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,

more than 80 million Euro was spent in Austria for
1.1 Debris flow protection measures against torrential hazards (in-
Alpine regions are exposed to many different natural cluding floods, bedload transport, and debris flow).
hazards, such as avalanches, debris flows, land- In debris flow research, the flowing mixture is
slides, flooding and rock fall. Debris flows are ex- mostly divided into the liquid ‘matrix’, composed of
tremely mobile, highly concentrated mixtures of water and fine sediment in suspension, and the solid
poorly sorted sediment in water (Pierson 1986). The phase, consisting of coarse particles dispersed in
material incorporated is inherently complex, varying fluid. Depending on the relative concentration of
from clay sized solids to boulders of several meters fine and coarse sediment, the prefix ‘viscous’ or
in diameter. Due to their high density (exceeding ‘granular’ is often used. Since the early seventies,
that of water by more than a factor of two) and their research has increasingly focused on the topic of de-
high mobility, debris flows represent a serious haz- bris flow behaviour (Johnson 1970, Costa 1984).
ard for people, settlements, and infrastructure in Mudflows and debris flows consisting of a consider-
mountainous regions. The front of a debris flow can able amount of fine sediment are often regarded as
reach velocities of up to 30 m/s (e.g. Costa 1984, homogeneous fluids, where the bulk flow behaviour
Rickenmann 1999) and peak discharges tens of is controlled by the ‘rheologic’ properties of the ma-
times greater than for floods occurring in the same terial mixture (e.g. Coussot et al. 1998; Cui et al.
catchment (e.g. Pierson 1986; Hungr et al. 2001). It 2005). This simple rheologic approach has limita-
is difficult to quantify annual economic losses due to tions for r debris flows consisting mainly of coarse
particles and water. In the last decades, geotechnical catchment. Further different empirical equations can
models have been employed to describe the motion be found in literature (e.g. Kronfellner-Kraus 1987,
of (granular) debris flows (e.g. Savage & Hutter Zeller 1985, Rickenmann & Zimmermann 1993). All
1989, Iversion 1997). of these equations can be considered a rough estima-
The flow behavior of debris flows can be very tion of total debris flow volume, based on the most
variable, strongly depending on sediment composi- important morphometric catchment characteristic.
tion and water content. Moreover, debris flow vol- Rickenmann (1999) found that these formulae may
ume and bulk flow behavior may change during overestimate the actual event volume by up to a fac-
travel through a channel by for e.g. entrainment of tor of 100. In engineering practice it is therefore rec-
loose sediment and/or incorporation of water from a ommended to carry out a geomorphologic assess-
tributary. For this reason, until now no general ap- ment of the sediment potential in the watershed. This
plicable model used in praxis is capable of covering – combined with a frequency analysis of precipita-
the range of all possible material mixtures and event tion data – might yield a realistic estimate for the
scenarios. volume of a design debris flow event Additionally
consideration of the uncertainty of the formulas has
to be made– either using probabilistic or other
1.2 Design event
mathematical techniques.
For engineers it is important to predict possible trig- Using the information from field analysis (event
gering zones and deposition areas or runout lengths. magnitude, kind of sediment,…) it is necessary to
Runout analysis is an essential component for haz- estimate dynamic parameters such as peak dis-
ard assessment in alpine watersheds, which includes charge, mean flow velocity and flow depth, either
pre-diction of potential hazard areas and mapping using empirical relations (Rickenmann 1999) or de-
the distribution of hazard intensity parameters, such termined by simulation models (e.g. O’Brien et al.
as velocity, flow depth and the thickness of the de- 1993, Pitman & Le 2005).
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 1.3 Design of structural elements
forces of debris flow events occurring in a catch- Unfortunately there is little known about the forces
ment. These impact forces can be considered to de- on structural elements, which might be caused by
pend mainly on: debris flows. Until now, barriers have been designed
• mixture composition, and using some rough rules of thumb. Knowledge might
• dynamic parameters, like flow depth and mean be adapted to debris flows through the application of
velocity general procedures in the Eurocode, for the devel-
Mixture composition depends on the geologic and opment of design forces. Structural elements have to
geomorphologic background of the watershed, be designed according to codes of practices or other
which of course has a significant influence on the regulations. Such codes are developed based on
flow behavior of the mixture. The maximum values some general procedures or major assumptions. In
of impact forces may also be a result of material the Eurocode the design and construction of build-
composition (consider the impact of a debris flow ings is heavily based on statistics and probability
involving several large boulders vs. a muddy debris theory. This permits the introduction of general rules
flow with the same dynamic parameters). independent of the specific material or the specific
There are many parameters influencing debris type of load. Based on these rules design forces have
flow dynamics, as already mentioned sediment com- been developed for many loads.
position and water content, but also channel slope, Nevertheless many different load types are not
cross section area, and event magnitude. The prob- dealt with, either because data is missing or because
ability of occurrence and the potential event volume people working in specific fields are not aware of
of future debris flows can be regarded as the most the general rules. For example the Eurocode does
important unknowns for debris flow hazard assess- not yet deal with forces from avalanches or debris
ment. According to Rickenmann (1999), the applica- flows. This investigation tries to pull together the
tion of the concept of ‘recurrence intervals’ and as- procedures according to the Eurocode and in-
sociated event volumes, as traditionally used in formation on the impact forces of debris flow.
flood frequency analysis, may be problematic in the However it may also be possible, that the safety
context of debris flow hazard assessment, since (1) concept of the Eurocode is simply insufficient for
only limited data of historic events is available, (2) such cases.
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
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. dimensional form the Froude number Fr and a di-
The maximum value found for impact forces was mensionless pressure factor Kp* were derived (Hübl
about 3 MN. This would fit quite well to the esti- & Holzinger 2003). The Froude number is calcu-
mated impact force of the observed 1 m diameter lated by the equation
stone. Recently Wendeler et al (2007) has carried Fr = v ⋅ ( g ⋅ hfl ) −0.5 (1)
out site measurements of debris flows, however us-
ing nets. 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.
2.3 Miniaturized debris impact tests The related pressure factor is calculated using the
hydro-dynamic pressure formulae
In addition to the above mentioned real scale tests, K p * = pmax ⋅ ( ρ DF ⋅ v 2 ) −1 (2a)
small scale model experiments have been carried out
in a straight rectangular channel of 4 m length (see where pmax is the maximum impact force measured
figure 4) (Hübl & Holzinger 2003). The width of the on the force plates divided by the area of the plate
channel was 35 cm with a fixed slope angle of 13.3°. and ρDF is the density of the debris flow material.
Within the last third of the flume the impact on an The results of the tests were compared to other
open sectional barrier with two panels (often termed publications, presenting miniaturized tests (Scotton
‘debris flow breaker’) was measured. The widths of 1996, Ishikawa et al. 2008, Tiberghien et al. 2007)
the two panels were varied resulting in three differ- and to real world measurements (taken from Costa
ent slit – widths. 1984 – Table 1).
The Froude number deviation is generally high,
Hopper ranging from 1 to 13, which is in the range of super-
critical clear water flow in an open channel. Froude
Gate Working platform
numbers calculated based on observations of natural
Hoist debris flows are in the range between 1 and 2.
Down pipe
Ultrasonic Table 1. List of observed and calculated debris flows
Flume sensors ______________________________________________
River County estimated max. pressure
in kN/m2
______________________________________________
Debris flow Rio Reventado Costa Rica 400-900
Hunshui Gully China 450-850
Working Debris flow Hopper Bullock Creek New Zealand 100-150
structure breaker
Pine Creek USA 50-700
Wrightwood C.* USA 50-100
Wrightwood C.** USA 150
Figure 4. Sketch of the experimental flume. Lesser Almatinka R. USSR 200-1,000
Nojiri River* Japan 400-450
_____________________________________________
The impact forces at four locations above the C. – Canyon, R. – River, * 1969 ** 1941
channel bed were continuously registered using sin-
gle point load cells. Two pairs of ultra-sonic (US) From figure 5 it can be seen that there is a rela-
flow depth sensors were installed ‘upstream’ and tionship between the Fr and Kp*. The figure in-
‘downstream’ of the barrier structure. Using the data cludes the above mentioned data and a possible re-
from the US sensors, the mean flow velocity and the gression formula. The formula has not only been
flow hydrograph (mean and maximum flow depth) tested using linear regression, but also on robust-
were derived before and after the passage of the ness.
miniaturized debris flow surge, as well as the depo- Again looking at figure 5 it is revealed that the
sition pattern. The experiments were video recorded presented procedure includes a systematic difference
from above and from the side (through a transparent of the proposed formulae in certain Froude-number
side wall made of acrylic glass). The roughness co- regions. Whereas for low Froude-numbers hydro-
efficient of the side walls was made very low in or- static formulas imposed by Lichtenhahn (1973) and
der to reduce the influence of wall friction on the Armanini (1997) may function very well, but for
flow of the mixtures. higher Froude numbers they fail. The inverse is
The material used was a mixture of loam and wa- valid for hydro-dynamic formulas (Hübl &
ter, mimicking the debris flow matrix, and gravel of Holzinger 2003, Watanabe & Ikeya 1981, Egli 2005,
various concentration levels. VanDine 1996,
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-
Figure 5. Summary of data of debris flow impacts.

Hungr et al. 1984). Mixed models have also not suc- grams ANSYS and ATENA were used. Despite
ceeded (Kherkheulidze 1967, Arattano & Franzi ANSYS being well established for the modeling of
2003) although they are not included in figure 5. Al- complex 3D structures (figure 6), it still lacks a good
so pure empirical models such as the one by Yu description of concrete in cracked stages. ATENA
(1992) or the consideration of compressibility has on the other hand is probably the best program for
not resolved the problem. the estimation of the post-crack behavior; neverthe-
Here one should return to the general properties less ATENA is not yet able to consider difficult ge-
of debris flows presented in the introduction of this ometries. Therefore both programs were used.
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).
Figure 6. Example of a Finite Element Model of a barrier

2.4 Backward calculation of existing structures The problem identified with the backward calcu-
lation include the uncertainty about the point of
Based on several historical events, where either bar- loading. There might be the possibility that pressure
riers were destroyed or houses hit by debris flow, the of major parts of the structures is combined with a
opportunity exists to recalculate the forces based on single hit by a stone. Also the flow depth might
the structural damages (Strauss et al. 2005). change over the duration of a debris flow due to silt-
Such backward calculations involve a major ing up.
amount of uncertainty. The structures might have Nevertheless first computations affirm maximum
been damaged before the event or other assumptions dynamic forces up to 3 MN and up to 0.8 MN/m2
about the impact might not be valid. The backward dynamic pressure.
calculations were carried out for concrete and steel For the regulation of design impact forces, as-
reinforced concrete barriers. The finite element pro- 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- Modellversuche zur Wirkung von Murbrechern. WLS Re-
tion of water storm surges in the Netherlands. 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
4 CONCLUSION Hungr, O., Morgan, G.C. & Kellerhals, R. 1984. Quantitative
analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial
This paper has illustrated the entire chain of steps measures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 21, pp. 663-677
for the development of design impact forces for de- Hungr, O.; Evans, S.G.; Bovis, M.J. & Hutchinson, J.N. 2001.
A review of the classification of landslides of the flow type.
bris flows. It reveals that all steps involve major un- Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, VII (3): pp.
certainties in many different ways: historical data is 221-238.
assessable only at different quality levels, is cor- Ishikawa. N.. Inoue. R.. Hayashi. K.. Hasegawa. Y. & Mi-
rupted due to climate change, changing vegetation zuyama. T.: Experimental Approach on measurement of
covers, changing geomorphologic conditions and impulsive fluid force using debris flow model. Interprevent
2008
changing hydraulic conditions. Iverson, R.M. 1997. The physics of debris flows. Reviews of
All of these effects must be considered in the Geophysics 35(3): pp. 245 – 296
preparation of the design impact forces for engi- Johnson, A.M. 1970. Physical processes in geology. Freeman
neers, otherwise one may as well keep the extremely and Cooper, San Francisco
simple models currently in use. Based on the many Kherkheulidze. I.: Estimation of basic characteristics of mud-
flow („sel“). Proc. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Symp. Floods
different origins of uncertainty it seems to be ques- Comput.. Vol. II. Leningrad. 1967. Seite 940-948
tionable that stochastic values alone can cover them. König, U. 2006. Real scale debris flow tests in the Schesoba-
Therefore in this research project a detailed study on valley (in German), University of Natural Resources and
the origin of the impact equations and data was Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Mountain Risk Engi-
carried out and investigated using stochastic and neering, Vienna, Austria
grey numbers. Further techniques such as rough sets Kronfellner-Kraus, G. 1987. Extreme Feststofffrachten und
Grabenbildung in Wildbächen. Proc. Int. Symp. Interprae-
and fuzzy sets need to be investigated in the future.. 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–
5 AKNOWLEDGEMENT 1233
Lichtenhahn, C. 1973. Die Berechnung von Sperren in Beton
und Eisenbeton. Kolloquium über Wildbachsperren. Mittei-
The authors want to express there thanks to the Aus- lungen der Forstlichen Bundesanstalt Wien, Heft 102, pp.
trian Research Foundation (FWF) for the support of 91-127
the study about indeterminacy and safety concepts. 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,
REFERENCES D; Chen, L.C. (eds.): Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Me-
chanics, Prediction, and Assessment. Millpress:pp. pp. 481
– 490.
Arattano, M. & Franzi, L. 2003. On the evaluation of debris O’Brien, J.S.; Julien, P.Y. & Fullerton, W.T. 1993. Two-
flows dynamics by means of mathematical models. Natural dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J. Hy-
Hazards and Earth System Sciences (2003) 3: pp. 539-544 draulic Engineering 119(2): pp. 244-261.
Armanini, A. 1997. On the dynamic impact of debris flows. Pierson, T.C. 1986. Flow behavior of channelized debris flows,
Recent developments on debris flows, Lecture notes in Mount St. Helens, Washington. In Abrahams, A.D. (ed.):
Earth Sciences 64, Springer Verlag, Berlin Hillslope Processes. Boston: Allen and Unwin: pp. 269 –
Costa, J.E. 1984. Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flows. In 296.
Costa, J.E.; Fleischer, P.J. (eds.): Developments and Appli- Pitman, E.B.; Le, L. 2005. A two-fluid model for avalanche
cations of Geomorphology. Berlin: Springer: pp. 268 – 317 and debris flows. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 363(1832): pp.
Coussot, P.; Laigle, D.; Arattano, M.; Deganutti, A. & Marchi, 1573 – 1601.
L. 1998. Direct determination of rheological characteristics Proske, D. 2002. Risikobeurteilung historischen Brücken bei
of debris flow. J. Hydr. Eng. 124 (8): pp. 865 – 868. Schiffsanprall. PhD thesis, TU Dresden, Chair of Concrete
Cui, P.; Chen, X.; Waqng, Y.; Hu, K. & Li, Y. 2005. Jiangia Proske, D. 2008 Catalogue of risks, Springer: Berlin
Ravine debris flows in south-western China. In Jakob, M.; Rickenmann, D. & Zimmermann, M. 1993. The 1987 debris
Hungr, O. (eds.): Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phe- flows in Switzerland: documentation and analysis. Geo-
nomena. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer: pp. 565 – 594. morphology 8: pp. 175 – 189
Deng, J. 1988. Essential topics on Grey Systems – Theory and Rickenmann, D. 1999. Empirical relationships for debris flows.
Application. China Ocean Press, Bejing Natural Hazards. 19(1). pp. 47-77
Deng, Z. 1997. Impact of debris flows on structures and its Riedl, R. 2000. Strukturen der Komplexität – Eine Morpholo-
mitigation: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Ph.D. thesis gie des Erkennens und Erklärens. Heidelberg, Springer
Egli. T.: Objektschutz gegen gravitative Naturgefahren. 2005. Verlag,
Vereinigung Kantonaler Feuerversicherungen VKF. Bern Savage, S.B. & Hutter, K. 1989. The motion of a finite mass of
Eurocode - EN 1990: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung. granular material down a rough incline. J. Fluid Mech. 199:
Deutsche Fassung, 10. Januar 2001 pp. 177 – 215.
Hübl, J. & Holzinger, G. 2003. Entwicklung von Grundlagen Scheidl, C.; Kollarits, S.; Hocevar, A. (2005) Ontologien im
zur Dimensionierung kronenoffener Bauwerke für die Ge- Katastrophenschutz – gibt es einen Nutzen von Wissens-
schiebebewirtschaftung in Wildbächen: Kleinmaßstäbliche 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