Experimental studies of subaqueous vs. subaerial debris flows - Velocity characteristics as a function of the ambient fluid

Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences, 3rd International Symposium

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 101-110

  Breien, H ^a   Pagliardi, M ^a   De Blasio, F V ^a   Issler, D ^a   Elverhoi A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Experiments; PIV; Subaerial debris flows; Subaqueous debris flows; Velocity

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTS; SUBMARINES; VELOCITY; VELOCITY MEASUREMENT;

AMBIENT FLUIDS; DEBRIS FLOWS; DYNAMICAL BEHAVIOURS; EXPERIMENTAL SERIES; INTERSTITIAL FLUIDS; PARTICLE IMAGE VELOCIMETRIES; UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA; WATER MIXTURE;

DEBRIS;

EID: 84986211819     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6512-5_11     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Campbell CS, Cleary PW and Hopkins M (1995) Large scale landslide simulations: Global deformations, velocities and basal friction. J. Geophys. Res. 100: 8267-8283
2. De Blasio FV, Elverhei A, Engvik L, Issler D, Gauer P and Harbitz CB (2006) Understanding the high mobility of subaqueous debris flows. Norwegian Journal of Geology, Special issue: Second International Symposium on Submarine Mass Movements and their Consequences, Solheim A (editor), 86: 275-284
3. De Blasio FV, Engvik L, Harbitz CB and Elverhei A (2004a) Hydroplaning and submarine debris flows. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C01002, doi:10.1029/2002JC001714
4. De Blasio FV, Elverhei A, Issler D, Harbitz CB, Bryn P and Lien R (2004b) Flow models of natural debris flows originating from overconsolidated clay materials. Marine Geology. 213: 439-455
5. Denlinger RP and Iverson RM (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across three-dimensional terrain 2. Numerical predictions and experimental tests. J. Geophys. Res - Solid Earth,106 (B1), jan 10: 553-566
6. Elverhei A, Issler D, De Blasio FV, Ilstad T, Harbitz CB and Gauer P (2005) Emerging insights into dynamics of submarine debris flows. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5: 633-648
7. Felix M and Peakall J (2006) Transformation of debris flows into turbidity currents: mechanisms inferred from laboratory experiments. Sedimentology, 53: 107-123
8. Gauer P, Kvalstad TJ, Forsberg CF, Bryn P and Berg K (2005) The last phase of the Storegga slide: simulation of retrogressive slide dynamics and comparison with slide-scar morphology. Marine Petrol. Geol., 22: 171-178
9. Hampton MA (1972) The role of subaqueous debris flows in generating turbidity currents. Journal of Sedimentary petrology, 42: 775-793
10. Harbitz CB, Parker G, Elverhei A, Marr JG, Mohrig D and Harff P (2003) Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris flows and glide blocks: Analytical solutions and discussion. J. Geoph. Res. 108, B7, 2349, doi: 10.1029/2001JB001454
11. Huang X and Garcia MH (1999) Modelling of non-hydroplaning mudflows on continental slopes. Marine Geology, 154: 131-142
12. Ilstad T, Elverhei A, Issler D and Marr J (2004a) Subaqueous debris flow behaviour and its dependence on the sand/clay ratio: a laboratory study using particle tracking. Marine Geology, 213: 415-438
13. Imran J, Harff P and Parker G (2001) A numerical model of submarine debris flows with graphical user interface. Computers and Geosciences, 27 (6): 721-733
14. Iverson R (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev. Geophys. Res., 35: 245-296
15. Locat J and Lee HJ (2001) Submarine landslides: advances and challenges. Can. Geotech. J., 39: 193-212
16. Kuenen PHH and Migliorini CI (1950) Turbidity currents as a cause of graded bedding. The Journal of Geology, 58: 91-107
17. Marr JG, Harff PA, Shanmugam G and Parker G (2001) Experiments on subaqueous sandy gravity flows: the role of clay and water content in flow dynamics and depositional structures. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113: 1377-1386
18. Mohrig D, Elverhei A and Parker G (1997) Experiments on the relative mobility of muddy subaqueous and subaerial debris flows, and their capacity to remobilize antecedent deposits. Marine Geology, 154: 117-129
19. Mohrig D and Marr JG (2003) Constraining the efficiency of turbidity current generation from submarine debris flows and slides using laboratory experiments. Marine and Petroleum Geology 20: 883-899
20. Mohrig D, Whipple KX, Hondzo M, Ellis C, and Parker G (1998) Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris flow. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 110: 387-394
21. Norem H, Irgens F and Schieldrop B (1987) A continuum model for calculating snow avalanche velocities. In: Avalanche formation, movement and effects, Proceedings of the Davos symposium, September 1986. IAHS publication no. 162: 363-379
22. Norem H, Locat J and Schieldrop B (1990) An approach to the physics and the modelling of submarine flowslides. Marine Geotechnology, 9: 93-111
23. Pudasaini SP and Hutter K (2007) Avalanche dynamics. Springer, Heidelberg
24. Savage SB and Hutter K (1989) The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough incline. J. Fluid Mech., 199: 177-215
25. Sveen JK and Cowen EA (2004) Quantitative imaging techniques and their application to wavy flows. In Grue J, Liu PLF and Pedersen G (eds) PIV and Water Waves, World Scientific, New Jersey
26. Takahashi T (1991) Debris flow. IAHR Monograph series, Balkema, Rotterdam
27. Talling PJ, Peakall J, Sparks RS, Cofaigh CO, Dowdeswell JA, Felix M, Wynn RB, Baas JH, Hogg AJ, Masson DG, Taylor J and Weaver PPE (2002) Experimental constraints on shear mixing rates and processes: implications for the dilution of submarine debris flows. In: Dowdeswell JA and Cofaigh CO (eds.) Glacier-Influenced Sedimentation on High-Latitude Continental Margins, Geological Society of London, Special Publication, 203: 89-103