Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Mudassir Ali khan Ali Khan
 -- 1224 2022-12-26 04:16:16 |
2 format corrected.
Beatrix Zheng
 Meta information modification 1224 2022-12-27 03:16:10 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Khan, M.A.;  Mustaffa, Z.;  Harahap, I.S.H.;  Ibrahim, M.B.;  Al-Atroush, M.E. Debris Flow Hazard. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39207 (accessed on 08 July 2024).
Khan MA,  Mustaffa Z,  Harahap ISH,  Ibrahim MB,  Al-Atroush ME. Debris Flow Hazard. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39207. Accessed July 08, 2024.
Khan, Mudassir Ali, Zahiraniza Mustaffa, Indra Sati Hamonangan Harahap, Muhammad Bello Ibrahim, Mohamed Ezzat Al-Atroush. "Debris Flow Hazard" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39207 (accessed July 08, 2024).
Khan, M.A.,  Mustaffa, Z.,  Harahap, I.S.H.,  Ibrahim, M.B., & Al-Atroush, M.E. (2022, December 26). Debris Flow Hazard. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39207
Khan, Mudassir Ali, et al. "Debris Flow Hazard." Encyclopedia. Web. 26 December, 2022.
Debris Flow Hazard
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land11122240

Global climate change has increased severe torrential hazards, particularly debris flows in mountainous regions. After floods and earthquakes, debris flows are the most devastating natural hazard in the world. The effects of debris flow on human life and built environments necessitate reconsidering current infrastructure planning, engineering, and risk management practices. Hence, the vulnerability of elements at risk is critical for effective risk reduction systems.

debris flow vulnerability approach uncertainties damage assessment

1. Introduction

Rapid climate change has a high-order impact on natural and engineered slope stability, resulting in serious mountainous hazards. However, the nature, location, magnitude, direction, and frequency of hazards in response to climate change are still uncertain [1]. Among the mountainous hazard, debris flows are a tragic and expensive hazard worldwide. Sometimes the consequences are pathetic because they hit the built environment rapidly and without warning [2][3]. Earlier, it was difficult to quantify the global loss occurred by debris flow due to a lack of systematic data collection techniques. However, since 2004, systematic hazard databases and mass media reports have allowed the proper quantification and spatial distribution of fatalities worldwide [4]. According to Dilley et al., 2005 [3], landslides and debris flows were responsible for roughly 1000 fatalities worldwide per year. In addition, 4862 fatal landslides were recorded from 2004 to 2016, resulting 55,997 fatalities (approx.) globally due to tectonic movement, climate change, and human activities. Furthermore, the Global Fatal Landslide Database (GFLD) shows that landslides are unevenly distributed, severely affecting South America, East Africa, Turkey, Iran, the European Alps, and Asia (along the Himalayan Arc) [4][5].
Furthermore, Dowling and Santi [6] analyzed the 213 debris flow events from 38 countries and reported almost 77,800 fatalities from 1950 to 2011, making it the third-largest dangerous hazard after floods and earthquakes. Most recently, flood with debris flows affected 33 million people and killed more than 1500 in Pakistan between mid-June and July 2022 [7]. Moreover, the Republic of South Korea claimed 1728 fatalities (approx.) between 1977 and 2017, with an estimated loss of USD 500 million to USD 1 billion due to debris flow hazards [5][8]. Additionally, the United States Research Council reported that each year in the United States, landslides caused by wildfires and strong rains claim the lives of an average of 25 to 30 individuals [9]. Therefore, debris flows brought on by anthropogenic climate change cause remarkable financial losses [10][11][12] and always pose a serious threat to human life and the built environment. Hence, detailed and robust studies are required to quantify the vulnerability by considering climate change in the built environment.
Recent studies advanced the research on the likelihood of hazard occurrence [13][14], its runout distances, [15][16] triggering, monitoring [17], and hazard mapping of debris flows [18][19][20][21]. Furthermore, at the same time, researchers’ interest has grown in developing frameworks by considering the interaction between natural hazards and elements at risk [22][23][24][25]. In this respect, vulnerability plays a crucial role in determining a geological hazard’s danger. It uses several ideas to reflect various characteristics of scientific fields and their intended usage (i.e., physical, social, institutional, systematic, and functional). As long as physical vulnerability is concerned, it deals with the degree of loss to an element or set of elements impacted by an external source within the affected area on a scale of 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss) [26]. In this context, matrices, curves, and indicators have proven successful methods for determining how structures are vulnerable to debris flow hazards [27]. However, these methods have their strengths and weaknesses due to the availability of hazard data, regional specificities, and applicability of each approach to the built environment. Furthermore, uncertainties associated with these approaches make the system unreliable [28] and sometimes underestimate the loss and damage associated with the hazard. Therefore, it is necessary to precisely predict the debris flow characteristics, vulnerability, and uncertainties at each step of the risk assessment system.

2. Debris Flow and Its Consequences

Debris flows are very rapid to extremely rapid non-plastic flows. It may be defined as the mixture of loose sediments and water that moves down in a steep channel [10][21]. A debris flow event may occur in a series of surges that travels several hundred kilometers with a velocity ranged 4–16 m/s [29]. Based on the moment transfer mechanism, many events are identified as debris slides, mudflows, debris floods, debris torrents, mud spates, and lahars [10][30][31]. However, this research only focuses on the debris flow and its consequences on the built environment. The debris flow density ranges from 1800 to 2400 kg/m3, twice the density of mud slurry [32][33]. Climate change (e.g., intense rainfall), deforestation, and earthquakes are the primary causes of debris flows [34][35][36].
Additionally, wildfires, melting glaciers, and disruption of snow cover distribution due to unfavorable weather conditions are other important factors triggering most debris flows in mountainous regions [37]. For instance, extensive rainfall for a long period initiates steep slope failure leading to massive sediment entertainment in the stream. These sediment movements later converted into disruptive events for many systems of infrastructure, as illustrated in Figure 1. The slope failure mechanism is a complex phenomenon caused by the reduction of cohesive forces between soil particles and the dissipation of pore pressure due to the infiltration of rainwater into the slope. Furthermore, additional load and relief, improperly designed or poorly executed drainage systems significantly affect the overall stability of slope [37][38].
/media/item_content/202212/63aa55410f8b2land-11-02240-g001.png
Figure 1. Illustration of debris flow process and impact on infrastructure.
Debris flow consequences are broadly divided into physical and socioeconomic impacts on customers or users of the infrastructure. Physical impacts are the most immediate ones, including injuries, fatalities, and emotional loss to victims, as well as complete to partial damage to infrastructures such as buildings, rail tracks, roads, and utility lines. On the other hand, the socioeconomic impact is the long-term impact due to the relocation of residences and loss of jobs and capital due to debris flow hazards.
According to the United States National Research Council (2011) [39], landslides caused an almost USD 1 billion loss in America, Japan, Italy, India, China, and the Soviet Union from 1960 to 1980. In addition, debris flow has damaged 390 commercial and residential buildings in China [40], 20 roads in South Korea [41], and several bridge piers in Romania [42]. Moreover, a debris flow event (1993) in the Kulekhani watershed, located in the lesser Himalayan region of Nepal, damaged the Amaluza dam. This dam was a component of the Paute hydroelectric plant, which supplied 65% of the electricity need consumed by Ecuador. Debris flood caused by dam failure severely damaged the hundreds of private homes and industrial complexes in the Rio Paute valley [43]. Therefore, estimation of the probability of debris flow occurrence and their extent with the vulnerability of elements at risk always support decision-makers in developing efficient mitigation and protection solutions. In this regard, researchers have been trying to develop different computational and analytical methods to estimate the possibility of hazard occurrence, loss to the built environment, and designing suitable risk reduction strategies for the last 20 years. Figure 2 represents the extensive research carried out in the vulnerability assessment of debris flow hazards by considering hazard intensity and damage by advanced monitoring technique, digital elevation model (DEM), and photogrammetry [31] from the United States to other subcontinents of the world. Figure 2 has been extracted by several sets of bibliographic analysis in VOS viewer software.
/media/item_content/202212/63aa5557615d2land-11-02240-g002.png
Figure 2. A bibliographic representation of the countries contributing to the physical vulnerability assessment research of debris flow hazards in the last 20 years (Vos viewer).
Furthermore, countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, China, and India continuously contribute to developing the landslide inventory, pre- and post-event data acquisition systems, and hybrid vulnerability assessment techniques for better risk management strategies.

References

  1. Jakob, M. Chapter 14—Landslides in a changing climate. In Hazards and Disasters Series; Davies, T., Rosser, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 505–579. ISBN 978-0-12-818464-6.
  2. Santi, P.M.; Hewitt, K.; VanDine, D.F.; Cruz, E.B. Debris-Flow Impact, Vulnerability, and Response. Nat. Hazards 2011, 56, 371–402.
  3. Dilley, M. Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis; World Bank Publications: Herndon, VA, USA, 2005; Volume 5, ISBN 0821359304.
  4. Petley, D. Global Patterns of Loss of Life from Landslides. Geology 2012, 40, 927–930.
  5. Froude, M.J.; Petley, D.N. Global Fatal Landslide Occurrence from 2004 to 2016. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 2161–2181.
  6. Dowling, C.A.; Santi, P.M. Debris Flows and Their Toll on Human Life: A Global Analysis of Debris-Flow Fatalities from 1950 to 2011. Nat. Hazards 2014, 71, 203–227.
  7. Ahmad, A.; Sutanto, M.H.; Harahap, I.S.H.; Al-Bared, M.A.M.; Khan, M.A. Feasibility of Demolished Concrete and Scraped Tires in Peat Stabilization—A Review on the Sustainable Approach in Stabilization. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Technology and Innovation in Building Designs, Sakheer, Bahrain, 11–12 November 2020.
  8. Lee, S.G.; Winter, M.G. The Effects of Debris Flow in the Republic of Korea and Some Issues for Successful Risk Reduction. Eng. Geol. 2019, 251, 172.
  9. Reports, U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Science for Changing World. 2018. Available online: htpps://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-deaths-result-each-year (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  10. Thouret, J.C.; Antoine, S.; Magill, C.; Ollier, C. Lahars and Debris Flows: Characteristics and Impacts. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 201, 103003.
  11. Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Crema, S.; Marchi, L.; Marra, F.; Guzzetti, F.; Borga, M. Impact of Uncertainty in Rainfall Estimation on the Identification of Rainfall Thresholds for Debris Flow Occurrence. Geomorphology 2014, 221, 286–297.
  12. Hakro, M.R.; Harahap, I.S.H. Flume Experiments for Investigation of Rainfall-Induced Slope Failure. Int. J. Eng. Res. Afr. 2015, 16, 49–56.
  13. Ibrahim, M.B.; Mustaffa, Z.; Balogun, A.L.; Hamonangan Harahap, I.S.; Ali Khan, M. Advanced Data Mining Techniques for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2021, 12, 2430–2461.
  14. Cannon, S.H.; Gartner, J.E.; Rupert, M.G.; Michael, J.A.; Rea, A.H.; Parrett, C. Predicting the Probability and Volume of Postwildfire Debris Flows in the Intermountain Western United States. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 2010, 122, 127–144.
  15. Du, J.; Yin, K.; Lacasse, S.; Nadim, F. Quantitative Vulnerability Estimation of Structures for Individual Landslide: Application to the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador, El Salvador. J. Softw. Eng. 2015, 9, 1251–1264.
  16. Shanmugam, G.; Alderton, D.; Elias, S.A. (Eds.) Deep-Water Processes and Deposits; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 965–1009. ISBN 978-0-08-102909-1.
  17. Khan, M.A.; Mustaffa, Z.; Balogun, A.L.B.; Al-Bared, M.A.M.; Ahmad, A. Role of the Rheological Parameters in Debris Flow Modelling. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1092, 012041.
  18. Iverson, R.M. The Debris-Flow Rheology Myth. Int. Conf. Debris-Flow Hazards Mitig. Mech. Predict. Assess. Proc. 2003, 1, 303–314.
  19. Iverson, R.M.; Reid, M.E.; Lahusen, R.G. Debris-Flow Mobilisation. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 1997, 25, 85–138.
  20. Jakob, M. Debrisow hazard analysis. In Debris-Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005.
  21. Varnes, J.; Cruden, M. Chapter 3—Landslide types and process. In Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation; Transportation Research Boar: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
  22. Lee, E.M. Landslide Risk Assessment: The Challenge of Estimating the Probability of Landsliding. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2009, 42, 445–458.
  23. Gartner, J.E.; Jakob, M. Debris-Flow Risk Assessment and Mitigation Design for Pipelines in British Columbia, Canada. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation, Golden, CO, USA, 10–13 June 2019; pp. 677–684.
  24. Michael-Leiba, M.; Baynes, F.; Scott, G.; Granger, K. Quantitative Landslide Risk Assessment of Cairns, Australia. In Landslide Hazard and Risk; Glade, T., Anderson, M.G., Crozier, M.J., Eds.; Wiley: London, UK, 2005; pp. 621–642.
  25. Birkmann, J.; Cardona, O.D.; Carreño, M.L.; Barbat, A.H.; Pelling, M.; Schneiderbauer, S.; Kienberger, S.; Keiler, M.; Alexander, D.; Zeil, P.; et al. Framing Vulnerability, Risk and Societal Responses: The MOVE Framework. Nat. Hazards 2013, 67, 193–211.
  26. Vamvatsikos, D.; Kouris, L.A.; Panagopoulos, G.; Kappos, A.J.; Nigro, E.; Rossetto, T.; Lloyd, T.O.; Stathopoulos, T. Structural Vulnerability Assessment under Natural Hazards: A Review. In COST ACTION C26: Urban Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events—Proceedings of the Final Conference; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2010; pp. 711–723. ISBN 978-0-415-60685-1.
  27. Papathoma-Köhle, M.; Gems, B.; Sturm, M.; Fuchs, S. Matrices, Curves and Indicators: A Review of Approaches to Assess Physical Vulnerability to Debris Flows. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2017, 171, 272–288.
  28. Totschnig, R.; Fuchs, S. Mountain Torrents: Quantifying Vulnerability and Assessing Uncertainties. Eng. Geol. 2013, 155, 31–44.
  29. Wu, Y.; Li, J. Finite Element Analysis on Mechanical Behavior of Semi-Exposed Pipeline Subjected to Debris Flows. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 105, 781–797.
  30. Pierson, T.C.; Costa, J.E.; Vancouver, W. A rheologic classification of subaerial sediment-water flows. In Debris Flow/Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitigation; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1987; Volume 7, pp. 1–12.
  31. Hürlimann, M.; Coviello, V.; Bel, C.; Guo, X.; Berti, M.; Graf, C.; Hübl, J.; Miyata, S.; Smith, J.B.; Yin, H.Y. Debris-Flow Monitoring and Warning: Review and Examples. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 199.
  32. Pierson, T.C. Important Process in High Country Gully Erosion. J. Tussock Grassl. Mt. Lands Inst. 1980, 3–14.
  33. Amaral, G.; Bushee, J.; Cordani, U.G.; Kawashita, K.; Reynolds, J.H.; Almeida, F.F.M.; de Almeida, F.F.M.; Hasui, Y.; de Brito Neves, B.B.; Fuck, R.A.; et al. A Review of the Classifcation of Landslide of the Flow Type. J. Petrol. 2013, 369, 1689–1699.
  34. Castelli, F.; Freni, G.; Lentini, V.; Fichera, A. Modelling of a Debris Flow Event in the Enna Area for Hazard Assessment. Procedia Eng. 2017, 175, 287–292.
  35. Innes, J.L. Debris Flows. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 1983, 7, 469–501.
  36. Wells, W. Debris Flows/Avalanches. Geol. Soc. Am. 1987, 7, 105–114.
  37. Petrović, N. Climate Change and Landslide Hazard. Annu. Disaster Risk Sci. 2018, 1, 3–18.
  38. Tohari, A. Study of rainfall-induced landslide: A review. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 118, 012036.
  39. Turner, K.A.; Schuster, R.L. Landslides Investigation and Mitigation Report by NRC United State; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  40. Reid, M.E.; Iverson, R.M.; Logan, M.; Lahusen, R.G.; Godt, J.W.; Griswold, J.P. Entrainment of Bed Sediment by Debris Flows: Results from Large-Scale Experiments. Ital. J. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2011, 367–374.
  41. Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Yao, C.; Li, Y. Debris-Flow Impact on Piers with Different Cross-Sectional Shapes. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 04019045.
  42. Eu, S.; Im, S.; Kim, D. Development of Debris Flow Impact Force Models Based on Flume Experiments for Design Criteria of Soil Erosion Control Dam. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 3567374.
  43. Schuster, R.L.; Salcedo, D.A.; Valenzuela, L. Overview of Catastrophic Landslides of South America in the Twentieth Century. Rev. Eng. Geol. 2002, 15, 1–34.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Geology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Mudassir Ali Khan
,
Zahiraniza Mustaffa
,
Indra Sati Hamonangan Harahap
,
Muhammad Bello Ibrahim
,
Mohamed Ezzat Al-Atroush
View Times: 909
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 27 Dec 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback