See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278636839

Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan

Chapter · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4336-6_5

CITATIONS READS

9 259

2 authors, including:

Christian Scheidl
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
68 PUBLICATIONS   384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

[PROTECTED] The effect of natural disturbances on the risk from hydrogeomorphic hazards under climate change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Scheidl on 03 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan

Dieter Rickenmann and Christian Scheidl

1 Introduction

Debris flows are at the interface of several research directions dealing with natural
hazards processes. It is therefore not surprising that methods for the prediction of
flow and runout of debris flows have similarities to approaches originally developed
for snow or debris avalanches and streamflow hydraulics (Körner 1980; Lied and
Bakkehoi 1980; Perla et al. 1980; Iverson 1997). However, debris-flow volume
and bulk flow behaviour may change during travel through the channel, e.g. by
entrainment of loose sediment and/or incorporation of water from a tributary.
At present, no generally applicable model is able to cover the range of all possible
material mixtures and event scenarios. This complexity results in different torrential
processes and results in a large variety of approaches to predict debris-flow mobility.
This chapter is divided into three parts. We first present classification methods
to distinguish between different torrential processes. In the second part we have a
closer look at the deposition patterns of “larger” debris-flow events, characterized
by an overtopping of the main channel on the fan. Using data on debris-flow
events from the European Alps and British Columbia, Canada, the variation of flow
mobility during the runout phase is discussed for diverse process types. A particular
focus is on the semi-empirical approach between deposition area and total volume
which is based on the assumption of geometric similarity of deposits (Iverson et al.
1998). In the third part we give an overview of runout prediction methods for
debris flows.

D. Rickenmann ()
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
e-mail: dieter.rickenmann@wsl.ch
C. Scheidl
Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Natural Hazards,
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences-Vienna, A-1190 Vienna, Austria
e-mail: christian.scheidl@boku.ac.at

M. Schneuwly-Bollschweiler et al. (eds.), Dating Torrential Processes on Fans and 75

Cones, Advances in Global Change Research 47, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4336-6 5,
© Springer ScienceCBusiness Media Dordrecht 2013
76 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

2 Process Types Associated with Torrential Events

Torrential fans are formed by sediment accumulations due to mass movements

and sediment transfer processes such as fluvial sediment transport (FST), debris
floods (DFL) or debris flows (DF). The terms debris flow and debris flood are used
according to the classification proposed by Hungr et al. (2001). Debris floods and
fluvial sediment transport typically involve more water than sediment (by volume) in
the flow and the first type has a larger sediment concentration than the latter. A debris
flood in a torrent is characterized by substantial transport of coarse sediment, while
hyperconcentrated flow is usually associated with substantial fine sediments in
suspension. In practice, these flow processes are often classified on the basis of
geomorphic investigations in the fields (e.g. Costa 1988; Hübl et al. 2002).
For hazard assessment it is important to consider the magnitude-frequency
relationship of torrential events, which is likely to depend on process type. We
may expect that the deposition behaviour on the fan will be influenced by the
process type as well. In this section we provide some support for this assumption.
In a previous study on estimating debris-flow deposition on fans (Scheidl and
Rickenmann 2010), data on more than 100 torrential events in Austria, South Tyrol
(Italy) and Switzerland were classified as debris flows, debris floods, and fluvial
sediment transport. We use these data here to show that there is a more or less
continuous transition from fluvial bedload transport to debris flows, as is also
suggested from a large number of related observations from the 2005 flood events
in Switzerland (Rickenmann and Koschni 2010).
Debris flows typically occur in steep and small torrent catchments. Rickenmann
et al. (2008) suggested that a torrent is defined as a stream with a catchment area
less than 25 km2 and a mean channel gradient larger than 5–10%. While debris
flows occur in torrent catchments, mountain rivers with fluvial bedload transport
are characterized by a larger catchment area and a smaller mean channel gradient.
This is confirmed by a study of Marchi and D’Agostino (2004) studying 127 debris
flows throughout the North-Eastern Italian Alps, out of which 125 events exceeded
a longitudinal slope of 10% with catchment areas smaller than 20 km2 . Similarly
Marchi and Brochot (2000) report a maximum catchment area of 20–30 km2 for
debris flows and debris-flood events in the French Alps. For the documented debris-
flow events of 1987 in Switzerland (Rickenmann and Zimmermann 1993), the
maximum catchment area was 22 km2 with a minimum mean channel slope of
19%. The data of Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010) largely confirm that debris flows
and debris floods are likely to occur in catchments smaller than 25 km2 and with a
mean channel gradient steeper than 10% (Fig. 1). Figure 1 also includes two well
documented debris-flow events from British Columbia, Canada. If catchment area
is considered as a proxy for discharge, this parameter together with the channel
gradient essentially determine the sediment concentration to be expected during
high flow events (Rickenmann and Koschni 2010). Thus the proposed criterion to
separate torrent catchments from mountain rivers appears to be reasonable.
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 77

Fig. 1 Relation between mean travel angle and catchment area for the data of Scheidl and
Rickemann (2010), denoted with (a), with the threshold line (b) of Zimmermann et al. (1997).
(1) Hummingbird Creek (Jakob et al. 2000) and (2) Cathedral Gulch (Jackson et al. 1989).
The dashed line represents the proposed limiting catchment area of 25 km2

However, this general distinction between torrents and mountain rivers does not
mean that only debris flows will occur in torrent channels. A possible classification
of sediment transfer processes in torrent catchments may be based on the Melton
number ME (Melton 1965) and the average fan slope Sf (Marchi and Brochot 2000;
Bardou 2002). The Melton number is an indicator for the basin ruggedness and
has also been used in other studies delimiting debris-flow occurrence (Jackson
et al. 1987; Crosta and Frattini 2004). ME is determined as the maximum elevation
difference in a catchment divided by the square root of the catchment area Ac . Here
the difference in elevation is calculated between the elevation of the highest point
within the catchment, Elevmax , and the elevation of the fan apex, Elevmin :

Elevmax  Elevmin
ME D p (1)
Ac

Bardou (2002) proposed three different zones (A, B, and C) to distinguish

between torrential process types. Figure 2 illustrates this delineation using data from
Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010), based on 17 fluvial sediment transport processes,
10 debris floods and 106 debris flows, along with data from four independently
documented debris-flow events in British Columbia.
The threshold line between zone A and B separates fluvial sediment transport
processes from mixed or transitional processes (debris floods, hyperconcentrated
78 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

Fig. 2 Relation between average fan slope and Melton number for the data of Scheidl and
Rickemann (2010), denoted with (a). (1) Hummingbird Creek (Jakob et al. 2000), (2) Cathedral
Gulch (Both from Jackson et al. 1989), (3) Canyon Creek and (4) Hot Springs Creek (both from
Jordan 1984). The threshold lines (c) and (d) are proposed by Bardou (2002) respectively Marchi
and Brochot (2000). The domains A, B and C are discussed in the text

flows). The threshold line between zone B and C distinguishes between mixed
processes and debris flows. Based on the data from Marchi and Brochot (2000),
an alternative threshold line between zone A and B has been inserted. In Fig. 2 zone
A includes only fluvial sediment transport data. While debris floods are represented
only in zone B, debris-flow data are widely distributed within zone B and zone
C. The apparent lack of a clear boundary between the latter two processes may
partly reflect both their similarity and some uncertainty in classifying torrential
processes. For example, Jakob et al. (2000) describe the debris-flow event in
Hummingbird Creek (1 in Fig. 2) as an unusually large debris flow with a record
breaking long-term antecedent precipitation, which may partly explain its proximity
to zone A.
Wilford et al. (2004) studied 65 alluvial and colluvial fans in west central British
Columbia, and found the following criteria to best distinguish debris flows from
debris floods and floods (i.e. fluvial sediment transport process): Melton number
>0.6 and watershed length (planimetric straight-line length from the fan apex
to the most distant point on the watershed boundary) <2.7 km. Such a Melton
number criterion is not confirmed by the data of Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010)
or Rickenmann and Koschni (2010), for which many catchments with debris-flow
occurrences have a Melton number <0.6.
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 79

3 Deposition Patterns of “Large” Debris Flows Outside

the Channel on the Fan

Mobility on constructed fan areas may not only depend on different process types
and topography but also on human infrastructures such as buildings, streets or
railways. However, no fluvial sediment transport processes were considered since
no distinct deposition zones could be observed.
Based on data from 42 debris-flow and five debris-flood events (Table 1), planar
runout patterns were classified according to the shape of the deposition area.
Altogether four types (A, B, C, D) of runout patterns could be distinguished from
visual evaluation of the observed deposition zones (Fig. 3). The amount and degree
of infrastructure affected by each event was qualitatively estimated, ranging from
low (one building or one linear infrastructure affected) to high (several buildings
and linear infrastructures affected). A null value was only applied to debris-flow
events without any affected buildings, streets or railways.
Type A represents an ideal shape for uniform runout patterns (Fig. 4). Deposition
is not influenced by any obstacles or distinct channels on the fan. Typically the
material overtops the channel and starts to spread over the fan, influenced by the
topography. It is assumed that the cross section or the conveyance of the channel
near the start of deposition is too small in relation to the peak discharge of the
event. The distal end of the deposition appears unconstrained, which allows the
approximation of the observed runout area with a circle sector of radius Lf and
angle §, under the assumption that the sector area equals the observed deposition
area (Fig. 4). The majority of the debris-flow deposits of type A in Table 1 are related
to fan situations with no or moderate potential influence by houses or infrastructure.
Types B1 and B2 as well as C1, C2 and D are associated with “disturbed”
runout patterns within the observed deposition area (Fig. 5). For these types, an
approximation of the planar view of the runout pattern with a simple sector (like
for type A) represents a too strong simplification. For the debris-flow deposits of
type B in Table 1 it appears that the deposition pattern is influenced by obstructions
like buildings or mitigation measures in the lower part of the deposition zone. In
our examples of types C and D in Table 1 we mainly identified linear structures
crossing the deposition zone, like roads, railway tracks or receiving streams which
were responsible for a pronounced lateral spreading in the lower part of the
deposition area.
For the debris-flow deposition pattern of type A, the volume of the deposits can
theoretically be approximated by a cylindrical circle sector (Fig. 6) with the mean
deposition height h / V1=3 and the planimetric area B / Lf 2 :

V D hB / V1=3 §Lf 2 (2a)

or

V2=3 / §Lf 2 (2b)

 80

Table 1 Overview of the debris-flow data used in Fig. 8

Degree of
Event name Process-type Documentation Volume [m3 ] Lf [m] § [ı ] Pattern-type infrastructure density
Bormina DF VAW (1992) 50;000 473 13.68 A Null
Brichboden DF VAW (1992) 4;000 362 29.14 A Null
Gerental 1 DF VAW (1992) 7;000 364 45.40 A Null
Gerental 2 DF VAW (1992) 33;000 211 14.03 A Null
Gerental 3A DF VAW (1992) 45;000 264 18.50 A Null
Gerental 3B DF VAW (1992) 33;000 243 17.91 A Null
Gonerli DF VAW (1992) 5;000 332 26.96 A Null
Grätschliecht DF VAW (1992) 4;000 290 12.93 A Null
Heugandtal DF VAW (1992) 7;000 340 14.03 A Null
Mühlistein DF VAW (1992) 3;000 104 16.22 A Null
Piz Caral SE DF VAW (1992) 3;000 142 33.40 A Null
Piz Lugrendo NE DF VAW (1992) 3;000 404 50.11 A Null
Stotzig Muttenhorn DF VAW (1992) 2;000 302 12.94 A Null
Witenwasseren DF VAW (1992) 40;000 430 20.47 A Null
Blauseeligraben DF VAW (1992) 2;000 90 45.65 A Low
Cathedral Gulch DF Jackson et al. (1989) 90;000 1,000* 14.04 A Low
Cathedral Gulch DF Jackson et al. (1989) 80;000 800* 14.20 A Low
Canyon Creek DF Jordan (1994) 10;000 200* 49.83 A Low
Glattbach DF Gertsch and Kienholz (2005) 9;000 367 41.33 A Low
Holdenbach DF Gertsch and Kienholz (2005) 17;000 337 18.09 A Low
Hot Springs Creek DF Jordan (1994) 60;000 800* 13.13 A Low
Richleren DF VAW (1992) 9;000 805 29.81 A Low
Ri di Cavanna DF VAW (1992) 7;000 217 25.72 A Low
Ri di Gallinoso DF VAW (1992) 4;000 125 13.71 A Low
Ri di Sozz DF VAW (1992) 3;000 198 41.76 A Low
Schisstalbach DF Gertsch and Kienholz (2005) 11;000 281 22.35 A Low
D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl
Val Mera1 DF VAW (1992) 2;000 799 14:72 A Low
Cathedral Gulch DF Jackson et al. (1989) 7;000 400* 15:08 A Medium
Nebukawa DF Kobayashi (1985) 1;000;000 900* 18:17 A Medium
Sarno EP-5 DF Oramas Dorta et al. (2007) 140;000 1,200* 30:27 A Medium
Glyssibach DF NDR Consulting 60;000 387 31:11 A High
Zimmermann/Niederer
und Pozzi Umwelt AG
(2006)
Trachtbach DF 6;000 140  B1 High
Sarno Ep-2 DF Oramas Dorta et al. (2007) 120;000 650*  B2 Medium
Varuna DF VAW (1992) 214;000 1,011  B2 High
Cathedral Gulch DF Jackson et al. (1989) 87;000 – 9:36 C1 Medium
Rotlauibach DF Scheuner et al. (2009) 520;000 – 31:92 C2 Low
Saastal DF VAW (1992) 180;000 – 96:21 C2 Low
Cathedral Gulch DF Jackson et al. (1989) – C2 Medium
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan

136;000 17:83
Cathedral Gulch DF Jackson et al. (1989) 24;000 – 31:63 C2 Medium
Grosstal DF VAW (1992) 20;000 – 54:12 C2 Medium
Schwendibach DF 11;000 – 26:69 C2 Medium
Caraballeda DF Wieczorek et al. 2001 2;000;000 – 28:02 C2 High
Bardielbach DFL Schraml (2007) 6;500 671 9:79 A Low
Eisbachgraben DFL Schraml (2007) 25;000 416 43:53 A Medium
Partellstobel DFL Schraml (2007) 18;000 558 18:33 A Medium
Gumpenbach DFL Schraml (2007) 35;000 1,328 7:61 A Medium
Niedernsiller DFL Schraml (2007) 50;000 1,733 40:14 A Medium
Mühlbach 2
Unless otherwise noted, Lf values are based either on values listed in the related documentations or on measurements of original field observation data, such
as maps or aerial images. Lf values denoted with a star (*) were measured from figures in the related documentations. The degree of infrastructure density
refers to the relative proportion of objects such as buildings, streets or railway lines which may have influenced the deposition pattern
81
82 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

Fig. 3 Types of different recent runout patterns. SP denotes the start point of the deposition (often
the fan apex)

Equation 2a is based on the assumption of geometrical similarity of the deposits.

Equation 2b can be can be transformed to express the maximum runout distance Lf
as a function of the deposition volume V and aperture angle §:

Lf / §1=2 V1=3 (3)

For debris-flow and debris-flood events of type A (Table 1), Fig. 7 shows a clear
relationship between the circle sector properties (radius Lf , aperture angle §) and
the event volume V. The data can be fitted with a power-law (R2 D 0.78):

 Ã0:49
§
Lfpred D 65:3 2=3
 65:3§1=2 V1=3 (4)
V

Additionally, data of five debris-flood events, which could be classified to type A,

are shown in Fig. 7. These processes show higher mobility but a similar trend of the
relationship between the circle sector properties and the event volume, compared to
debris-flow events.
The observed aperture angles for the development of the regression model range
from 13ı to 51ı . Figure 7 and Eq. 4 essentially confirm that the assumption of
geometric similarity is reasonable for debris-flow deposits which represent a runout
pattern on the fan under quasi-natural conditions, after overtopping of the channel.
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 83

Fig. 4 (a) Runout pattern

type A. § denotes the
aperture angle of a fitting
circle sector, with Lf , a radius
equal to the distance from the
starting point to the distal end
of the observed deposition
area. (b) Schisstalbach
debris-flow event,
Switzerland 2005 – example
of deposition type A; aerial
photo by Swisstopo, 29/30
August 2005 (reproduced
with permission of
Swisstopo, no. JA082265)
84 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

Fig. 5 (a) Trachtbach debris-flow event, Switzerland 2005 – example of deposition type B1; the
lake of Brienz may have influenced the maximal runout distance, the aperture angle was influenced
by the houses near the main channel; aerial photo by Swisstopo, 29/30 August 2005 (reproduced
with permission of Swisstopo, no. JA082265). (b) Caraballeda debris-flow event, Venezuela 1999 –
example of deposition type C2; the maximum runout was influenced by the sea (modified from
Wieczorek et al. 2001)

The debris-flow and debris-flood events related to type B, C, or D would require a

more detailed geometric approximation of the deposit shape and a larger number of
cases for a quantitative analysis.
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 85

Fig. 5 (continued)

Fig. 6 Approximated
cylindrical sector to describe
the deposition pattern; SP
denotes the start point of the
deposition
86 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

Fig. 7 Relationship between the approximated circle sector radius Lf and a factor incorporating
aperture angle ‰ and event volume V, according to the geometric similarity Eq. 2b. Only debris-
flow events of type A are included, as listed in Table 1

Fig. 8 Relation between kBobs as a function of catchment area Ac for the dataset of Scheidl
and Rickenmann (2010) denoted with (a), and (1) Cathedral Gulch (Jackson et al. 1989), (2)
Canyon Creek and (3) Hot Springs Creek (Jordan 1984) as well as (4) Hummingbird Creek (Jakob
et al. 2000)
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 87

4 Implications of the Process Types on Runout and Mobility

Many studies document the importance of debris-flow volume on runout area on the
fan (also see Sect. 2). Iverson et al. (1998) developed a GIS-based simulation model
for hazard mapping and proposed that there is a close semi-empirical relation
between the planimetric deposition area, B, of lahars or debris flows and the event
volume, V. Assuming geometric similarity, they proposed the following power-law
equation:

B D kB V2=3 (5)

where kB is a proportionality coefficient representing an average mobility of, for

example, the groups of lahar or debris-flow data. Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010)
proposed a similar GIS-based simulation program for debris-flow hazard mapping.
For a given volume and starting point of the deposits, a simple flow routing
algorithm is used to determine the potential runout area covered by debris-flow
deposits. The runout zone is then delineated by confining the simulated potential
spreading area in the down slope direction using the empirically determined
planimetric deposition area which is also based on Eq. 5. A further empirical
relationship is used to determine the proportionality coefficient in Eq. 5 as a function
of geomorphic catchment parameters. For this purpose the individual observed
mobility coefficient kBobs is defined based on the observed debris-flow volume Vobs
and observed deposition area Bobs of a single event as:

2=3
kBobs D Bobs Vobs (6)

Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010) then proposed that the mobility coefficient kBobs
can be estimated as a function of the average fan slope Sf and the average channel
slope Sc . This coefficient is thought to reflect some of the flow properties during the
depositional phase of the debris-flow event.
Assuming geometric similarity, the mobility coefficient as defined by Eq. 5 has
been proposed to depend on process type in several studies (Crosta et al. 2003;
Griswold 2004; Yu et al. 2006; Berti and Simoni 2007; Griswold and Iverson
2008; Scheidl and Rickenmann 2008). The development of alluvial fans with water
driven mass movements reflects their rheological conditions during the deposition
process: The studies of Jackson et al. (1987), Marchi and Tecca (1995) and Chau
et al. (2000) imply that granular flow behaviour will lead to a higher roughness
and friction during depositional flow, which results in steeper fan slopes on average
and in a smaller mobility. A more viscous or muddy flow behaviour, on the other
hand, shows a higher mobility and results in smoother and flatter fans. A higher
mobility of muddy debris flow compared to granular debris flow is also reflected
by a smaller pseudo Manning’s flow resistance coefficient (Rickenmann and Weber
2000). Assuming that the runout of an event can be correlated with the dominant
fan-forming processes, the local mobility coefficient can be estimated based on the
fan and channel slope (e.g. Scheidl and Rickenmann 2010).
88 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

If mobility coefficients kBobs are plotted as a function of catchment areas Ac

(Fig. 8), there is no clear distinction between debris flows, debris floods, or fluvial
sediment transport. However, the events associated with the latter two flow types
show a trend for having comparatively larger values of kBobs and Ac .

5 Runout Prediction Methods for Debris Flows

In principal runout prediction methods for torrential mass movements, especially

for debris flows, are either based on empirical-statistical or dynamical methods
(Rickenmann 2005). Empirical equations to estimate the total travel distance (the
entire horizontal path length) of debris flows and landslides were proposed by
Corominas (1996), Rickenmann (1999), Legros (2002) and Toyos et al. (2008). In
all these approaches the runout length is essentially a function of volume and angle
of reach or the longitudinal profile of the expected flow path. The empirical model
of Prochaska et al. (2008) to predict runout for non-volcanic debris flows is based
on the average channel slope and on the stream profile to the drainage divide. The
method is analogous to methods for snow avalanche runout estimations (Lied and
Bakkehoi 1980) and does not account for a changing event volume.
Other methods estimating the total travel distance are based on a sediment
budget along the flow path. Such volume balance approaches have been proposed
by Cannon (1993) and Fannin and Wise (2001). The dynamical runout model
“dfwalk” (Gamma 2000) uses a mass-point-model, originally developed for snow
avalanches (Körner 1980; Perla et al. 1980), and requires an empirical calibration of
two parameters. During the last years, the method of cellular automata modelling
has been applied to debris-flow susceptibility assessments (Iovine et al. 2005;
D’Ambrosio et al. 2003, 2006) and geomorphic evolution in river catchments
(Coulthard et al. 2007).
For a more detailed delineation of potentially endangered areas, the runout
pattern or the surface area on the debris-flow cone, downstream of the point where
major deposition occurs, should be known (Rickenmann 2005). A simple GIS based
empirical model for this purpose was first developed for lahars (Iverson et al.
1998). Subsequently, more observations on debris flows were used to test or modify
the original approach of Iverson et al. (1998) in studies by Crosta and Agliardi
(2003), Griswold (2004), Yu et al. (2006), Berti and Simoni (2007), Oramas Dorta
et al. (2007), Griswold and Iverson (2008), and Scheidl and Rickenmann (2010).
A probabilistic relationship between debris-flow deposition length and deposition
volume to evaluate the runout for a given debris-flow volume was presented by
Chen et al. (2007). Tsai (2006) studied the geometric development of debris-flow
cones, and used the maximum length, width, and thickness of debris-flow cones as
the characteristic parameters in the analysis of morphological similarity based on a
laboratory experiment. Most of these studies underline the importance of the debris-
flow volume on the resulting runout area on the fan. Many empirical equations
for the total travel distance support the important role of event volume on runout
distance (Rickenmann 2005).
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 89

Using a dynamical approach Takahashi and Yoshida (1979), Hungr et al. (1984)
and Takahashi (1991) proposed a one-dimensional, analytical model to predict the
runout due to an abrupt change of bed slope, assuming a constant flow section and
a constant discharge. In principle the most accurate description of the depositional
process of debris flows is provided by hydraulic simulation continuum models, like
FLO-2D (O’Brien et al. 1993), RAMMS (Bartelt et al. 1999; Hose 2007; Christen
et al. 2010), FlatModel (Medina et al. 2008) or MassMov2D (Beguerı́a et al. 2009).
However, these models are sometimes difficult to apply and generally require a
calibration of “friction” parameters by back-calculation of past events (Naef et al.
2006; Rickenmann et al. 2006; Tecca et al. 2007; Hürlimann et al. 2008; Pirulli and
Sorbino 2008; Hochschwarzer 2009). A common finding of many of these studies
is that, once the flow has overtopped the channel, the runout pattern on the fan is
determined to a large degree by the fan topography. For these reasons Scheidl and
Rickenmann (2010) combined a multiple flow path algorithm (based on detailed fan
topography) with an empirical relationship between planimetric deposition area and
event volume in their TopRunDF modelling approach.

6 Conclusions

Considering classification schemes for different process types in torrential catch-

ments, a relatively clear distinction between events dominated by debris flows
or debris floods and fluvial sediment transport can be made. However, the same
classification schemes do not allow for a clear distinction between debris flows
and debris floods. Since process type influences depositional characteristics such as
deposit thickness (or flow mobility) and steepness of the deposits, fan and catchment
properties may support empirical runout prediction.
Analyses of deposition patterns on the fan of larger debris-flow events support
the assumption of geometric similarity of the deposits, as proposed by Iverson
et al. (1998) and used in other runout prediction approaches. Exceptions may be
expected in “disturbed” or overbuilt deposition areas where both a specification of
a starting point of deposition and the runout flow may be influenced not only by
topography but also by human infrastructures. More detailed studies are required to
better quantify the effect of log jams, narrow outlets or flow obstacles along the flow
path on the deposition pattern.
A short review of debris-flow runout prediction methods leads to the following
conclusions: (i) most approaches are essentially of empirical nature, and therefore
better predictions may be expected for situations which are similar to the underlying
data, (ii) the runout length or the depositional area depend on event volume, similar
to the case for debris or snow avalanches, and (iii) the fan topography is an important
element controlling the distribution of the deposits on the fan for larger events
overtopping the main channel.
90 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

In general, continuum based dynamic runout prediction methods provide the

most complete characterization of debris-flow processes and their behaviour. As
in other two-dimensional runout prediction methods, the simulated inundated areas
appear to be mainly controlled by the topography of the fan. However, numerical
models need to be further evaluated with regard to appropriate values for the
rheologic or friction parameters, which are often assumed or back-calculated from
field observations.

Acknowledgements The study has been funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) project no.
L 180-N10 on ‘Runout prediction of debris flows’. The Swiss Federal Office for Environment
supported the analysis of the Swiss debris-flow events of 2005. Markus Zimmermann provided the
original field data concerning the 1987 debris flows in the Swiss Alps.

References

Bardou E (2002) Methodologie de diagnostic des laves torrentielles sur un bassin versant alpin.
PhD thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, p 382
Bartelt P, Salm B, Gruber U (1999) Calculating dense-snow avalanche runout using a Voellmyfluid
model with active/passive longitudinal straining. J Glaciol 45:212–254
Beguerı́a S, Asch TWJV, Malet J-P, Gröndahl S (2009) A GIS-based numerical model for
simulating the kinematics of mud and debris flows over complex terrain. Nat Hazard Earth
Syst Sci 9:1897–1909
Berti M, Simoni A (2007) Prediction of debris flow inundation areas using empirical mobility
relationships. Geomorphology 90:144–161
Cannon SH (1993) An empirical model for the volume-change behavior of debris flows. In: Shen
HW, Su ST, Wen F (eds) Hydraulic engineering’93, vol 2. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, pp 1768–1773
Chau KT, Chan LC, Wai WH (2000) Shape of deposition fan and runout distance of debris-flow:
Effects of granular and contents. In: Wieczorek, Naeser (eds) Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation:
Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment, pp 387–395
Chen J, Chang S, Tsang Y, Shieh C (2007) Empirical relationships for deposited length of debris-
flow: a case study in Taiwan. In: Chen-lung C, Major JJ (eds) 4th International conference
on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment, Chengdu, China.
Millpress, Rotterdam
Christen M, Bartelt P, Kowalski J (2010) Back calculation of the In den Arelen avalanche with
RAMMS: interpretation of model results. Ann Glaciol 51:161–168
Corominas J (1996) The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides. Can
Geotech J 33:260–271
Costa JE (1988) Rheologic, geomorphic, and sedimentologic differentiation of water floods, hy-
perconcentrated flows, and debris flows. In: Baker VR, Patton PC (eds) Flood Geomorphology,
pp 113–122
Coulthard TJ, Hicks DM, van de Wiel MJ (2007) Cellular modelling of river catchments and
reaches: advantages, limitations and prospects. Geomorphology 90:192–207
Crosta G, Agliardi F (2003) A methodology for physically-based rockfall hazard assessment. Nat
Hazard Earth Syst Sci 3:407–422
Crosta G, Cucchiaro S, Frattini P (2003) Validation of semi-empirical relationships for the
definition of debris-flow behavior in granular materials. In: Rickenmann D, Chen (eds) Debris-
Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment, pp. 821–833
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 91

Crosta GB, Frattini P (2004) Controls on modern alluvial fan processes in the Central Alps,
Northern Italy. Earth Surf Process Landf 29:267–293
D’Ambrosio D, Gregorio SD, Iovine G, Lupiano V, Rongo R, Spataro W (2003) First simulations
of the Sarno debris flows through Cellular Automata modelling. Geomorphology 54:91–117
D’Ambrosio D, Spataro W, Iovine G (2006) Parallel genetic algorithms for optimising cellular
automata models of natural complex phenomena: an application to debris flows. Comput
Geosci 32:861–875
Fannin RJ, Wise MP (2001) An empirical-statistical model for debris flow travel distance. Can
Geotech J 38:982–994
Gamma P (2000) dfwalk – Ein Murgang-Simulationsprogramm zur Gefahrenzonierung.
Geographica Bernensia G66. Geographisches Institut der Universität Bern, Bern, p 144
Gertsch E, Kienholz H (2005) Ereignisdokumentation StorMe, Unwetter 22./23. August 2005,
Gemeinde Lütschental. Angewandte Geomorphologie und Naturrisiken AGNAT, Geographis-
ches Institut Universität Bern, Bern
Griswold JP (2004) Mobility statistics and hazard mapping for non-volcanic debris flows and rock
avalanches. Master’s thesis, Portland State University, p 200
Griswold JP, Iverson RM (2008) Mobility statistics and automated hazard mapping for debris
flows and rock avalanches, U.S. Geological Survey scientific investigations report 5276. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, p 59
Hochschwarzer M (2009) Vergleich von Simulationsmodellen zur Reichweitenabschätzung alpiner
Murgänge am Beispiel Südtiroler Ereignisse. Master’s thesis, University of Applied Life
Sciences and Natural Resources, p 135
Hose A (2007) Einfluss der Topographie auf die Murgangsimulation im Ablagerungsbereich und
Implikationen auf die Gefahrenbeurteilung. Master thesis, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für
Geographie, p 130
Hübl J, Kienholz H, Loipersberger A (2002) DOMODIS – Documentation of Mountain Disasters,
State of Discussion in the European Mountain Areas. International Research Society INTER-
PRAEVENT, Schriftenreihe 1, Handbuch 1, p 38
Hungr O, Morgan G, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design
of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21:663–677
Hungr O, Evans S, Bovis MJ, Hutchinson JN (2001) A review of the classification of landslides of
the flow type. Environ Eng Geosci 7:221–238
Hürlimann M, Rickenmann D, Medina V, Bateman A (2008) Evaluation of approaches to calculate
debris-flow parameters for hazard assessment. Eng Geol 102:152–163
Iovine G, D’Ambrosio D, Gregorio SD (2005) Applying genetic algorithms for calibrating a
hexagonal cellular automata model for the simulation of debris flows characterised by strong
inertial effects. Geomorphology 66:287–303
Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35(3):245–296
Iverson RM, Schilling SP, Vallance JW (1998) Objective delineation of lahar-inundation hazard
zones. Geol Soc Am Bull 110:972–984
Jackson L, Kostaschuk R, McDonald G (1987) Identification of debris flow hazard on alluvial fans
in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Geol Soc Am Rev Eng Geol 7:115–124
Jackson L, Hungr O, Gardner J, Mackay C (1989) Cathedral Mountain debris flows, Canada. Bull
Int Assoc Eng Geol 40:35–54
Jakob M, Anderson D, Fuller T, Hungr O, Ayotte D (2000) An unusually large debris flow at
Hummingbird Creek, Mara Lake, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 37:1109–1125
Jordan RP (1994) Debris flows in the southern coast mountains, British Columbia: dynamic
behaviour and physical properties. PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia, p 272
Kobayashi Y (1985) A catastrophic debris avalanche induced by the 1923 great Kanto earthquake.
J Nat Disaster Sci 7:1–9
Körner H (1980) Modelle zur Berechnung der Bergsturz- und Lawinenberechnung. In: Interna-
tionales Symposium “Interpraevent”, vol 2, Klagenfurt, Austria, pp 15–55
Legros F (2002) The mobility of long-runout landslides. Eng Geol 63:301–331
92 D. Rickenmann and C. Scheidl

Lied K, Bakkehoi S (1980) Empirical calculations of snow-avalanche run-out distance, based on

topographic parameters. J Glaciol 26(94):165–177
Marchi L, Brochot S (2000) Les cônes de dı́jection torrentiels dans les Alpes francaises.
Morphomètrie et processus de transport solide torrential. Rev Gèogr Alpine 88(3):23–38
Marchi L, D’Agostino V (2004) Estimation of debris-flow magnitude in the Eastern Italian Alps.
Earth Surf Process Landf 29:207–220
Marchi L, Tecca P (1995) Alluvial fans of the Eastern Italian Alps: morphology and depositional
processes. Geodinamica Acta 8:20–27
Medina V, Hürlimann M, Bateman A (2008) Application of FLATModel, a 2D finite volume code,
to debris flows in the northeastern part of the Iberian Peninsula. Landslides 5:127–142
Melton MA (1965) The geomorphic and paleoclimatic significance of alluvial deposits in Southern
Arizona. J Geol 73:1–38
Naef D, Rickenmann D, Rutschmann P, McArdell BW (2006) Comparison of flow resistance
relations for debris flows using a one-dimensional finite element simulation model. Nat Hazard
Earth Syst Sci 6:155–165
O’Brien JS, Julien PY, Fullerton W (1993) Two-dimensional water flood and mudflood simulation.
J Hydraul Eng 119:244–260
Oramas Dorta D, Toyos G, Oppenheimer C, Pareschi M, Zanchetta G (2007) Empirical modelling
of the May 1998 small debris flows in Sarno (Italy) using LAHARZ. Nat Hazard 40:381–396
Perla R, Cheng T, McClung D (1980) A two parameter model of snow avalanche motion. J Glaciol
26:197–208
Pirulli M, Sorbino G (2008) Assessing potential debris flow runout: a comparison of two simulation
models. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 8:961–971
NDR Consulting Zimmermann/Niederer und Pozzi Umwelt AG (2006) Lokale lösungsorientierte
Ereignisanalyse, Glyssibach, Bericht zum Vorprojekt. Tech. rep., Tiefbauamt des Kantons Bern
Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins J, Cannon SH (2008) Debris-flow runout predictions based on
the average channel slope (ACS). Eng Geol 98:29–40
Rickenmann D (1999) Empirical relationships for debris flows. Nat Hazard 19:47–77
Rickenmann D, Weber D (2000) Flow resistance of natural and experimental debris-flows in torrent
channels. In: Wieczorek, Naeser (eds) Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction,
and Assessment, pp 245–254
Rickenmann D (2005) Runout prediction methods. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow
hazards and related phenomena. Praxis/Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 305–324
Rickenmann D, Koschni A (2010) Sediment loads due to fluvial transport and debris flows during
the 2005 flood events in Switzerland. Hydrol Process 24:993–1007. doi:10.1002/hyp. 7536
Rickenmann D, Laigle D, McArdell BW, Hübl J (2006) Comparison of 2D debris-flow simulation
models with field events. Comput Geosci 10:241–264
Rickenmann D, Hunzinger L, Koschni A (2008) Hochwasser und Sedimenttransport während
des Unwetters vom August 2005 in der Schweiz. In: Mikos M, Huebl J, Koboltschnig G
(eds) Schutz des Lebensraumes vor Hochwasser, Muren, Massenbewegungen und Lawinen.
Interpraevent 26–30 May 2008, Dornbirn, Vorarlberg, Austria. Conference proceedings, vol 1.
Internat. Research Society Interpraevent, Klagenfurt, pp 465–476
Rickenmann D, Zimmermann M (1993) The 1987 debris flows in Switzerland: documentation and
analysis. Geomorphology 8:175–189
Scheidl C, Rickenmann D (2008) Depositional characteristics and runout of Alpine debris flows.
In: Conference proceedings Interpraevent’08, vol 1, Dornbirn, Austria, pp 477–488
Scheidl C, Rickenmann D (2010) Empirical prediction of debris-flow mobility and deposition on
fans. Earth Surf Process Landf 35:157–173
Scheuner T, Keusen HR, McArdell BW, Huggel C (2009) Murgangmodellierung mit dynamisch
physikalischem und GIS-basiertem Fliessmodell, Fallbeispiel Rotlauigraben, Guttannen, Au-
gust 2005. Wasser Energie Luft 101:15–21
Schraml C (2007) Ablagerung von Feststoffen auf Wildbachkegeln. Master’s thesis, University of
Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
Takahashi T (1991) Debris flow. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/Brookfield
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan 93

Takahashi T, Yoshida H (1979) Study on the deposition of debris flows, part 1-deposition due to
abrupt change of bed slope. Annu Disaster Prev Res Inst Kyoto Univ 22:315–328
Tecca P, Genevois R, Deganutti A, Armento M (2007) Numerical modelling of two debris flows
in the Dolomites (Northeastern Italian Alps). In: Chen-lung C, Major JJ (eds) 4th Interna-
tional conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment,
Chengdu, China. Millpress, Rotterdam
Toyos G, Gunasekera R, Zanchetta G, Oppenheimer C, Sulpizio R, Favalli M, Pareschi MT (2008)
GIS-assisted modelling for debris flow hazard assessment based on the events of May 1998 in
the area of Sarno, Southern Italy: II. Velocity and dynamic pressure. Earth Surf Process Landf
33:1693–1708
Tsai Y-F (2006) Three-dimensional topography of debris-flow fan. J Hydraul Eng 132:307–318
VAW (1992) Murgänge 1987, Dokumentation und Analyse. Bericht Nr. 97.6 der Versuchsanstalt
für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie, ETH Zürich (unpublished report)
Wieczorek GF, Larsen MC, Eaton LS, Morgan BA, Blair JL (2001) Debris-flow and flooding
hazards associated with the December 1999 storm in coastal Venezuela and strategies for
mitigation. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston
Wilford D, Sakals M, Innes J, Sidle R, Bergerud W (2004) Recognition of debris flow, debris flood
and flood hazard through watershed morphometrics. Landslides 1:61–66
Yu F-C, Chen C-Y, Chen T-C, Hung F-Y, Lin S-C (2006) A GIS process for delimitating areas
potentially endangered by debris flow. Nat Hazard 37:169–189
Zimmermann M, Mani P, Gamma P (1997) Murganggefahr und Klimaänderung – ein GIS-basierter
Ansatz. vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich: 162
Dating Torrential Processes on Fans and Cones
 ADVANCES IN GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
VOLUME 47

Editor-in-Chief
Martin Beniston, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Editorial Advisory Board

B. Allen-Diaz, Department ESPM-Ecosystem Sciences, University of California, Berkeley,
CA, U.S.A.
R.S. Bradley, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, U.S.A.
W. Cramer, Department of Global Change and Natural Systems, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany.
H.F. Diaz, Climate Diagnostics Center, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, Boulder,
CO, U.S.A.
S. Erkman, Institute for communication and Analysis of Science and Technology–ICAST,
Geneva, Switzerland
R. Garcia Herrera, Faculated de Fisicas, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
M. Lal, Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India.
U. Luterbacher, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva,
Geneva, Switzerland.
I. Noble, CRC for Greenhouse Accounting and Research School of Biological Science,
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
L. Tessier, Institut Mediterranéen d’Ecologie et Paléoécologie, Marseille, France.
F. Toth, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Laxenburg, Austria.
M.M. Verstraete, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ec Joint Research Centre,
Ispra (VA), Italy.

For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/5588
Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler
Markus Stoffel • Florian Rudolf-Miklau
Editors

Dating Torrential Processes

on Fans and Cones
Methods and Their Application for Hazard
and Risk Assessment

123
Editors
Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler Markus Stoffel
Laboratory of Dendrogeomorphology Laboratory of Dendrogeomorphology
Institute of Geological Sciences Institute of Geological Sciences
University of Berne University of Berne
Baltzerstrasse 1C3 Baltzerstrasse 1C3
Berne Berne
Switzerland Switzerland
and and
Chair for Climate and Climatic Impacts Chair for Climate and Climatic Impacts
Environmental Sciences Environmental Sciences
University of Geneva University of Geneva
7, route de Drize Carouge-Geneva 7, route de Drize Carouge-Geneva
Switzerland Switzerland

Florian Rudolf-Miklau
Federal Ministry for Agriculture
Forestry Environment and Water
Management
Department IV/5 – Torrent
and Avalanche Control
Marxergasse 5
Vienna
Austria

ISSN 1574-0919
ISBN 978-94-007-4335-9 ISBN 978-94-007-4336-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4336-6
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012941287

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.

Cover image title: Debris-flow event in the Holzerbach torrent on 29 June 1959

Copyright line/text: Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Italy

Cover image source: Municipality of Predoi – Prettau

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

Water-related processes (floods, debris floods, flash floods, and debris flows) form
alluvial fans and cones and represent major geomorphic hazards in most mountain
areas of the world. The gentle gradients and workable materials of fans and
cones render this environment a desirable site for residential developments and
transportation corridors. Over the past decades, human pressure has increased in
these regions, leading to an aggravation of conflicts between natural hazards and
infrastructure needs. However, detailed knowledge on frequency and magnitude
of past flood or debris-flow events on alluvial fans and cones still remains scarce,
although it is widely accepted that such knowledge is of crucial importance for the
assessment of hazards, mitigation of risks, and land-use planning. Modern methods
of historical dating of past debris-flow and flood events such as dendrochronology,
radiocarbon dating, and lichenometry can provide valuable insights into past process
activity and therefore complement historical records. In the field of natural hazard
management, these methods are mostly applied by scientists, but only rarely for
planning or engineering purposes.
It is the aim of this book to fill this gap by providing a detailed overview on
methods for the dating of historical events and by fostering the discussion on
the impact of past and potential future climatic changes on torrential processes.
The book summarizes state-of-the-art knowledge on dating methods with a clear
focus on the applicability of these methods in practice. The survey of methods is
complemented with potential fields of application and case studies and takes account
of the specific limitations of dating methods in case of excessive natural and human
interventions on fans and cones.
This book was realized within “AdaptAlp”, a project funded by the Alpine Space
Program of the European Commission. The AdaptAlp project (www.adaptalp.org)
contributes to a growing body of scientific research on the effect of climate change
within the Alpine region and on how our societies can adapt to the increasing risk
of natural disasters. An important issue tackled by AdaptAlp is the provision of
reliable data and design events for the Alpine space under current and possible
future conditions. There is a great need for innovative methods enabling better
and especially faster modelling, forecast, and thus prevention of impacts in a

v
vi Preface

changing world. The book goes far beyond the scope of this project and aims at
the comprehensive compilation of all dating methods applicable on alluvial fans in
the quality of a “state-of-the-art” report.
Furthermore, this book was also partly realized within the ACQWA project
(www.acqwa.ch) and benefitted from support of the Federal Ministry for Agricul-
ture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management of Austria and the Austrian
Service for Torrent and Avalanche Control. We gratefully acknowledge DI Maria
Patek, M.B.A. for paving the way for this fruitful cooperation. We would also like
to thank Prof. Dr. Martin Beniston, editor-in-chief of Advances in Global Change
Research, for giving us the opportunity to publish this book in his Springer series.
DI Andreas Pichler is warmly acknowledged for his helpful comments on the book
content. To enumerate all persons who contributed to the elaboration of this book
would exceed the scope of this preface and we therefore greatly acknowledge them
collectively.
The book is structured in four parts. After a short introduction (chapter “Dating
Past Events on Fans and Cones – An Introduction”), the fan and cone formation
is described (part “Material Transport and Fan or Cone Formation”). The central
part of the book (part “Dating Past Events”) then presents dating methods that
can be applied to track past hydrogeomorphic events on fans and cones. The basic
principles of all methods are described and their application is given with examples,
also illustrating advantages and limitations of the methods. In part “Documentation
and Monitoring”, the documentation of current-day events and the monitoring of
active channels is presented as current-day events provide a perfect occasion to
learn for any future events. In part “Application of Event Dating in Practice”, we
illustrate the use and application of data on past events for the assessment of hazard
and risk. The chapter also provides insights on how to cope with risk induced by
events on fans and cones. Possible impacts of climate change on hydrogeomorphic
activity are addressed in chapter “Climate Research and Adaptation Strategies –
Examples from the European Alps”. Finally, chapter “Dating Methods Overview:
Checklist for Practitioners” provides an overview on the dating methods with
a checklist for practitioners summarizing the main characteristics, advantages,
limitations, and costs of all methods. The book closes then with a short summary
and an outlook (chapter “Summary and Outlook”).

Berne and Vienna Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler

Markus Stoffel
Florian Rudolf-Miklau
Contents

Dating Past Events on Fans and Cones

– An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Markus Stoffel, Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler,
and Florian Rudolf-Miklau

Part I Material Transport and Fan or Cone Formation

Processes of Sediment Supply to Alluvial Fans and Debris Cones. . . . . . . . . . 15

Adrian Harvey
Susceptibility and Triggers for Debris Flows: Emergence,
Loading, Release and Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Roland Kaitna, Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler,
Thomas Sausgruber, Markus Moser, Markus Stoffel,
and Florian Rudolf-Miklau
Sediment Transport Processes .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Helmut Habersack and Andrea Kreisler
Debris-Flow Runout and Deposition on the Fan.. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Dieter Rickenmann and Christian Scheidl
Events on Fans and Cones: Recurrence Interval and Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . 95
Matthias Jakob

Part II Dating Past Events

Silent Witnesses for Torrential Processes .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Roland Kaitna and Johannes Huebl
Assessment of Past Torrential Events Through Historical Sources.. . . . . . . . 131
Vincenzo D’Agostino

vii
viii Contents

The Use of Airborne Laser Swath Mapping on Fans and Cones:

An Example from the Colorado Front Range.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Dennis M. Staley and Thad A. Wasklewicz
Dendrogeomorphology – Tracking Past Events with Tree Rings . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler and Markus Stoffel
Tree-Ring Based Record of Debris-Flow Dynamics and
Triggering Rain Storms at Ritigraben (Swiss Alps) since AD 1570 . . . . . . . . 179
Markus Stoffel
Vegetation Analysis on Composite Debris Cones . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Carlo Baroni, Rodolfo Gentili, and Stefano Armiraglio
Using Age of Colonizing Douglas-Fir for the Dating of Young
Geomorphic Surfaces—A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Thomas C. Pierson
Lichenometric Dating of Debris Avalanche Deposits
with an Example from the French Alps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Vincent Jomelli
Lake Sediments as Archives of Recurrence Rates
and Intensities of Past Flood Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Adrian Gilli, Flavio S. Anselmetti, Lukas Glur,
and Stefanie B. Wirth
Dating Fan Deposits with Cosmogenic Nuclides . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Susan Ivy-Ochs, Miriam Dühnforth, Alexander L. Densmore,
and Vasily Alfimov
Radiocarbon Dating: Alluvial Fan/Debris Cone Evolution and Hazards .. 265
Richard Chiverrell and Matthias Jakob
Luminescence Dating of Alluvial Fans and Cones. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Andreas Lang
Timing the Interface Between Mass Wasting and Fluvial
Processes with OSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Fritz Schlunegger, Kevin Norton, and Damian Steffen

Part III Documentation and Monitoring

Debris-Flow Monitoring in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Lorenzo Marchi and Pia Rosella Tecca
Documentation of Torrential Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Hans Kienholz, Johannes Hübl, and Anton Loipersberger
 Contents ix

Rainfall Thresholds for Possible Occurrence of Shallow

Landslides and Debris Flows in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Maria Teresa Brunetti, Fabio Luino, Carmela Vennari,
Silvia Peruccacci, Marcella Biddoccu, Daniela Valigi,
Silvia Luciani, Chiara Giorgia Cirio, Mauro Rossi, Guido Nigrelli,
Francesca Ardizzone, Mara Di Palma, and Fausto Guzzetti

Part IV Application of Event Dating in Practice

Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Markus Zimmermann
Dealing with Natural Hazard Risks in Switzerland – The
Influence of Hazard Mapping on Risk-Based Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Michael Bründl
Hazard Mapping and Land-Use Planning – A Swiss Perspective . . . . . . . . . . 367
Thomas Egli and Maja Stucki
Design Criteria for Torrential Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Florian Rudolf-Miklau and Jürgen Suda
Forecasting, Early Warning and Event Management:
Non-structural Protection Measures for Flash Floods
and Debris Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Marco Borga
Climate Research and Adaptation Strategies – Examples
from the European Alps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Gernot R. Koboltschnig
Dating Methods Overview: Checklist for Practitioners... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler, Markus Stoffel,
and Florian Rudolf-Miklau
Summary and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Michelle Schneuwly-Bollschweiler, Markus Stoffel,
and Florian Rudolf-Miklau

View publication stats