J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918 e-mail: jms@imde.ac.cn http://jms.imde.ac.

cn
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-017-4373-4

Effects of a flexible net barrier on the dynamic behaviours

and interception of debris flows in mountainous areas

HUO Miao1 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-8630; e-mail: mhuo@stu.scu.edu.cn

ZHOU Jia-wen1 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6817-1071; e-mail: jwzhou@scu.edu.cn

YANG Xing-guo1,2 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7346-9190; e-mail: 89022251@163.com

ZHOU Hong-wei1,2* http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3866-0915; e-mail: HW.Zhou@scu.edu.cn

* Corresponding author

1 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
2 College of Water Resource and Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China

Citation: Huo M, Zhou JW, Yang XG, et al. (2017) Effects of a flexible net barrier on the dynamic behaviours and interception
of debris flows in mountainous areas. Journal of Mountain Science 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-017-4373-4

© Science Press and Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-VerlagGmbH Germany 2017

Abstract: Flexible net barriers are a new type of kinetic energy ratio of the debris material being
effective mitigation measure against debris flows in absorbed by the net barrier are close due to the
valleys and can affect the kinematic energy and mass limited interception efficiency of the flexible net
of debris flows. Here, ten flume tests were performed barrier, which is believed to be related to the
to study the dynamic behaviours of debris flows with flexibility. The energy ratio of outflow is relative small
differences in volumes, concentrations (solid volume despite the large permeability of the flexible net
fraction), and travel distances after interception by a barrier.
uniform flexible net barrier. A high-speed camera was
used to monitor the whole test process, and their Keywords: Debris flow; Flexible net barrier;
dynamic behaviours were recorded. A preliminary Dynamic behaviours; Interception efficiency; Kinetic
computational framework on energy conversion is energy absorption；High speed photography
proposed according to the deposition mechanisms
and outflow of debris flow under the effects of the Notation
flexible net barrier. The experimental results show Symbols Physical meaning Unit
that the dynamic interaction process between a debris B Width of the flume m
flow and the flexible net barrier can be divided into Solid volume fraction of debris flow
Ci
mixture
two stages: (a) the two-phase impact of the leading Diameter at which 90% of particles are
edge of the debris flow with the net and (b) collision D90,
finer, and maximum diameter of particles mm
and friction between the body of the debris flow and Dmax
respectively
intercepted debris material. The approach velocity of Rate of work done by the approaching
e0 W
a debris flow decreases sharply (a maximum of 63%) debris flow
after the interception by the net barrier, and the mass eA Rate of change in outflow kinetic energy W
ratio of the debris material being intercepted and the Rate of change in kinetic energy absorbed
eB W
by the net barrier

Received: 17 January 2017

Revised: 14 March 2017
Accepted: 14 July2017

1903
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

Symbols Physical meaning Unit can greatly impact the safety of the residents
ek Rate of change in energy dissipated W downstream (Volkwein et al. 2006). For instance,
internally heavy rainfall caused debris flows in the Wenjiagou
E0 Kinetic energy of the approaching J
debris flow
gully (Qingping, Sichuan, China), with material
EA Kinetic energy of outflow J sourced from multiple tributary gullies with steep
EB Kinetic energy absorbed by the net J slopes, on August 13, 2010, causing a large number
barrier of casualties and property damage (Yu et al. 2013).
Ek Kinetic energy dissipated internally J
Compared to traditional concrete
g Gravitational acceleration m/s2
ρs, ρ Mass densities of solid portion and the kg/m3 countermeasures against debris flows in valleys
interstitial water within debris flow (such as check dams and slit dams), flexible net
respectively barriers have certain advantages, such as being
θ,φ Slope inclination and internal friction ° lightweight and their quick installation and
angle respectively
h0 Frontal thickness of the debris flow M extensive site applicability, making them
h(t) Time dependent height of the sediments M particularly suitable for installation in
before the net mountainous regions where traffic is
αt Time dependent inclination of the top ° underdeveloped (Volkwein et al. 2006; Mizuyama
surface of the intercepted sediments
before the net 2008; Wendeler et al. 2015). Flexible net barriers
Q0, Q1 Discharges of the approaching debris m3/s consisting of steel mesh fences and cable ropes
flow and the escaping debris flow with brake elements can not only separate water
(outflow) respectively and stones and raise the base level of erosion but
Te, Ti, Time span of the direct stage; time span S
Ttot of indirect stage; and whole duration of can also effectively distribute the impact forces
the impact process respectively exerted by debris flows (Wendeler et al. 2006).
U0, U1 Velocities of the approach debris train m/s Therefore, a flexible net barrier derived from the
and outflow respectively safety netting system (SNS) for rockfall prevention
ω Angular velocity verified by the tests °/s
(Volkwein et al. 2009) is an ideal protection
measure against small- and medium-scale debris
flows (Leonardi et al. 2016), and, in the long term,
Introduction can prevent further expansion of the debris flow in
the main gully. There are many successful cases of
The mountainous areas in Southwest China, engineering and field testing in the United States,
where the topography is complex, feature seriously Japan, Italy, and Switzerland. However, studies on
weathered rock masses and have experienced a the design standardization, internal mechanism
large number of landslides, especially following the and verification criteria for debris flow are still
Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 (Zhou et al. 2016; limited (Canelli et al. 2012; Ferrero et al. 2015). To
Zhang et al. 2017). These landslides provide further the development of flexible net barriers,
abundant material for the initiation of debris flows. more systematic studies should be conducted, and
In the heavy rainfall season, failures of these loose the effects of structures on debris flows should also
deposits occur due to the decrease in shear be better understood.
strength and the effects of surface runoff (Zhou Unlike conventional rigid slit barriers, flexible
et al. 2013, 2016). Furthermore, shallow loose net barriers produce extremely complex
deposits are eroded by water flow, and the mixing interactions with debris flows because of their
of water and loose deposits finally results in a geometrical nonlinear features (Brighenti et al.
debris flow (Cui et al. 2014). Several debris flows 2013). Canelli et al. (2012) demonstrated that the
can occur in the same valley over a short period of impact of a debris flow on a flexible net barrier was
time due to the collection of particulate material in quite different from that of a rigid barrier and
multiple tributary gullies and because the riverbed could not be measured directly but could be
erosion and deposition are seriously unbalanced in estimated as a function of the square of the
areas where debris flows pass through. approach velocity (Armanini 1990; Bugnion et al.
Furthermore, the large number of coarse particles 2011). DeNatale et al. (1999) revealed that
accumulated in the frontal margins of debris flows variations in particle accumulation and

1904

distribution in a debris flow encountering a flexible
net barrier are related to the mesh shape and size.
Based on a series of model flume experiments,
Wendeler et al. (2015) demonstrated that flexible
net barriers have ideal retention as long as the
mesh size and basal gap are both smaller than
particle size D90 (diameter at which 90% of
particles are finer) in the debris materials. Flexible
net barriers should be used to dewater debris flows,
trap coarse granules. The particles that are not
large enough to pose a threat to downstream areas
can be allowed to pass through the structure. The
permeability of flexible net barriers is influenced
not only by mesh size and basal gap but also by the
mobility and composition of debris flows.
Furthermore, from the point of view of energy
dissipation, when the flexible structure is subjected
to the impact of a debris flow, the energy absorbed
by its own deflection is one of the most important
indexes for evaluating the reliability and
interception efficiency of the structure and
determining the class of a barrier (Wendeler et al.
2006; Volkwein et al. 2011). However, this process
is very difficult to understand due to the complex
interaction processes. Sun and Law (2015)
proposed a method to assess bounds of energy
rating required for flexible barriers, which is based
on two debris deposition mechanisms, relies on
observations in field and laboratory tests and
numerical modeling using the distinct element
code PFC3D. Ng et al. (2016a, 2016b) have recently
carried out similar studies using geotechnical
centrifuge. And Kwan and Cheung (2012) have
applied an approach on energy conversion to
explore the debris impact mechanism on the
flexible barriers. Based on these studies, a flexible
net barrier may be sized taking into consideration
of kinetic energy of outflow for use in disaster
prevention because it has a great effect on the
downstream. Therefore, in this paper, several
flume tests were carried out to study the dynamic
behaviours of debris flows and the interception
efficiency of flexible net barriers. The effects of a
flexible net on debris flows were thoroughly
observed using a high-speed camera. The dynamic
characteristics of debris flows before and after the
interception by a flexible net barrier, the deposition
mechanism of debris at the front of the flexible net
barrier, and the outflow are summarized. On this
basis, a preliminary computational framework
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918
associated with conventional dynamic factors for
debris flows intercepted by a flexible net barrier
and outflow is proposed, and the processes of
energy conversion are analyzed.
1 Materials and Methods
In the tests, a simplified model of flexible net
barrier is installed in an inclined flume to intercept
the debris flows. And some supplementary
apparatuses are applied to observe and measure
the dynamic behaviours of debris flows interacting
with the flexible net barrier.
1.1 Flume design
The test flume for debris flow acceleration had
a length of 6 m and a height of 4 m and was
rectangular in cross-section (consisting of a 0.5-m-
wide steel bottom board and 0.5-m-tallsidewalls
made of plexiglass and steel, as shown in Figure 1).
Additionally, the flume had an inclination of 30°.
At the top of the flume, there was a water tank for
mixing the solid materials, and a collection pool for
measuring the downstream debris material was
attached to the lower end of the flume. Two baffles,
5 m and 3.2 m away from the end, were inserted in
the flume, blocking the section where the water and
solid mixtures were placed. Thus, the debris flows
could be initiated in different positions. The
flexible net barrier was located vertically at the end
of the flume and fixed to both sidewalls of the
section. The main body of the net was made of
chicken wire (diameter of 2 mm and strength class
of 450 N/mm2). The chicken wire net barrier
applied is a simple simulation of a flexible net
barrier and none cables or brake elements were
attached to the body of it, thus the dynamic
behaviours of debris flows under the effects of a
less flexible structure is the priority of study. To
assess the transient interaction process between
the debris flow and the flexible net barrier, a high-
speed camera manufactured by Corp IDT in USA
was used to capture images of the moment of
interception and to film the whole process. The
camera was positioned at the right side of the
flume, where a ruler was superimposed, and was
pointed at the flexible net. The resolution of videos
ranged from 800×600 to 1024×1024 pixels, at
1000 frames per second.
1905
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918
Figure 1 Flume design for the laboratory test of the ability of a flexible net barrier to control a debris flow: (a) size
and position of the flume; (b) flexible net barrier; (c) N4 high-speed camera and (d) photo of the actual facility.
1.2 Test debris materials
Test materials were collected from the
Yongjiagou gully, which is located in Qingping
town, Mianzhu City, Sichuan, Southwest China.
The majority of debris materials tend to be coarse
particles, while fine particles are scarce due to
sieving (Figure 2). According to sieving curves
(Figure 2g), the maximum diameter of particles
was approximately 50 mm, and 90% of the
particles had a diameter of less than 45 mm,
determining the mesh size and basal gap,
respectively, of the flexible net barrier (Wendeler
et al. 2015) in order to enhance the escaping of
debris particles from the structure. The water-solid
mixture for the tests met the expression describing
the initiation of debris flows suggested by
Takahashi (1978):
ρ tan θ
Ci ≤ (1)
( ρ s − ρ ) ( tan ϕ − tan θ )
where ρs and ρ are mass densities of solid portion
and the interstitial water, respectively; Ci denotes
the solid volume fraction; and θ and φ are the slope
inclination and internal friction angle, respectively.
1906
Accordingly, the value of ρs was measured to be
2500 kg/m3, and tanφ could be obtained by
choosing the maximum value of 0.75 according to
Bagnold (1966). Then, in this case, the initiation of
a debris flow can be expressed as follows:
Ci ≤2.23 (2)
which confirms that debris flows would initiate and
flow along the flume in any case because the
concentration cannot exceed 1.0.
1.3 Experimental scheme
Ten flume tests were conducted under
different conditions, mainly including debris flows
with different volumes, concentrations and travel
distances from different positions to the net barrier,
in order to evaluate a variety of mobility and
kinetic energy characteristics for debris flows
(Table 1). For all of the experimental tests, the
parameters of the flexible net barrier are fixed,
where the total height of the flexible net barrier is
0.4 m with a basal gap of 45 mm (equal to D90),
and the mesh shape for flexible net barrier is
square with a uniform size of 50 mm (equal to
 J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

maximum particle size, Dmax) . The high-speed

camera, which was operated by computer, was
triggered once the baffles were lifted to ensure that
the interception process of the debris flow by the
net was captured. The software IPP (Image-pro
Plus) was used to digitize the photographic images
taken by the high-speed camera, and variations in
the velocities and upstream deposition profiles,
including the sedimentation height and inclination
of the top surface of the sediments after the
interception by the net, were obtained (Figure 3).

2 Experimental Results

In this section, the experimental results

regarding the dynamic characteristics of debris
flows during the interception of the net barrier are
analyzed. Most importantly, since it is possible to
analyze the dynamic behaviours of debris flow on
the basis of flexible barrier by calculations
associated with experimental measurements
(Canelli et al. 2012), the debris flow kinetic energy
absorbed by the flexible net barrier and the
material that escaped from the net are assessed.
These parameters are important in the evaluation
of the structure’s function as well as the safety of
people downstream.

Figure 2 Granular materials used for preparation of

debris flow: (a) 40-50 mm; (b) 20-40 mm; (c) 10-20 2.1 Variations in dynamic behaviours
mm; (d) 2-10 mm; (e) 1-2 mm; (f) <1 mm and (g)
particle size distributions of the in situ and tested soil The dynamic characteristics of debris flows
materials.
before and after interception by a flexible net
Table 1 Experimental design to determine the effects of barrier are intuitively key factors in the evaluation
a flexible net barrier on debris flows. of the debris flow countermeasure. From the high-
Total mass Mass Travel speed camera observations, we found that a
Test No. C*
(kg) density(kg/m3) distance(m) sufficient and stony debris flow always reached and
0.4-3.2-60 60 1530 0.4 3.2 impacted the net barrier in each test run. Moreover,
0.6-3.2-60 60 1680 0.6 3.2
0.6-5.0-60 60 1670 0.6 5.0
some debris material escaped from the net with a
0.4-3.2-80 80 1540 0.4 3.2 certain kinetic energy. The interaction process
0.6-3.2-80 80 1690 0.6 3.2 between the debris flows and the net barrier can be
0.4-5.0-80 80 1520 0.4 5.0 divided into two stages (Figure 4): (a) a two-phase
0.6-5.0-80 80 1670 0.6 5.0 impact i.e. a distinct frontal of debris flow with a
0.4-3.2-100 100 1530 0.4 3.2
0.6-3.2-100 100 1670 0.6 3.2 certain thickness impacts the net barrier while
0.6-5.0-100 100 1660 0.6 5.0 some of the particles can rush through the net, and
Notes: Travel distance is the distance between the the subsequent debris train slides over the wedge
baffle and the flexible net barrier. C* (Concentration) is of the intercepted debris and continues to impact
the solid volume fraction of the debris flow. The test No. the net barrier (the direct stage), and (b) the
in the table is identified by characters with clear
continuous following debris materials consume
physical meaning, i.e. concentration-travel distance
(m)-scale (kg). considerable kinetic energy due to collision and

1907
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

Figure 3 Example of collecting the velocity of the debris material: (a) captured images and (b) operation interface.

Figure 4 Two stages of the dynamic interaction between a debris flow and the flexible net barrier: (a) direct stage:
direct contact between the kinetic debris train and the net barrier and (b) indirect stage: impact of following material
on the leading material deposited in front of the net.

1908
 J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

friction with the leading materials that have been

deposited in front of the net and can hardly contact
or pass through the net (the indirect stage). The
findings are similar with that of Moriguchi et al.
(2009), Volkwein (2014) and Wendeler et al.
(2006). However, the duration of these two stages
varied among the tests.
As tracked by the IPP software, the
movements of the debris materials were reflected
digitally and distinctly and the obtained values of
velocities were fluctuating with sampling time (the
difference value between initial timestamp and
sampling timestamp) (Figure 5a),which along with
the impact duration is regarded as a constant by
choosing mean value of the fluctuation data (Table
2). We found that an increase in the scale generally
increased the impact duration. For a given scale,
the impact duration decreased with increases in the
thickness and/or approach velocity of the debris
flow. The active duration Te (i.e., time span of the
direct stage) is back calculated as follows:
Te = Ttot − Ti (3)
where Ttot is the whole duration of the impact
process, and Ti is the time period of indirect
stage(when the following debris train couldn’t slide
to the face of net barrier) that can be determined by
the graphic analysis. The active duration
proportion of the total impact process Te/Ttot
ranged from 13% to 59%.
As for the velocities of debris flows obtained
from different positions or concentrations before
and after interception by the net barrier, the
approach velocities were clearly higher when the
concentrations were low, and did not simply
increase with increasing travel distance, and the
velocities of the debris materials that escaped from
the net barrier were lower to different extents
(ranging from 40% to 63%, as shown in Figure 5).
Moreover, the debris materials that were
Figure 5 Dynamic variations in debris flows after
intercepted by the net were found to be piled up interacting with a flexible net barrier: (a) obtained
layer upon layer before the net, which is similar to values of the approach velocity (U0) and outflow velocity
the deposition mechanism known as “run-up” (U1) of debris flows varying with sampling time in test
defined by Sun and Law (2015). The deposition 0.4-5.0-80; (b) contrast between the approach velocity
and outflow velocity of a debris flow and (c) contrast
process is quantified using two parameters: the between direct stage duration and whole duration of the
depositional height, h(t), and the inclination of the interaction.
top surface of the intercepted sediments before the
net, αt. Observations during the impact duration of the intercepted sediments gradually increased.
indicated that the depositional height increased According to the graphic analysis, the depositional
with time and that the inclination of the top surface height values had a quadratic parabolic

1909
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

relationship with time, while the inclination of the the energy of the outflow and the energy absorbed
top surface had a linear relationship with time by the net barrier. Wartmann and Salzmann (2002)
(Figure 6). have proposed an approach to determine the debris
Table 2 Test results for the dynamic variations in debris flow energy dissipated after interception by a
flows when encountering the flexible net barrier flexible barrier that takes the active mass of debris
Td h0 U0 U1 Te Ttot being intercepted by the barrier into consideration:
Test No. C*
(m) (m) (m/s) (m/s) (s) (s) 1 ρ QT U 2
0.4-3.2-60 0.4 3.2 0.016 3.799 1.425 0.34 0.96 EB = maU 2 = s s (4)
0.6-3.2-60 0.6 3.2 0.0425 2.031 1.211 0.10 0.48 2 2
0.6-5.0-60 0.6 5.0 0.0421 2.962 1.227 0.13 0.64 where ma is the active mass of debris that could
0.4-3.2-80 0.4 3.2 0.0183 3.050 1.170 0.27 1.14 pass over the actual position where the barrier is
0.6-3.2-80 0.6 3.2 0.0295 3.047 1.517 0.11 0.79 located on the assumption that there is no barrier,
0.4-5.0-80 0.4 5.0 0.0286 3.892 1.955 0.30 1.04 and ma=ρsQTs. Q and Ts are the discharge rate and
0.6-5.0-80 0.6 5.0 0.0415 3.531 1.316 0.32 0.57 duration of the impact process, respectively.
0.4-3.2-100 0.4 3.2 0.0204 3.616 1.752 0.41 1.31 Nevertheless, ma is difficult to verify due to the
0.6-3.2-100 0.6 3.2 0.0217 1.986 0.818 0.35 1.36 absence of further study and appears to be too
0.6-5.0-100 0.6 5.0 0.0431 2.204 0.879 0.32 0.53
conservative to be regarded as the whole mass of
Note: C*=Concentration; Td=Travel distance. The debris intercepted by the net barrier. Therefore,
frontal thickness (h0), approach velocity (U0) and
outflow velocity (U1) of debris flows are all recorded by Sun and Law (2015) make this more precise for the
the high-speed camera and processed as mean values calculation of energy absorbed by the net barrier by
based on numerous samples. Moreover, the durations of appending the energy dissipated internally in the
the direct stage (Te) and total process (Ttot) are relative field of landslide debris mitigation. However, this
time spans obtained from the timestamps on the videos
taken by the high-speed camera. process still fails to take the kinetic energy of the
escaping debris material into consideration. In the
present case, the kinetic energy of escaping debris
2.2 Debris flow interception efficiency
material is emphasized to make the relevant study
The debris flow interception efficiency of the coincide with reality.
flexible net barrier is reflected here by an energy According to Sun and Law (2015), two
approach including the kinetic energy of the deposition mechanisms may occur during the
outflow and the kinetic energy absorbed by the net interaction between the debris and the flexible
barrier as well as the mass ratio of debris materials barrier, i.e., pile-up and run-up mechanisms, which
being intercepted. First, the change in kinetic represent viscous and frictional types of debris
energy of the debris flow can be obtained based on flows, respectively. The latter is more appropriate
the deposition mechanism revealed above. for the observations from the present tests. Thus,
Based on the observations, the debris flow on this basis, the mechanism of energy
escaping from the net barrier (outflow) tended to conservation is verified (Figure 7).
occur in the direct stage. Moreover, the kinetic For a unit time, the kinetic energy of the
energy of the outflow was associated with the approaching debris flow (i.e., the rate of work
energy absorbed by the net barrier and was performed by the approaching debris flow), e0, is
dissipated internally, which can be described as equal to the sum of energy absorbed by the net, eB,
energy conservation. The key function of the the energy dissipated internally, ek, and the energy
flexible net barrier is to intercept the debris of outflow, eA:
materials and absorb the kinetic energy via elastic eB = e0 − ek − eA (5)
and plastic deformation. The energy dissipated Here, during the momentary impact on the
internally is related to the interaction among the flexible net barrier, the debris flow is assumed to be
debris materials, which occurs throughout the a continuous debris train without deposition and
entire impact process. Hence, unlike the method to entrainment (Sun and Law 2015), then e0 and eA
incorporate measured cable force and deflection could be determined as follows:
proposed by Ng et al. (2016b), the concept of ρ s Q0U 02
conservation of energy is introduced to calculate e0 = (6a)
2

1910
 J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

Figure 6 Time-dependent profiles and of debris materials deposited before the net barrier: (a) 60 kg mass with a
concentration of 0.6 and travel distance of 5.0 m (No. 0.6-5.0-60); (b) 80 kg mass with a concentration of 0.4 and a
travel distance of 5.0 m (No. 0.4-5.0-80) and (c) 100 kg mass with a concentration of 0.4 and a travel distance of 3.2
m (No. 0.4-3.2-100).

1911
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

Figure 7 Dynamic deposition mechanism of debris materials (run-up defined by Sun and Law 2015) in front of the
net.

ρ s Q1U 12 (6b)
inclination of the top surface of the accumulation
eA =
2 in front of the net, which, according to the test
where Q0 is the discharge of the approaching debris results, can be expressed as follows:
flow; Q1 is the discharge of the escaping debris flow; αt = θ − ωt (10)
the units of Q0 and Q1 are both m3/s; U0 and U1are where a, b, c and ω are parameters that can be
the velocities of the approach debris train and determined by the tests. The discharge rate of
outflow, respectively. escaping debris from the net, Q1(t), which can be
In a stony debris flow whose major solid determined from the combinations of Eqs. (7)
component is coarse grains, the fluid viscosity is and (8) as follows:
negligible (Takahashi 2007). Therefore, for one of d (Δ V )
the most important functions of the net barrier, i.e., Q1 (t ) = U 0 h0 B - (11)
dt
draining water from the debris flow, assuming that
the ρs remains unchanged before and after the d (Δ V )
where denotes the time-derivative of ΔV,
interception of the net barrier, the mass of dt
deposited debris materials in front of the net is yielding:
equal to the mass of the approaching debris d (Δ V ) h(t )h ′(t )(tan θ - tan α t )B
=
material minus the mass of the escaping material dt (tan θ - tan α t )2
according to the law of mass conservation, which h 2 (t )α t′ sec 2 α t B
can be expressed as follows: + (12)
2(tan θ − tan α t )
2

 [ ρ Q (t ) − ρ Q (t )]dt = ρ ΔV
s 0 s 1 s
Based on the geometrical relationship (see
Figure 7), the volume of the accumulated materials
in front of the net, ΔV, can be derived as follows:
Bh 2 (t )
ΔV =
2(tan θ − tan α t )
where B is the width of the experimental flume,
and h(t) is the time-dependent height of
accumulated debris in front of the net and is
vertically to the ground surface for simplification.
This parameter has a quadratic parabolic
relationship with time as the test results indicated
above and is given as follows:
h ( t ) = at 2 + bt + c
Additionally, αt represents the time-dependent
(7) Thus, the rate of kinetic energy of the escaping
debris is determined as follows:
ρs
eA = Q1 (t )U 12 (13)
2
Additionally, assuming that at the time t the
(8)
moving velocity of the following debris train sliding
upon the deposition is great and the process of
friction and collision between the following debris
train and the deposition is completed instantly.
Given that the final run-up deposition height is not
exceeding the height of the net barrier, in unit time
the debris energy dissipated internally occurred
throughout the whole process, ek can be obtained:
ek = ρ s gU 0 h0 B ( μ cosα t − sinα t ) S (14)
(9)
where μ is the interface friction coefficient of
debris materials and

1912
 J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

1 h (t ) Table 3 Calculated results for the energy conversion

S= ⋅ (15) between debris flows and the flexible net barrier
cosα t tanθ − tanα t
Test No. E0 (J) Te (s) Ek (J) EA (J) EB (J) EB /E0
is the path from the contact position of debris to
0.4-3.2-60 184.51 0.34 45.74 25.41 113.36 0.61
the face of net barrier at time t. Other than the 0.6-3.2-60 22.15 0.10 1.11 5.93 15.12 0.68
distance X proposed by Sun and Law (2015), S here 0.6-5.0-60 86.42 0.13 5.76 11.95 68.71 0.79
is derived based on that the net barrier is installed 0.4-3.2-80 88.52 0.27 26.24 9.78 52.50 0.59
vertically to the ground surface. Combining Eqs. 0.6-3.2-80 55.22 0.11 6.47 5.05 43.70 0.79
(5), (13) and (14), the rate of change in kinetic 0.4-5.0-80 318.30 0.30 44.85 72.91 200.54 0.63
energy absorbed by the net is obtained: 0.6-5.0-80 364.31 0.32 63.56 41.68 259.07 0.71
0.4-3.2-100 248.92 0.41 73.16 52.93 122.83 0.49
ρ s Bh0U 03 ρ s BQ1 (t )U12 0.6-3.2-100 36.91 0.35 12.69 1.07 23.15 0.63
eB = − −
2 2 0.6-5.0-100 78.06 0.32 38.64 0.43 38.99 0.50
ρ s gU 0 h0 B ( μ cosα t − sinα t ) S (16) Note: Ek and EA are the energy of debris dissipated
internally and outflow respectively, which also are
Finally, the kinetic energy of debris materials integrations of ek and eA during the direct stage (t=Te).
absorbed by the net barrier can be obtained by
integrating Eq. (16): test, and the energy of the debris escaping from the
Te net represents a small proportion of the
EB =  eB dt (17) approaching kinetic energy (not exceeding 27%).
0 Analogously, the ratio of kinetic energy dissipated
where Te is the active duration of the direct stage internally (Ek/E0) is generally small nevertheless,
that can be quantified by the analysis of images some values of Ek/E0 are relative great, surpassing
during the tests (as shown in Table 2). It is 49%. Disregarding the various conditions, the
noteworthy that debris particles have difficulty results of the energy conversion calculations
passing through the net barrier during the indirect associated with the measurements indicate a linear
stage due to the kinetic energy of debris particles relationship between E0 and EB (Figure 8a), which
dissipated internally before reaching to the net. reveals that the energy absorption efficiency of the
Thus, μ can be determined by combining Eqs. (6a) flexible net barrier is approximately 0.64.
and (14) through back analysis of the dynamic As for the mass of debris material deposited in
parameters of debris flows collected during the front of the net, over 45% of the debris material is
indirect stage, given that μ is invariable and the retained by the net barrier in each test with a
whole kinetic energy is dissipated internally by uniform mesh size equal to the maximum grain
friction during the indirect stage (the calculation size, Dmax (Table 4). Additionally, there are some
values is generally around 0.58). differences in the values of the intercepted debris
Ti Ti mass ratio among these tests. Although the fitting
 e dt =  e dt
0
0
0
k (18) error is relatively large, the debris material
interception efficiency by the net is 0.66 according
where Ti is the time period of indirect stage. Based to the relationship between the total mass and the
on all the considerations above, a preliminary intercepted mass of the debris material (Figure 8b).
assessment framework associated with This value is very close to the energy absorption
conventional dynamic factors which are obtained efficiency mentioned above.
from the tests for the energy absorption is
introduced. The calculation results for energy 2.3 Comparative analyses
conversion associated with test measurements are
listed in the Table 3. Overall, after the comparison of the test
The calculation results indicate that the conditions, the test results can be classified under
approaching kinetic energy of a debris flow varies three different operating conditions: (a) high
among the tests with different scales, concentration travel from baffle 2, (b) high
concentrations and travel distances. Over 49% of concentration travel from baffle 1 and (c) low
the kinetic energy is absorbed by the net in each concentration travel from baffle 1. Moreover, the test

1913
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

debris flow (scale). In contrast, the dynamic

behaviours, such as the velocity and energy of the
debris flow, involved in the conversion vary
irregularly. After vertical comparisons, the results
under conditions (a) and (b) show that the mass
interception efficiency of the net decreases when
the travel distance increases, while the results
obtained under conditions (b) and (c) indicate that
the mass interception efficiency of the net
decreases sharply with the decrease in
concentration. Likewise, compared with the low-
concentration debris flows travelling from baffle 1,
the interception efficiency is higher for high-
concentration debris flows impacting the net from
baffle 2 ((a) and (c)). Additionally, the approach
velocity U0 and the kinetic energy of the debris flow
absorbed by the net, EB, decreases as the
concentration increases ((b) and (c)), as does the
energy of the outflow, EA, and the energy dissipated
internally, Ek. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the
energy absorbed by net, i.e., EB/E0, during the
direct stage increases with increasing
concentration. Comparing (a) and (c), U0, EA, EB
and Ek all increase sharply with the increase in the
travel distance. In conclusion, both the
Figure 8 Interception efficiency: (a) relationship concentration and travel distance affect the debris
between E0 and EB and (b) relationship between total flow interception efficiency of the flexible net
mass and intercepted mass. barrier.
Table 4 Test results for the debris mass interception
efficiency of the flexible net barrier
3 Discussion
Travel Total
I_mass Intercept
Test No. C* distance mass
(kg) ratio (%)
(m) (kg) Debris flows under different conditions were
0.4-3.2-60 0.4 3.2 60 27.19 45.32 observed and measured under the effects of a
0.6-3.2-60 0.6 3.2 60 43.28 72.13 flexible net barrier. The chicken wire net barrier
0.6-5.0-60 0.6 5.0 60 40.40 67.33 applied here is a simple simulation of a flexible
0.4-3.2-80 0.4 3.2 80 46.25 57.81
barrier with square-mesh wire-rope netting, and
0.6-3.2-80 0.6 3.2 80 56.12 70.15
the dynamic behaviours of debris flows under the
0.4-5.0-80 0.4 5.0 80 40.35 50.44
0.6-5.0-80 0.6 5.0 80 53.34 66.68
effects of the chicken wire net barrier were mainly
0.4-3.2-100 0.4 3.2 100 59.20 59.20 investigated. It is noteworthy that the experiment
0.6-3.2-100 0.6 3.2 100 84.81 84.81 tests are conducted under the condition of a unit
0.6-5.0-100 0.6 5.0 100 73.07 73.07 gravitational acceleration while the scale of facility
Note: C*=Concentration; I_mass=Intercepted mass is much smaller than that of the realistic
phenomena. Thus the internal stress state of the
results vary from each other in scale under the same gravity-driven debris flows can’t be verified
conditions, which is shown in detail in Figure 9. correctly without centrifuge modelling (Ng et al.
As shown in Figure 9, after the horizontal 2016a, b). Even so, the dynamic effects of the
comparison, it is found that, under the same flexible net barrier on debris flows is observed
conditions, the mass of debris intercepted by the accurately by N4 high-speed camera, which is
net increases with increasing total mass of the instrumental for understanding the physical

1914
 J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918

Figure 9 Status of a debris flow being intercepted and the kinetic energy being absorbed by the net barrier: (a) shows
a high-concentration flow traveling from baffle 2; (b) shows a high-concentration flow traveling from baffle 1 and (c)
shows a low-concentration flow traveling from baffle 1. Moreover, the string of numbers in each picture represents the
following: concentration-distance (m)-mass (kg).

interaction between debris flows and flexible net
barrier. Observations from the tests demonstrate
that the process of debris flows being intercepted
by a flexible net barrier can be summarized as two
stages, namely a two-phase impact of the debris
flow with the flexible net barrier and the
interaction between the following material and the
leading material that has been deposited. The
phase when the net absorbs the energy does not
occupy the whole process and is instead
concentrated in the first stage (direct stage). The
two phases of impact in the direct stage can be
persistent so long as the following debris flows
slide over the deposition and touches the net. The
leading debris material intercepted during the
direct stage is the main object acted on by the
forces exerted by the following debris flow
(Wendeler et al. 2006; Ashwood and Hungr 2016).
During the indirect stage, considerable energy is
consumed by debris interactions. Because the
direct stage is the key process of the impact, the
timing of events and the dynamic behaviours of the

1915
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918
debris after interacting with the net barrier under
different test conditions are analyzed and discussed
in this period.
The chicken wire net barrier in this paper is a
simulation of a flexible barrier with square-mesh
wire-rope netting and vertically installation. Using
the same net barrier, debris flows with different
concentrations and masses (volumes) from
different travel distances are intercepted and
measured, leading to differences in the approach
velocity and kinetic energy values of the debris
flows before the net. The impact mechanism
discussed here is mainly focused on energy
conversion which is a scalar quantity, therefore the
angle of thrust cannot affect the results. As the
results indicate, low concentrations and long travel
distances both result in large approach velocity
and/or kinetic energy values. With the limited
interception efficiency and the complete
dewatering by the flexible net barrier as mentioned
above, the dynamic behaviours of the outflow
appear to be more dependent on the dynamic
behaviours of the approaching debris flow before
the net, and the debris materials can be easily
intercepted when most of the water is lost
(Wendeler et al. 2006).
The debris flow in each test is stony, as
indicated by Table 1, and the approaching kinetic
energy incorporates solid grain vibration kinetic
energy and fluid pressure energy (Iverson 1997).
Drag forces on the net structure induced by water
is relative small due to the sufficient permeability
of the net and is neglected for simplification. It can
be inferred that the energy of the solid component
in the debris flow plays a key role in the process of
energy dissipation. From the experimental
observations and data, the effective contact
between the flexible net and the debris flow mainly
occurs in the direct stage. The energy dissipation of
the debris flow occurs in direct stage, which
involves both energy absorption and internal
dissipation, with the former accounting for a large
proportion. In contrast, the indirect stage mainly
involves the internal energy dissipation due to the
debris interaction. Based on previous studies, the
kinetic energy of the debris escaping from the net is
introduced here, and the computational framework
for the energy absorption by the net is deduced
based on the time-dependent deposition
mechanism of debris in front of the net from
1916
observations, which is a mean value suggested by
Sun and Law (2015). A large permeability of the net
structure is introduced here to investigate distinct
dynamic behaviors of outflow. Thus the energy of
outflow EA which is not reckoned in the energy
conversion theory proposed by Sun and Law (2015)
will result in the decrease of energy absorption EB.
Moreover, in order to simplify the calculation
framework, energy dissipated by vibration,
collision and compression of internal particles were
not verified, so that it resulted in larger calculation
value of energy absorption ratio than that
calculated in Ng et al. (2016b). Although the
approach kinetic energy E0 of a debris flow is
overestimated due to the invariable assumption of
the approach velocity U0 in the computational
framework, the results that vary greatly under
different experimental conditions are analyzable
according to accurate observations. In the tests, the
kinetic energy of an approaching debris flow tends
to be high when the debris flow has a low
concentration and travels a long distance; thus, EA,
EB and Ek should be high due to the considerable
kinetic energy and the limited energy absorption
efficiency of the flexible net barrier. With limited
interception efficiency of the structure, the energy
absorption ratio of debris flow EB/ E0 is very close
to the mass ratio of intercepted debris. Since the
flexibility increase the probability of the contact
between the debris and the flexible net barrier
(Ashwood et al. 2016; Leonardi et al. 2016), it can
be inferred that the flexibility is related to the
interception efficiency. Despite the large openings
of the structure, the energy ratio of outflow EA/ E0
is relative small, which makes it implementable to
conserve structural materials while ensuring its
safety performance.
4 Conclusions
Dynamic behaviour of a debris flow after
interacting with a flexible net barrier plays key
roles in the evaluation of the hazard in downstream
areas. This study used flume tests to investigate
changes in the material flow and kinetic energy of
debris flows with different scales, concentrations,
and travel distances after interacting with a flexible
net barrier, and the following conclusions were
obtained.

Through the observation of the experimental
process with the help of a high-speed camera, we
found that the interaction process between a debris
flow and a flexible net barrier can be divided into
direct and indirect stages, i.e., (a) the front of the
debris flow being intercepted by the net and (b)
collision and friction between the following
material and the leading material deposited in
front of the net. The first stage includes the main
phase of debris flow energy absorption by the
flexible net barrier, but the time proportion of
direct stage to the whole interaction process is
generally small. After the debris flow impacts the
net barrier, the approach velocity of the debris flow
decreases sharply, and debris is deposited over
time. A preliminary computational framework
integrating the absorption, internal dissipation and
release to downstream areas of kinetic energy is
deduced from the time-dependent deposition
mechanism of debris in front of the net and the
outflow. The results show that both the mass being
intercepted and the kinetic energy vary greatly with
changes in the concentration and travel distance of
References
Armanini A (1990) On the dynamic impact of debris flows.
In:Armanini Aand MichiueM (eds.), Recent Developments on
Debris Flows.Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp 208-226.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0117770
Ashwood W, Hungr O (2016) Estimating total resisting force in
flexible barrier impacted by a granular avalanche using
physical and numerical modeling. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 53: 1700-1717. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0481
Bagnold RA (1966) The shearing and dilatation of dry sand and
‘singing’ mechanism. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.
295(1442): 219-232.
Brighenti R, Segalini A, Ferrero AM (2013) Debris flow hazard
mitigation: A simplified analytical model for the design of
flexible barriers. Computers and Geotechnics 54: 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.05.010
Bugnion L, McArdell BW, Bartelt P, Wendeler C (2011)
Measurements of hillslope debris flow impact pressure on
obstacles. Landslides 9: 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10346-011-0294-4
Canelli L, Ferrero AM, Migliazza M, Segalini A (2012) Debris
flow risk mitigation by the means of rigid and flexible
barriers–experimental tests and impact analysis. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Science 12: 1693-1699.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-1693-2012
Cui P, Guo CX, Zhou JW, et al. (2014) The mechanisms behind
shallow failures in slopes comprised of landslide deposits.
Engineering Geology 180: 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enggeo.2014.04.009
DeNatale JS, Iverson RM, Major JJ, et al. (1999) Experimental
testing of flexible barriers for containment of debris flows.
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918
debris flows due to the limited interception and
energy absorption efficiency of the net barrier.
Although the size of mesh opening of the structure
is big, the outflow energy ratio of debris flow
remains relative small. Further studies should
focus on evaluating the impact of debris outflow
from large-openings flexible net barrier on the
downstream and determining the debris flow
interception efficiency of flexible net barriers with
varying stiffness values to improve the
understanding of the interactions.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (51639007),
the Youth Science and Technology Fund of Sichuan
Province (2016JQ0011) and the Science and
Technology Fund of Chengdu Water Authority
(14H1055). Critical comments by the anonymous
reviewers greatly improved the initial manuscript.
Open-file Report 99-205.U.S. Geological Survey, Vanvcouver,
Washington.
Ferrero AM, Segalini A, Umili G (2015) Experimental tests for
the application of an analytical model for flexible debris flow
barrier design. Engineering Geology 185: 33-
42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.12.002
Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Reviews of
Geophysics 35: 245-296. https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426
Kwan JSH and Cheung RWM (2012).Suggestions on design
approaches for flexible debris-resisting barriers. GEO
Discussion Note DN 1/2012. GEO, Hong Kong. p 90.
Leonardi A, Wittel FK, Mendoza M, et al. (2016) Particle–fluid–
structure interaction for debris flow impact on flexible
barriers. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering 31: 323-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12165
Source:arXiv
Mizuyama T (2008) Structural countermeasures for debris flow
disasters. International Journal of Erosion Control
Engineering 1: 38-43．https://doi.org/10.13101/ijece.1.38
Moriguchi S, Borja RI, Yashima A, Sawada K (2009) Estimating
the impact force generated by granular flow on a rigid
obstruction. ActaGeotechnica 4: 57-71. https://doi.org/
10.1007/ s11440-009-0084-5
Ng CWW, Song D, Choi CE, et al. (2016) A novel flexible barrier
for landslide impact in centrifuge. Géotechnique Letters 6:
221-225. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.16.00048
Ng CWW, Song D, Choi CE, et al. (2016) Impact mechanisms of
granular and viscous flows on rigid and flexible barriers.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 54: 188-206. https://doi.org/
10.1139/cgj-2016-0128
1917
J.Mt.Sci.(2017) 14(10): 1903-1918
Sun HW, Law RPH (2015) A preliminary study on impact of
landslide debris on flexible barriers. GEO Report No. 309.p
47.
Takahashi T (1978) Mechanical characteristics of debris flow.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division 104: 1153-1169.
Takahashi T (2007) Debris flow Mechanics, Prediction and
Countermeasures. Taylor and Francis Group, London.
Volkwein A, Wendeler C, McArdell B, Roth A (2006) Mitigation
of debris flow hazard by means of flexible barriers. In:
International Disaster Reduction Conference. Davos
Switzerland. pp 616-618．
Volkwein A, Roth A, Gerber W, Vogel A (2009) Flexible rockfall
barriers subjected to extreme loads, Structural Engineering
International 3: 327-332. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686609
788957900
Volkwein A, Wendeler C, Guasti G. Design of flexible debris flow
barriers (2011). Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and
Environment.https://doi.org/10.4408/IJEGE.2011-03.B-118
Volkwein A. 2014. Flexible debris flow barriers – design and
application. WSL Report 18: p 29.
Wartmann S, Salzmann H (2002) Debris flow and floating tree
impacts on flexible barriers. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Natural Terrain—a constraint to
development.Hong Kong.14: 125-131.
1918
Wendeler C, McArdell BW, Rickenmann D, et al. (2006) Field
testing and numerical modeling of flexible debris flow
barriers. In: the 6th International Conference on Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics. Hongkong. pp 1573-1578.
Wendeler C, Volkwein A (2015) Laboratory tests for the
optimization of mesh size for flexible debris-flow barriers.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 15: 2099-2118.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-3-2099-2015
Yu B, Ma Y, Wu YF (2013) Case study of a giant debris flow in
the Wenjia Gully, Sichuan Province, China. Natural Hazards
65: 835-849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0395-y
Zhang S, Zhang LM (2017) Impact of the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake in china on subsequent long-term debris flow
activities in the epicentral area. Geomorphology 276: 86-103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.009
Zhou JW, Cui P, Yang XG, et al. (2013) Debris flows introduced
in landslide deposits under rainfall conditions: The case of
Wenjiagou gully. Journal of Mountain Science 10: 249-260.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2492-0
Zhou JW, Cui P, Yang XG (2016) Effects of material
composition and water content on the mechanical properties
of landslide deposits triggered by the Wenchuan earthquake.
Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition) 90: 242-257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.12655