or rapid snowmelt
Videos of flowing debris

Overview of debris flow nomenclature
Processes of mobilization, transportation, and deposition
Deposited sediment volume
Design sediment volume
Consideration of variability and uncertainty
Wildcard: Climate variability
US Society on Dams, Workshop on Dam Break Analysis Applied to Tailings Denver, CO, USA; Aug 24, 2011 2
Videos of flowing debris
Utah
Southern
California
Hong Kong
Pakistan
Colorado
Stream flow deposit

Hyperconcentrated sediment flow deposit
Debris flow deposit
Newtonian versus non-Newtonian behavior
Channelized versus unconfined flow
Keaton, 1988
Newtonian or non-Newtonian
Pierson and Costa, 1987
165.4 pcf 152.1 121.1 103.6 88.2 62.4
Keaton, 1988
Ideal alluvial-fan stratigraphic sequence
Keaton, 1988
Grain size of debris-flow deposits
do = 1 mm
silt
and
φ50 = 1.0 mm lab only clay
6.25 mm lab + field
Keaton, 1988
Basin, channel, fan
Utah Geological Survey, 2005 Bull, 1977
Processes of mobilization,
transportation, and deposition
Mobilization by surface-water flow scour and erosion

- increasing sediment concentration with distance
Mobilization by slope movement dilation and liquefaction
- initial high sediment concentration
Transportation in channels confined slurry flow

Volume increase bank collapse, channel-sediment entrainment
Deposition in levees along channel margins
Deposition in streams channel deposits
Deposition on fans or floodplains beyond channel mouths
Mobilization
Campbell, 1975 Anderson et al., 1983
Mobilization and bulking
McSaveney and Beetham, 2006
Giraud, 2005
Lightning Canyon, Davis County, Utah
Example from small (0.547 km2)

watershed in northern Utah
Santi, 1989
0.547 km2
Santi, 1989
3.06 m3/m
11.25 m3/m
2.93 m3/m
0.547 km2
Lowe, 1982
Lowe, 1982
Keaton, 1988
Spreading,
Thinning,
Frictional
Freezing
Spreading,
Thinning,
Frictional
Freezing
Spearing, 1974
On slopes veneer
In channels levees, fluvial (Newtonian) deposits
On fans debris flow, hyperconcentrated, and fluvial deposits
Alluvial-fan geomorphology
Simple topography-based estimation procedures
Channel levee and fluvial deposits
Giraud, 2005
Youberg et al., 2008
Keaton, 1988
Average volume per sedimentation event

Debris flow may dominate, but sediment will be deposited by
hyperconcentrated and fluvial processes, also
Thickness of colluvial deposits on slopes and in swales

Nature of bedrock and its capability to generate debris
under current climate conditions
Bulking factor for clear-water flood discharge
Keaton and Lowe, 1998
Probe, geophysics, or estimation based

on observations in adjacent canyons
Gartner et al., 2008
Thickness of colluvial deposits on slopes and in swales

Nature of bedrock and its capability to generate debris
Pristine canyons, Davis County, Utah
30 m3/m of channel (e.g., Centerville Canyon)
Post-fire debris flow
Keaton and Lowe, 1998
3.06 m3/m
11.25 m3/m
2.93 m3/m
Santi et al., 2008 Santi , 1989

Durango, Elkhorn Canyon Lightning Canyon
Alluvial-fan erosion or deposition
Keaton, 1988
Design sediment volume –
Geologic reasoning
Wasatch Fault
Bonneville Shoreline
Design sediment volume –
Geologic reasoning
1984 sediment discharge in Lightning Canyon = 12,500 m3

Estimated volume of Lightning Canyon fan = 368,000 m3
The Lightning Canyon fan is post-Bonneville <15,000 years old
368,000/12500 = 29.44 ~30 events in ~15,000 years
15,000/30 = 500 years average recurrence
If ‘average’ sedimentation events produce < 12,500 m3,
then the average recurrence > 500 years
If the 1984 event is proclaimed to be the 100-year event,

then the fan should be (15,000/100)*12,500 m3 = 1,875,000 m3
which is 5 times the estimated volume of 368,000 m3
Consideration of variability
and uncertainty
Debris-dominated sediment discharge tends to be self-diverting,

hence the fan shape of alluvial fans
Small mountain canyons can produce large volumes of sediment,
hence side canyons are important and need to be considered
Consideration of variability
and uncertainty
Los Angeles County sediment catch basins

12 to 62 years of annual sediment-removal data
Small (0.259 to 4.4 km2) drainage basin areas
Keaton, 2007
Wildcard: Climate variability
Drought vegetation stress more frequent wildfires

More sediment yield even if precipitation remains constant
If precipitation declines, then debris accumulates without flushing
Subsequent sedimentation events are likely to have larger volumes
More frequent and larger sediment discharge or
Less frequent and larger sediment discharge
Conclusions
Identify hazards to tailings dams posed by natural debris flows

Probable failure mode is blocking channels and diverting flood flows
Debris flows are secondary processes triggered by primary
precipitation or rapid snowmelt
Small side canyons can contribute significant sediment volumes
Conclusions
Site-specific potential sediment production evaluation is warranted

Geology-based geomorphic assessment is needed
Debris-production regressions are getting better
but regional
equations are
still a ways off
Debris Flow as a
Failure Triggering Mechanism
Jeffrey R Keaton, PhD, D.GE
AMEC, Los Angeles, CA, USA Jeff.Keaton@amec.com
Utah Geological Survey, 2005 Arizona Geological Survey, 2008

Keaton2011 - Debris Flow As A Failure Triggering Mechanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keaton2011 - Debris Flow As A Failure Triggering Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

US Society on Dams

Workshop on Dam Break Analysis

Utah Geological Survey, 2005 Arizona Geological Survey, 2008

Videos of flowing debris

Stream flow deposit

Pierson and Costa, 1987

165.4 pcf 152.1 121.1 103.6 88.2 62.4

Utah Geological Survey, 2005 Bull, 1977

Mobilization by surface-water flow scour and erosion

Transportation in channels confined slurry flow

Campbell, 1975 Anderson et al., 1983

McSaveney and Beetham, 2006

Example from small (0.547 km2)

Youberg et al., 2008

Average volume per sedimentation event

Thickness of colluvial deposits on slopes and in swales

Bulking factor for clear-water flood discharge

Keaton and Lowe, 1998

Probe, geophysics, or estimation based

Thickness of colluvial deposits on slopes and in swales

Post-fire debris flow

Keaton and Lowe, 1998

Santi et al., 2008 Santi , 1989

1984 sediment discharge in Lightning Canyon = 12,500 m3

If the 1984 event is proclaimed to be the 100-year event,

Debris-dominated sediment discharge tends to be self-diverting,

Los Angeles County sediment catch basins

Drought vegetation stress more frequent wildfires

Identify hazards to tailings dams posed by natural debris flows

Site-specific potential sediment production evaluation is warranted

Utah Geological Survey, 2005 Arizona Geological Survey, 2008

You might also like