journal article·2024-10-08Open access

Comparison of Different Numerical Methods in Modeling of Debris Flows—Case Study in Selanac (Serbia)

Jelka Krušić, Manuel Pastor, Saeid M. Tayyebi, Dragana Đurić, Tina Đurić, Mileva Samardžić-Petrović, Miloš Marjanović, Biljana Abolmasov

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 19

Abstract

Flow-type landslides are not typical in this region of the Balkans. However, after the Tamara cyclone event in 2014, numerous such occurrences have been observed in Serbia. This paper presents the initial results of a detailed investigation into debris flows in Serbia, comparing findings from two programs: RAMMS DBF and Geoflow SPH. Located in Western Serbia, the Selanac debris flow is a complex event characterized by significant depths in the initial block and entrainment zone. Previous field investigations utilized ERT surveys, supplemented by laboratory tests, to characterize material behavior. Approximately 450,000 m3 of material began to flow following an extreme precipitation period, ultimately traveling 1.2 km to the deposition zone. For validation purposes, ERT profiles from both the deposition zone and the source area were utilized, with particular attention given to areas where entrainment was substantial, as this had a significant impact on the final models. The first objective of this research is to conduct a detailed investigation of debris flow using field investigations: geophysical (ERT) and aerial photogrammetry. The second objective is to evaluate the capacity of two debris flow propagation models to simulate the reality of these phenomena. The GeoFlow-SPH code overestimated the maximum propagation thickness in comparison to the RAMMS model. The numerical results regarding final depths closely align, especially when considering the estimated average depth in the deposition zone. The results confirm the necessity of using multiple simulation codes to more accurately predict specific events.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Landslides and related hazards · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis · Rock Mechanics and Modeling

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Djušina, 7, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Department of Applied Mathematics, ETS Ingenieros de Caminos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Calle del Profesor Aranguren, 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Funding

People of Japan and the UNDP Office in Serbia · Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows, and avalanches’10.1139/t95-063 ↗
2. Schuster, R.L., and Krizek, R.J. (1978). Slope Movement Types and Processes. Landslides, Analysis and Control, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. Special Report No. 176.
3. Abolmasov, B., Petrović, M.S., Stanković, R., Marjanović, M., Krušić, J., and Đurić, U. (2020). Extreme rainfall event and its aftermath analysis—IPL 210 project progress report. Understanding and Reducing Landslide Disaster Risk, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-60196-6_19 ↗
4. Using multiresolution and multitemporal satellite data for post-disaster landslide inventory in the Republic of Serbia10.1007/s10346-017-0847-2 ↗
5. Empirical Relationships for Debris Flows10.1023/A:1008064220727 ↗
6. The physics of debris flows10.1029/97RG00426 ↗
7. Debris flows: Behaviour and hazard assessment10.1111/gto.12037 ↗
8. Sassa, K. (, January March). Geotechnical model for the motion of landslides. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Landslides, “Land-Slides”, Balkema, Rotterdam.
9. Hungr, O., McDougall, S., and Bovis, M. (2005). Entrainment of material by debris flows. Debris-Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena, Springer.10.1007/3-540-27129-5_7 ↗
10. A depth-integrated, coupled SPH model for flow-like landslides and related phenomena10.1002/nag.705 ↗
11. RAMMS: Numerical simulation of dense snow avalanches in three-dimensional terrain10.1016/j.coldregions.2010.04.005 ↗
12. A depth integrated, coupled, two-phase model for debris flow propagation10.1007/s11440-020-01114-4 ↗
13. Centrifuge modelling of landslides and landslide hazard mitigation: A review10.1016/j.gsf.2022.101493 ↗
14. The importance of entrainment and bulking on debris flow runout modeling: Examples from the Swiss Alps10.5194/nhess-15-2569-2015 ↗
15. A new two-layer two-phase depth-integrated SPH model implementing dewatering: Application to debris flows10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105099 ↗
16. Two-phase SPH numerical study of pore-water pressure effect on debris flows mobility: Yu Tung debris flow10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103973 ↗
17. Lagrangian meshfree particles method (SPH) for large deformation and failure flows of geomaterial using elastic–plastic soil constitutive model10.1002/nag.688 ↗
18. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and its applications in geomechanics: From solid fracture to granular behaviour and multiphase flows in porous media10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104315 ↗
19. Numerical simulation of soil–water interaction using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method10.1016/j.jterra.2007.10.003 ↗
20. Slope stability analysis and discontinuous slope failure simulation by elasto-plastic smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)10.1680/geot.9.P.046 ↗
21. Geophysical investigation of Obot Ekpo Landslide site, Cross River State, Nigeria10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2015.05.015 ↗
22. Reconstruction of landslide model from ERT, geotechnical, and field data, Nargeschal landslide, Iran10.1007/s10064-018-1352-0 ↗
23. 2D electrical resistivity imaging of some complex landslides in Lucanian Apennine chain, southern Italy10.1190/1.1926571 ↗
24. Electrical resistivity tomography technique for landslide investigation: A review10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.04.002 ↗
25. Cruden, D.M., and Varnes, D.J. (1996). Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Chapter 3 Landslide Types and Processes. Transportation Research Board Special Report, Springer.
26. (2018). Amd 1:2021: Geotechnical Investigation and Testing–Laboratory Testing of Soil—Part 12: Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limits–Amendment 1 (Standard No. ISO 17892-12:2018).
27. Debris-flow modeling at Meretschibach and Bondasca catchments, Switzerland: Sensitivity testing of field-data-based entrainment model10.5194/nhess-17-801-2017 ↗
28. Back calculation of the In den Arelen avalanche with RAMMS: Interpretation of model results10.3189/172756410791386553 ↗
29. Bartelt, P., Buehler, Y., Christen, M., Deubelbeiss, Y., Graf, C., and McArdell, B.W. (2013). RAMMS–Rapid Mass Movement Simulation, A Modeling System for Debris Flows in Research and Practice, User Manual v1.5, Debris Flow, Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF.
30. A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis10.1086/112164 ↗
31. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Theory and application to non-spherical stars10.1093/mnras/181.3.375 ↗
32. A model for the analysis of rapid landslide motion across three-dimensional terrain10.1139/t04-052 ↗
33. McDougall, S. (2006). A new continuum dynamic model for the analysis of extremely rapid landslide motion across complex 3D terrain. [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia].
34. A corrected smooth particle hydrodynamics formulation of the shallow-water equations10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.11.025 ↗
35. Li, S., and Liu, W.K. (2004). Meshfree Particle Methods, Springer.
36. Liu, G.R., and Liu, M.B. (2003). Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics—A Meshfree Particle Method, World Scientific Publishing Company.10.1142/9789812564405 ↗
37. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: Some recent improvements and applications10.1016/S0045-7825(96)01090-0 ↗
38. Libersky, L.D., and Petschek, A.G. (2005). Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics with Strength of Materials, Springer. Lecture Notes in Physics.
39. Numerical SPH analysis of debris flow run-out and related river damming scenarios for a local case study in SW China10.1007/s10346-017-0885-9 ↗
40. SPH propagation back-analysis of Baishuihe landslide in south-western China10.1186/s40677-016-0067-4 ↗
41. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulation for debris flow: A review10.1063/5.0023073 ↗
42. Dynamic behaviour of saturated porous media; The generalized Biot formulation and its numerical solution10.1002/nag.1610080106 ↗
43. A two-fluid model for avalanche and debris flows10.1098/rsta.2005.1596 ↗
44. A general two-phase debris flow model10.1029/2011JF002186 ↗
45. Krušić, J., Abolmasov, B., and Samardžić-Petrović, M. (2019). Influence of DEM resolution on numerical modelling of debris flows in RAMMS—Selanac case study. 4th Regional Symposium on Landslides in the Adriatic—Balkan Region, Springer.10.35123/ReSyLAB_2019_27 ↗
46. Comparison of expert, deterministic and Machine Learning approach for landslide susceptibility assessment in Ljubovija Municipality, Serbia10.15233/gfz.2017.34.15 ↗
47. Krušić, J. (2024). The Application of Numerical Methods in Debris Flows Modeling with a Focus on Different Rheological Conditions. [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Belgrade]. Available online: https://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/22758.