Predicting wake morphology during debris flow when passing a cylindrical obstacle is vital for disaster assessment, early warning, evacuation planning, engineering design, and ecologic conservation. It can provide a scientific foundation for pertinent decision-making processes, diminishing the risks and impacts of debris flow disasters. This study extracts the morphological characteristics of debris flow cylindrical flow traces through the steady-state motion of debris flow observed in a flume during cyclical tests. It introduces a theoretical prediction formula and compares it to empirical data. The results indicated that the morphology of debris flow cylindrical flow traces can be described as a wall-jet-like bow wave (a bow wave formed by an upward wall jet on the obstacle upstream face). The primary upstream inflow is predominantly discharged through the wall and lateral jets. Formulas for three crucial parameters that determine the morphology of the traces are derived by combining the aerodynamics theory and extant literature. The predicted outcomes strongly align with the experimental data, underscoring their high predictive precision.

Debris flows, which are prevalent geomorphic processes in mountainous regions, occur primarily due to the essential condition of steep slopes. Consequently, they are predominantly classified as supercritical gravity flows (Chen , 2015; Iverson, 1997; and Takahashi, 2009). When a debris flow meets an obstacle, its interaction resembles that of a supersonic gas flow confronting an obstacle in gas dynamics, given that the debris flow's velocity significantly surpasses the wave speed within the fluid. This interaction can lead to the emergence of either attached or detached shock waves (Amarouchene and Kellay, 2006). Earlier research on shock waves produced upstream of obstacles was concentrated in aerodynamics (Heil , 2004). However, with the broader application of relevant theories, the formation of shock waves during interactions between granular flows and supercritical open channel flows with obstacles has garnered increased scientific attention (Cui, 2019; Roux , 2022).

Savage (1979) first introduced the idea of shock waves in granular flows during his research on steady jumps upstream of a dividing plate. When a granular flow interacts with an obstacle, disturbances in the granular medium propagate through collisions between macroscopic particles. This implies that the sound speed within the granular flow is significantly lower in the air and less than the standard flow velocities of natural gravity flows. As a result, the shock waves' formation in granular flow–obstacle interactions is readily observable (Khan , 2020; Rericha , 2001; and Savage, 1988). Further studies have shown that a typical detached shock wave in granular flows exhibits parabolic shape, consisting of a central stagnant region surrounded by a moving grain envelope, resulting in nonlinear velocity increase in the radial direction (Amarouchene and Kellay, 2006).

Gray (2001, 2018) conducted a series of physical experiments on granular flows interacting with varied obstacles to produce shock waves. He adapted the analogous shallow water equations to simulate three-dimensional depth-averaged flows in complex terrains and subsequently compared the theoretical models with laboratory experiments. The outcomes confirmed the theory's capacity to accurately delineate the formation of normal shocks, oblique shocks, dead zones, and granular vacua, thereby establishing a comprehensive theory of shock waves in granular flows (Gray and Ancey, 2011; Gray and Cui, 2007; Gray and Edwards, 2014; and Gray , 2003, 2015).

When supercritical open channel flow encounters an impermeable barrier, observers typically note two flow patterns: a detached hydraulic jump or a wall-jet-like bow wave (Mignot and Riviere, 2010; Mignot , 2016; and Riviere , 2017). The transition between these patterns is governed by the ratio of incoming flow depth to the obstacle's characteristic size on its upstream face and by the Froude number (a dimensionless parameter that characterizes the relative magnitude of inertial force and gravity in a fluid) of the incoming flow. Riviere formulated a critical criterion for this mode transition, grounded in theoretical analysis and experimental observations (Riviere , 2017). Generally, for supercritical flows, when the obstacle is slender or the flow depth substantial, a wall-jet-like bow wave forms on the upstream face of the obstruction, directing the flow around the obstacle in a vertical jet pattern (Mignot and Riviere, 2010). Conversely, for wider and shallower flows, an independent hydraulic jump develops on the obstacle's upstream face (Roux , 2022).

Beyond granular and open channel flows, debris flows serve as typical examples of supercritical gravity flows in nature (Song , 2021, 2021b; Yan , 2023). The most frequent cylindrical obstructions that debris flows encounter include bridge piers and forests. Numerous investigations in the field and laboratories have delved into flow impact characteristics during debris flow passing a cylindrical obstacle (Cui , 2023; Wang , 2018a, 2018b, 2020). Nevertheless, research concerning the wake morphology of debris flow passing a cylindrical obstacle remains limited. The debris flows' intricate composition makes their interactions with obstacles more complex than those of granular or open channel flows. Thus, evaluating shock waves' formation characteristics during debris flow passing a cylindrical obstacle is vital for comprehending interactions between cylindrical obstructions, such as forests, pile-lined dams, bridge piers, and debris flows.

In order to quantitatively study the formation characteristics of wake morphology during the debris flows passing a cylindrical obstacle, this research employs a custom experimental apparatus: a cyclic flume designed for debris flows allows long-term stable circulation of debris flow through the use of a slurry pump and pipeline. This tool allows the debris flows to maintain a relatively stable motion, facilitating the quantitative measurement of pertinent parameters of wake morphology. The factors influencing the characteristics of cylindrical flow traces are quantitatively assessed, and theoretical derivations are utilized to introduce a predictive formula for wake morphology during debris flow passing a cylindrical obstacle. This formula is later verified using the experimental data.

The study investigated the characteristics of wake morphology during debris flow when passing a cylindrical obstacle. A cyclic flume designed for debris flows facilitated this examination [Fig. 1(a)]. The flume measured 6 m in length and 0.5 m in width. The cylindrical model was situated 4.5 m downstream from the upstream outlet, a point at which the debris flow had achieved a steady state. The design of the cyclic flume ensures a steady flow for an extended period, eliminating the need for repetitive tests in traditional water tanks to reduce errors. The width of the flume ensures that the sidewalls do not interfere with the formation of wake morphology, facilitating an unobstructed formation process. The stainless steel cylinder model was anchored at the flume's base and stood 15 cm tall. Three models were employed with 1, 2, and 3 cm diameter. An ultrasonic depth sensor (U-GAGE T30UX) was positioned upstream of the model to measure the flow's depth. A GoPro10 and two Sony cameras were strategically installed above the model, at the model's side and at the flume's tail end to document the wake morphology characteristics.

FIG. 1.

Experimental setup and instrumentation: (a) photograph of the experimental flume and (b) schematic diagram of the model and instrumentation setup. [The Gopro10 camera was used for video recording at 240FPS; the Ultrasonic distance sensor (USD) was utilized for measuring the depth of the debris flow; and the frequency transformer was employed to adjust the rotation speed to regulate the flow velocity.]

FIG. 1.

Experimental setup and instrumentation: (a) photograph of the experimental flume and (b) schematic diagram of the model and instrumentation setup. [The Gopro10 camera was used for video recording at 240FPS; the Ultrasonic distance sensor (USD) was utilized for measuring the depth of the debris flow; and the frequency transformer was employed to adjust the rotation speed to regulate the flow velocity.]

Close modal
The debris flow material was circulated in the flume during the experimental process using a slurry pump. Most traditional debris flow test flumes consist of two flume sections spliced together. A steeper flume provides the kinetic energy for the debris flow. A section with a smaller slope simulates the flow area and serves as a common structural installation area. In our setup, the circulation tank replaces the steep water tank, and a slurry pump provides the necessary kinetic energy. Using a frequency converter, effects similar to different slopes in traditional flumes can be achieved, ensuring a simple operation. In this study, the flume represents the circulation area. After multiple preliminary tests, we found that the debris flow exhibited more stable motion when the flume slope was set to 7°. Consequently, the flume's slope was maintained at 7° throughout the experiments. We used a frequency transformer to adjust the debris flow velocity, allowing for different Froude numbers (Fr). The modeled Fr ranged from 3.84 to 9.79, a range generally consistent with the Fr values observed in natural debris flows (0.5–7.6, Phillips and Davies, 1991). The calculated Fr is as follows:
F r = v R gh cos ϒ ,
(1)
where vR is the velocity of the incoming flow; h is the depth of the incoming flow; g is the gravitational acceleration; and γ is the slope of the flume.

The Froude number was controlled within the range observed in natural field debris flows (Phillips and Davies, 1991), addressing the scaling issue between laboratory experiments and field conditions.

The material properties of debris flows constitute a second experimental similarity issue in addition to the previously mentioned scale issue. Natural debris flows belong to non-Newtonian fluids and exhibit yield stress, which differs from Newtonian fluids (Iverson, 1997). The used solid material was collected from a viscous debris flow channel in Pingwu County, Sichuan, China. The test cylinder's diameter and the slurry pump's bearing capacity are limited. Particles larger than 10 mm were removed using a sieve, and the remaining material was utilized for the experiments.

Two different solid volume fractions of debris flow were used in this experiment. The solid volume fraction is denoted as vs and represents the number of solid components in the total volume of the debris flow mixture. The liquid component of the mixture is characterized by the liquid density ρ f, effective viscosity μ, and liquid volume fraction v f. It is widely accepted that both the solid and liquid components in debris flows are incompressible; therefore, v s + v f = 1. Figure 2 depicts the grain size distribution curve and rheological characteristics of the debris flow samples.

FIG. 2.

(a) Grain size distributions of debris flows and (b) rheological test of the liquid phase in debris flow.

FIG. 2.

(a) Grain size distributions of debris flows and (b) rheological test of the liquid phase in debris flow.

Close modal

The liquid phase of a debris flow consists of water and solid particles smaller than 0.0625 mm (Iverson, 1997). In this study, the proportion of solid particles smaller than 0.0625 mm was determined using the gradation curve. The bulk density of the liquid phase was calculated, and the corresponding debris flow liquid phase was prepared by adding water. Subsequently, the relationship between shear stress and shear rate in the liquid phase of the debris flow mixture was measured using a rheological test device. Figure 2(b) illustrates that the rheological characteristics of the liquid phase resemble those of a Newtonian fluid. To ensure more accurate determination of effective viscosity within the shear rate range relevant to debris flow, data points with shear rates greater than 50 were fitted. Rheological parameters were determined using a rheometer fitted with the Bingham model τ = τ c + μ γ ̇ to obtain the effective viscosity, μ (O'Brien and Julien, 1988; Wang , 2020).

This study considered three factors that can influence the results: the debris flow's inherent properties, the obstacle's diameter, and the flow velocity. In total, 30 experiments were executed, with the specific experimental conditions detailed in Table I. Figure 3 displays the wake morphology of the debris flows around a cylindrical obstacle. Upon colliding with the obstacle, the debris flow becomes disrupted; a portion ascends, reaching a height designated hjet, whereas another section flows in a parabolic trajectory around the cylinder's sides. The point where it meets the incoming flow depth is termed the wake's end, and the distance between this point and the flow's central axis is labeled as W. The angle formed between the wake and the central axis is denoted by θ. Ten images were extracted from videos of cameras placed atop and to the sides of the cylindrical obstacle. The hjet, W, and θ values were averaged to determine the final outcomes.  Appendix presents the side and top views of the experiment. Due to the camera angles being perpendicular to the flume's bottom or side, a visual discrepancy exists. Accurate values of the measured parameters can be determined using the following formula:
X r = X m D m × D r ,
(2)
where Xr is the actual value of the parameter being measured; Xm is the measured value of the parameter from the images; Dm is the measured value of the obstacle diameter from the images; and Dr is the true value of the obstacle diameter.
FIG. 3.

Wake morphology of debris flows around a cylinder produced based on Riviere (2017).

FIG. 3.

Wake morphology of debris flows around a cylinder produced based on Riviere (2017).

Close modal
TABLE I.

Experimental scheme and dimensionless number. In test ID, 1680 and 1860 stands for density. Numbers 10, 20, and 30 pertain to the cylinder's diameter in millimeters, while numbers 1–5 denote different groups of Fr values.

Test ID D m V m/s μ Pa·s ρ kg/m3 ρ s kg/m3 ρ f kg/m3 Vs Fr NBag
1680-10-1  0.01  2.40  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  6.52  111.9 
1680-10-2  0.01  2.88  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.04  141.6 
1680-10-3  0.01  2.98  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.85  130.7 
1680-10-4  0.01  3.24  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.43  138.6 
1680-10-5  0.01  3.48  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  9.02  147.6 
1680-20-1  0.02  2.40  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  6.67  117.0 
1680-20-2  0.02  2.88  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.77  132.4 
1680-20-3  0.02  3.36  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.66  141.0 
1680-20-4  0.02  3.60  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  9.01  142.5 
1680-20-5  0.02  3.84  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  9.79  157.6 
1680-30-1  0.03  2.40  0.0126  1j680  2650  1189  0.30  6.54  112.6 
1680-30-2  0.03  2.69  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.22  122.5 
1680-30-3  0.03  2.90  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.41  119.2 
1680-30-4  0.03  3.19  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.30  136.4 
1680-30-5  0.03  3.50  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.80  139.6 
1860-10-1  0.01  1.94  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  3.93  22.6 
1860-10-2  0.01  2.16  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.59  27.8 
1860-10-3  0.01  2.28  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.93  30.3 
1860-10-4  0.01  2.47  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.34  32.8 
1860-10-5  0.01  2.59  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.43  32.3 
1860-20-1  0.02  1.97  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  3.84  21.3 
1860-20-2  0.02  2.28  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.60  26.4 
1860-20-3  0.02  2.52  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.11  29.4 
1860-20-4  0.02  2.40  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.71  26.3 
1860-20-5  0.02  2.11  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.13  23.0 
1860-30-1  0.03  1.87  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.05  24.8 
1860-30-2  0.03  1.99  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.41  27.8 
1860-30-3  0.03  2.45  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.64  36.9 
1860-30-4  0.03  2.69  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  6.22  40.9 
1860-30-5  0.03  2.54  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.84  38.0 
Test ID D m V m/s μ Pa·s ρ kg/m3 ρ s kg/m3 ρ f kg/m3 Vs Fr NBag
1680-10-1  0.01  2.40  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  6.52  111.9 
1680-10-2  0.01  2.88  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.04  141.6 
1680-10-3  0.01  2.98  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.85  130.7 
1680-10-4  0.01  3.24  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.43  138.6 
1680-10-5  0.01  3.48  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  9.02  147.6 
1680-20-1  0.02  2.40  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  6.67  117.0 
1680-20-2  0.02  2.88  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.77  132.4 
1680-20-3  0.02  3.36  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.66  141.0 
1680-20-4  0.02  3.60  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  9.01  142.5 
1680-20-5  0.02  3.84  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  9.79  157.6 
1680-30-1  0.03  2.40  0.0126  1j680  2650  1189  0.30  6.54  112.6 
1680-30-2  0.03  2.69  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.22  122.5 
1680-30-3  0.03  2.90  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  7.41  119.2 
1680-30-4  0.03  3.19  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.30  136.4 
1680-30-5  0.03  3.50  0.0126  1680  2650  1189  0.30  8.80  139.6 
1860-10-1  0.01  1.94  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  3.93  22.6 
1860-10-2  0.01  2.16  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.59  27.8 
1860-10-3  0.01  2.28  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.93  30.3 
1860-10-4  0.01  2.47  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.34  32.8 
1860-10-5  0.01  2.59  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.43  32.3 
1860-20-1  0.02  1.97  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  3.84  21.3 
1860-20-2  0.02  2.28  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.60  26.4 
1860-20-3  0.02  2.52  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.11  29.4 
1860-20-4  0.02  2.40  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.71  26.3 
1860-20-5  0.02  2.11  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.13  23.0 
1860-30-1  0.03  1.87  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.05  24.8 
1860-30-2  0.03  1.99  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  4.41  27.8 
1860-30-3  0.03  2.45  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.64  36.9 
1860-30-4  0.03  2.69  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  6.22  40.9 
1860-30-5  0.03  2.54  0.0158  1860  2650  1274  0.35  5.84  38.0 

Figure 3 illustrates the wake morphology of the debris flow surrounding a cylindrical obstacle. Experimental images reveal the absence of a distinct water leap phenomenon upstream of the obstacle. Upstream, a part of the flow ascends the obstacle, generating a rolling edge at the pinnacle and exhibiting reverse spillage. Beyond the wall jet, a different section flows parabolically around the cylinder's sides, eventually settling on the debris flow's surface and forming lateral jets. A side view reveals that the parabolic trajectory's highest point lies above the wall jet's fixed point. Moreover, lateral jets formed on either side of the cylinder appear nearly symmetrical. This flow pattern aligns well with the wall-jet-like bow wave as described by Riviere (2017).

A portion of the upstream flow climbs along the obstacle to form a wall jet, whose maximum height is represented by hjet. In order to better investigate the factors influencing the climbing height and expand its applicability, hjet is nondimensionalized using the momentum-based height. This is achieved by defining the nondimensional height as h jet * = h jet / v R 2 / 2 g. Simultaneously, two significant dimensionless numbers, Fr and h/R (the ratio of flow depth to obstacle diameter), are selected as influencing factors. Figure 4 reveals the relationship between these dimensionless numbers.

FIG. 4.

The influence of Fr and h/R on h jet * (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

FIG. 4.

The influence of Fr and h/R on h jet * (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

Close modal

Figure 4(a) shows the relationship between Fr and h jet *. An increase in Fr correlates with a decrease in h jet *, indicating a consistent trend. However, when examining h/R in isolation, both high-density [Fig. 4(b), blue] and low-density debris flows [Fig. 4(b), red] display a decreasing relationship with h/R. This variation is potentially attributable to different fluid properties. Further discussion will probe the effects of the debris flow's internal viscous forces on its wake dynamics, particularly noting that as Fr and h/R rise, more material is expelled through the lateral jets during interactions with the obstacle.

The lateral jet, which serves as the upstream flow direction, is crucial in understanding the wake zone's extent behind cylindrical obstacles. Such knowledge is pivotal when assessing the protection and influence of clustered obstacles like forests, bridge piers, and pile structure arrays. Section II B introduced two key parameters, the wake's width W and the angle θ between the lateral jet and the central axis, to elucidate the lateral jet's characteristics. Figure 5 depicts the relationship between Fr and these parameters. As Fr increases, the angle θ between the lateral jet and the central axis starts to reduce [Fig. 5(a)]. Conversely, the wake width W displays an upward trend with a rising incoming Fr. Significantly, as observed in Fig. 5(b), similar Fr values coupled with a larger obstacle diameter lead to an expansion in the wake width W.

FIG. 5.

Lateral jet characteristics of wake width W and θ with Fr (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

FIG. 5.

Lateral jet characteristics of wake width W and θ with Fr (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

Close modal
When a debris flow encounters a cylindrical obstacle, the obstacle can be perceived as a nonpermeable barrier, anchored at the base and protruding from the free surface. Consequently, the fluid is compelled to navigate around it laterally. This behavior is defined, regardless of the specific flow pattern, by the principle of mass conservation. Given that Qin denotes the incoming flow discharge from upstream, its formulation can be described as follows:
Q i n = R v R h ,
(3)
where R is the radius of the cylinder; vR is the velocity of the incoming flow; and h is the depth of the incoming flow.
Section III A shows that the upstream flow has two main output modes. In this section, the flow rate of the wall jet is denoted as Qout−wall, and the flow rate of the lateral jet is denoted as Qout−lateral. The total output flow rate Qout is the sum of these two modes. When Qout is greater than or equal to Qin (QoutQin), the flow rate from the upstream can be fully discharged through the wall and the lateral jets, forming a wall-jet-like bow wave. On the other hand, if Qout is below Qin (Qout < Qin), a detached hydraulic jump will form. The threshold for QoutQin can be determined using the following equation with the detailed derivation given in Riviere (2017):
h R > 2 C · F r 2 ,
(4)
where C is a constant that reflects the head loss and the coefficient of kinetic energy transfer in the upstream flow. When Fr > 1, C = 1.1.

Figure 6 delineates the flow pattern classification diagram pertinent to the debris flow in the experiment. The red line represents Eq. (4). It can be seen that every experimental data point concerning the debris flow situates above this red line, indicating that they fall within the range of a wall-jet-like bow wave. This is consistent with the observed experimental phenomenon.

FIG. 6.

A decision bound for a wall-jet-like bow wave.

FIG. 6.

A decision bound for a wall-jet-like bow wave.

Close modal

1. Wall jet climbing height

Section III A demonstrates that the dimensionless height h jet * is influenced by Fr and h/R. The experimental study by Riviere (2017) proposed a fitting equation for the dimensionless height as follows:
h jet * = a h R b F r c h / R d ,
(5)
where a, b, c, and d are the fitting parameters.
On the other hand, the parameters used in Riviere's experiments do not apply to the present study, as their experiments involved water flow with h jet * values exceeding the maximum values observed herein. This discrepancy is likely due to the differences in the fluid properties. Nevertheless, the investigation in Sec. III B confirmed that the influence of h jet * is similar to that in water flow. Therefore, in Eq. (5), the least squares method can be used to fit the data herein and obtain new parameters. The fitting equation is given as follows:
h jet * = 1.48 h R 0.69 F r 0.31 h / R 1.47 .
(6)
Figure 7 indicates that Eq. (6) can accurately fit the measured values.
FIG. 7.

The comparison between the calculated and measured values of h jet *.

FIG. 7.

The comparison between the calculated and measured values of h jet *.

Close modal

2. Lateral jet characteristics

Historical aerodynamic research indicated that a shock wave emerges when the relative velocity discrepancy between an obstacle and a fluid surpasses the internal wave speed. In scenarios with a constant wave speed in a nondispersive Newtonian fluid, the wave front consolidates into a half-angle Mach cone, as elucidated by the Mach relationship (Buchholtz and Pöschel, 1998; Goldshtein and Shapiro, 1995). Drawing from the aerodynamic paradigm of Mach cones (Heil , 2004), a streamlined model characterizing the inception of shock waves in unwavering flow is formulated,
sin θ = c v R ,
(7)
where c is the speed of sound in the fluid; vR is the flow velocity of the fluid.
Figure 3 reveals that the lateral jet formed by the cylindrical flow of the debris flow exhibits a highly similar shape. The contoured delineation of the shock wave edge in geophysical currents is overlooked for computational expediency. Nevertheless, an unresolved query pertains to the method of ascertaining the sonic velocity within the debris flow. This brings another proposition, the depth-averaged shallow water hypothesis, indicating that the vertical fluid velocity can be disregarded in contrast to the velocity component parallel to the terrain. This supposition is ubiquitously acknowledged in the debris flow kinematics literature (Trujillo-Vela , 2022). Governed by the depth-averaged shallow water premise, the equations that dictate the free surface dynamics of an incompressible debris flow in a gravitational domain mirror those of compressible gas flow. Hence, a shock wave is engendered when the relative velocity between the fluid segment and the impediment surpasses a pivotal threshold. The critical velocity for waves on the free surface is the maximum gravity wave speed, given by c = g h (Heil , 2004). Therefore, the following equation for calculating the angle θ between the lateral jet of the debris flow and the axis can be derived as follows:
sin θ = g h v R .
(8)
It is essential to acknowledge that this study does not consider the rheological characteristics of debris flow as a non-Newtonian fluid and its influence on critical velocity. After defining the angle between the lateral jet and the central axis and assuming the intersection of the lateral jet and the central axis as the origin, with the flow direction designated as the y-axis and the direction perpendicular to the flow as the x-axis (refer to Fig. 3 top view), one can represent the edge morphology of the lateral jet in a plane view,
y = x sin θ x W 2 , R ; R , W 2 .
(9)
Subsequently, the value of the tail width W must be obtained. Observations from Sec. III A reveal that the lateral jet consists of streamlines that delineate the paths of the lateral jet particles. These particles eventually re-enter the flume downstream. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that the envelope of the lateral jet will invariably contain a particle that follows the path of maximum parabolic motion from the cylindrical obstacle, with both the release and landing points having equivalent flow depths. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that the particle undergoes a conversion between kinetic and gravitational potential energy during its parabolic trajectory and dismisses other forms of energy dissipation. This assumption yields the following velocity relationship:
v R 2 = v x 2 + v 0 2 ,
(10)
where vx is the velocity component along the x-direction after the object is launched; v0 is the velocity component along the trajectory tangent for the projectile motion.
The velocity component along the x-direction can be determined as follows: v x = g R sin γ (Amarouchene and Kellay, 2006), where γ is the slope of the flume. Based on the laws of parabolic motion, the projected length S of the parabola on the x-y plane can be expressed as follows:
S = 2 v 0 2 sin α cos α g ,
(11)
where α is the angle between the trajectory tangent at the time of launch and the x-y plane.
Combined with Eq. (8), the formula of the tail width W of the lateral jet can be determined as follows:
W 2 = 2 v 0 v x sin α g ,
(12)
S sin θ = W 2 .
(13)
By concurrently solving equivalents (8) and (10)–(13), the tail width W of the lateral jet can be expressed as follows:
W = 4 v x g v R 2 v x 2 F r 2 v x 2 ,
(14)
where v x = g R sin γ.

Figure 8 indicates the theoretical projections with the empirical values of θ and W. Due to certain simplifications applied during calculations, disparities exist between the theoretical and empirical values. Nevertheless, the results demonstrated that predicting the morphology of the debris flow cylinder is feasible. It is also evident that predictions are more accurate for low-density debris flows than for high-density ones.

FIG. 8.

A comparison between the calculated and measured values: (a) θ and (b) W.

FIG. 8.

A comparison between the calculated and measured values: (a) θ and (b) W.

Close modal

3. Error analysis

The relative error (RE) and mean relative error (MRE) are mathematical tools for gauging discrepancies between empirical and theoretical outcomes, offering insight into the model's predictive accuracy. The formulas are presented as follows:
R E = Y i ̂ Y i Y i ,
(15)
M R E = 1 n i = 1 n Y i ̂ Y i Y i ,
(16)
where Y i ̂ is the predicted value; Y i is the measured value.

Error assessments were conducted on three pivotal formulas related to the morphological prediction of the wall-jet-like bow wave, with the outcomes depicted in Fig. 9. As illustrated in Fig. 9, with an increase in Fr, the discrepancies in the formulas for h jet *, θ, and W diminish. Figure 9(a) shows the calculation errors for h jet *, with the MRE nearing zero. Figure 9(b) displays the nuanced calculation discrepancies for θ. As Fr increases, the RE gradually shifts from negative to zero and then to positive. For Fr = 6–8, the errors are mostly below 10%. Overall, the predicted values for θ tend to be underestimated, with an MRE of 2.98%. Although the error of W also decreases with the increase in Fr [Fig. 9(c)], the overall discrepancy remains positive, implying that calculated outcomes typically surpass measured ones. The most substantial errors are often related to high-density debris flow samples. The subsequent section will delve deeper into the influence of debris flow properties on these errors.

FIG. 9.

The error analysis between the calculated and measured values: (a) h jet *; (b) θ; and (c) W (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

FIG. 9.

The error analysis between the calculated and measured values: (a) h jet *; (b) θ; and (c) W (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

Close modal
Previous discussion has illuminated how debris flow properties influence the wake prediction of a cylindrical obstacle. To delve deeper into how these properties impact the accuracy of wake prediction formulas, a parameter that quantitatively captures the disparities in debris flow properties is essential. Based on the aforementioned results, debris flow data exhibit distinct characteristics depending on the variation in bulk densities. Among these characteristics, the viscosity coefficient stands out as a crucial parameter in debris flow with varying bulk density. It significantly influences the dynamic processes of debris flow. To discern variations in viscous shear stress within the debris flow mixture, the Bagnold number (NBag) is commonly utilized. Consequently, the impact of viscous forces on the model is analyzed through the incoming Nbag. It is quantified as the quotient of inertial grain stress and viscous shear stress, as described in the following equation:
N Bag = λ 1 / 2 ρ s δ 2 γ ̇ μ ,
(17)
where λ is the linear concentration λ 1 / 2 = v s 1 / 3 / v * 1 / 3 v s 1 / 3 1 / 2; v * is the closest packing sediment concentration equal to 0.65 (Bagnold, 1954); δ is the characteristic particle size(m), the value is D50; and μ is the viscosity of fluid (Pa·s), measured by the rheological test.

When N Bag exceeds 200, the dominant stress in debris flow mixture is particle collision stress, and the influence of viscous shear stress increases with the decrease in N Bag (Bagnold, 1954). Figure 10 shows the effect of viscous forces in debris flows on computational outcomes. For low-density debris flows with elevated NBag, the errors in the calculation formulas are primarily within 10%. The calculated values deviate from the actual values when NBag decreases, indicating an increase in the dominance of viscous stress within the debris flow. Specifically, for h jet * and W, the calculated values tend to be overestimated. For θ, the calculated value is often underestimated at low volume and overestimated at high volume weight. Given the upswing in viscous forces within the debris flow and an increase in the solid volume fraction, resistance during the wall-jet ascent intensifies. This dynamic results in empirical outcomes that are lower than their computational counterparts. Similarly, heightened density and the resultant surge in viscous stress alter the rheological characteristics of the debris flow. A growth in yield stress culminates in variations in the gravity wave's propagation speed atop the debris flow, a factor not considered during calculations. Thus, it is imperative to factor in the influence of the rheological properties of debris flow on the critical wave speed to enhance the prediction accuracy of debris flow cylinder wake morphology. Future endeavors should address this concern more methodically, potentially through techniques such as numerical simulations. The impact of debris flow rheological properties on the calculation error of θ subsequently causes an increase in the calculation error of W under high-density conditions.

FIG. 10.

Influence of viscous force of debris flow on calculation error: (a) h jet *; (b) θ; and (c) W (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

FIG. 10.

Influence of viscous force of debris flow on calculation error: (a) h jet *; (b) θ; and (c) W (1680–10 indicates that the density of debris flow is 1680 kg/m3 and the diameter of the obstacle is 10 mm).

Close modal

In conclusion, predicting the wave morphology caused by debris flows around cylindrical objects is crucial for disaster assessment and understanding the extent of these flows' impact on surrounding areas. This study, conducted through experiments in a recirculating flume, reveals that the flow pattern of debris flow around a cylindrical object resembles a wall-jet–like bow wave, without the formation of a hydraulic jump. The primary factors influencing this pattern are the Froude number and the ratio of flow depth to the cylinder's radius. The height of the wall jet decreases with increasing Froude number and depth-to-radius ratio. This relationship can be well approximated by the equation h jet * = 1.48 h R 0.69 F r 0.31 h / R 1.47. Additionally, the morphology of the lateral jet is characterized by parameters θ and W, where θ decreases, and the scouring zone width increases with a rising Froude number. The relationship between these parameters can be accurately predicted using equations: sin θ = g h v R and W = 4 v x g v R 2 v x 2 F r 2 v x 2. However, the accuracy of predicting the wall-jet-like bow wave morphology diminishes with increasing internal viscous stress of the debris flow, necessitating further exploration of the impact of the flow's rheological properties on its critical wave velocity. These predictions not only deepen our understanding of debris flow behaviors but also provide valuable guidance for the design and protection of infrastructural structures such as protective forests, pile forests, and bridge piers (Figs. 11 and 12).

FIG. 11.

Side view of the cylindrical flow of debris flow (D and V refer to dilute and viscous, respectively, corresponding to bulk densities of 1680 and 1860; 10, 20, and 30 refer to the cylinder diameter in millimeters; and 1–5 refer to different groups of Fr values (Table I).

FIG. 11.

Side view of the cylindrical flow of debris flow (D and V refer to dilute and viscous, respectively, corresponding to bulk densities of 1680 and 1860; 10, 20, and 30 refer to the cylinder diameter in millimeters; and 1–5 refer to different groups of Fr values (Table I).

Close modal
FIG. 12.

Top view of the cylindrical flow of debris flow (D and V refer to dilute and viscous, respectively, corresponding to bulk densities of 1680 and 1860; 10, 20, and 30 refer to the cylinder diameter in millimeters; and 1–5 refer to different groups of Fr values (Table I).

FIG. 12.

Top view of the cylindrical flow of debris flow (D and V refer to dilute and viscous, respectively, corresponding to bulk densities of 1680 and 1860; 10, 20, and 30 refer to the cylinder diameter in millimeters; and 1–5 refer to different groups of Fr values (Table I).

Close modal

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41925030) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA23090403).

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Wenrong Cui: Methodology (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). Jiangang Chen: Project administration (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Wanyu Zhao: Methodology (equal). Xiaoqing Chen: Funding acquisition (equal); Supervision (lead); Writing – review & editing (equal).

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8125848, reference Cui (2023).

Side view of the cylindrical flow of debris flow (D and V refer to dilute and viscous, respectively, corresponding to bulk densities of 1680 and 1860; 10, 20, and 30 refer to the cylinder diameter in millimeters; and 1–5 refer to different groups of Fr values (Table I). Top view of the cylindrical flow of debris flow (D and V refer to dilute and viscous, respectively, corresponding to bulk densities of 1680 and 1860; 10, 20, and 30 refer to the cylinder diameter in millimeters; and 1–5 refer to different groups of Fr values (Table I).

1.
Amarouchene
,
Y.
and
Kellay
,
H.
, “
Speed of sound from shock fronts in granular flows
,”
Phys. Fluids
18
(
3
),
031707
(
2006
).
2.
Bagnold
,
R. A.
, “
Experiments on a gravity-free dispersion of large solid spheres in a Newtonian fluid under shear
,”
Proc. R. Soc. A
225
(
1160
),
49
63
(
1954
).
3.
Buchholtz
,
V.
and
Pöschel
,
T.
, “
Interaction of a granular stream with an obstacle
,”
Granular Matter
1
(
1
),
33
41
(
1998
).
4.
Chen
,
X.
,
Cui
,
P.
,
You
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
J.
, and
Li
,
D.
, “
Engineering measures for debris flow hazard mitigation in the Wenchuan earthquake area
,”
Eng. Geol.
194
,
73
85
(
2015
).
5.
Cui
,
W. R.
(
2023
) “
Characteristics of Debris flow cylindrical flow traces
,”
Zenodo
.
6.
Cui
,
W. R.
,
Chen
,
J. G.
,
Chen
,
X. Q.
,
Tang
,
J. B.
, and
Jin
,
K.
, “
Debris flow characteristics of the compound channels with vegetated floodplains
,”
Sci. Total Environ.
868
,
161586
(
2023
).
7.
Cui
,
X.
, “
Shock waves: From gas dynamics to granular flows
,”
Int. J. Aeronaut. Aerosp. Eng.
1
(
1
),
7
9
(
2019
).
8.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
, “
Granular flow in partially filled slowly rotating drums
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
441
,
1
29
(
2001
).
9.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
,
Tai
,
Y.-C.
, and
Noelle
,
S.
, “
Shock waves, dead zones and particle-free regions in rapid granular free-surface flows
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
491
,
161
181
(
2003
).
10.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
, “
Particle segregation in dense granular flows
,”
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
50
(
1
),
407
433
(
2018
).
11.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
and
Ancey
,
C.
, “
Multi-component particle-size segregation in shallow granular avalanches
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
678
,
535
588
(
2011
).
12.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
and
Cui
,
X.
, “
Weak, strong and detached oblique shocks in gravity-driven granular free-surface flows
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
579
,
113
136
(
2007
).
13.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
and
Edwards
,
A. N.
, “
A depth-averaged μ(I)-rheology for shallow granular free-surface flows
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
755
,
503
534
(
2014
).
14.
Gray
,
J. M. N. T.
,
Gajjar
,
P.
, and
Kokelaar
,
P.
, “
Particle-size segregation in dense granular avalanches
,”
C. R. Phys.
16
(
1
),
73
85
(
2015
).
15.
Goldshtein
,
A.
and
Shapiro
,
M.
, “
Mechanics of collisional motion of granular materials. Part 1. General hydrodynamic equations
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
282
,
75
114
(
1995
).
16.
Heil
,
P.
,
Rericha
,
E. C.
,
Goldman
,
D. I.
, and
Swinney
,
H. L.
, “
Mach cone in a shallow granular fluid
,”
Phys. Rev. E
70
,
060301
(
2004
).
17.
Iverson
,
R. M.
, “
The physics of debris flows
,”
Rev. Geophys.
35
(
3
),
245
296
, https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426 (
1997
).
18.
Khan
,
A.
,
Verma
,
S.
,
Hankare
,
P.
,
Kumar
,
R.
, and
Kumar
,
S.
, “
Shock–shock interactions in granular flows
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
884
,
R4
(
2020
).
19.
Mignot
,
E.
,
Moyne
,
T.
,
Doppler
,
D.
, and
Riviere
,
N.
, “
Clear-water scouring process in a flow in supercritical regime
,”
J. Hydraul. Eng.
142
(
4
),
04015063
(
2016
).
20.
Mignot
,
E.
and
Riviere
,
N.
, “
Bow-wave-like hydraulic jump and horseshoe vortex around an obstacle in a supercritical open channel flow
,”
Phys. Fluids
22
(
11
),
117105
(
2010
).
21.
O'Brien
,
J. S.
and
Julien
,
P. Y.
, “
Laboratory analysis of mudflow properties
,”
J. Hydraul. Eng.
114
(
8
),
877
887
(
1988
).
22.
Phillips
,
C. J.
and
Davies
,
T. R. H.
, “
Determining rheological parameters of debris flow material
,”
Geomorphology
4
(
2
),
101
110
(
1991
).
23.
Rericha
,
E. C.
,
Bizon
,
C.
,
Shattuck
,
M. D.
, and
Swinney
,
H. L.
, “
Shocks in supersonic sand
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
88
(
1
),
014302
(
2001
).
24.
Riviere
,
N.
,
Vouaillat
,
G.
,
Launay
,
G.
, and
Mignot
,
E.
, “
Emerging obstacles in supercritical open-channel flows: Detached hydraulic jump versus wall-jet-like bow wave
,”
J. Hydraul. Eng.
143
(
7
),
04017011
(
2017
).
25.
Roux
,
S.
,
Link
,
O.
,
Riviere
,
N.
, and
Mignot
,
E.
, “
Live-bed pier scour in supercritical open-channel flows
,”
J. Hydraul. Res.
60
(
4
),
675
685
(
2022
).
26.
Savage
,
S. B.
, “
Gravity flow of cohesionless granular materials in chutes and channels
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
92
(
1
),
53
96
(
1979
).
27.
Savage
,
S. B.
, “
Streaming motions in a bed of vibrationally fluidized dry granular material
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
194
(
1
),
457
(
1988
).
28.
Song
,
D.
,
Zhou
,
G. G. D.
, and
Chen
,
Q.
, “
Flow resistance in the transition from dense to dilute granular-fluid flows
,”
Granular Matter
23
(
3
),
73
(
2021a
).
29.
Song
,
D.
,
Chen
,
X.
,
Zhou
,
G. G. D.
,
Lu
,
X.
,
Cheng
,
G.
, and
Chen
,
Q.
, “
Impact dynamics of debris flow against rigid obstacle in laboratory experiments
,”
Eng. Geol.
291
,
106211
(
2021b
).
30.
Takahashi
,
T.
, “
A review of Japanese debris flow research
,”
Int. J. Erosion Control Eng.
2
(
1
),
1
14
(
2009
).
31.
Trujillo-Vela
,
M. G.
,
Ramos-Cañón
,
A. M.
,
Escobar-Vargas
,
J. A.
, and
Galindo-Torres
,
S. A.
, “
An overview of debris-flow mathematical modelling
,”
Earth Sci. Rev.
232
,
104135
(
2022
).
32.
Wang
,
D.
,
Chen
,
Z.
,
He
,
S.
,
Liu
,
Y.
, and
Tang
,
H.
, “
Measuring and estimating the impact pressure of debris flows on bridge piers based on large-scale laboratory experiments
,”
Landslides
15
(
7
),
1331
1345
(
2018a
).
33.
Wang
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
X.
,
Yao
,
C.
, and
Li
,
Y.
, “
Debris-flow impact on piers with different cross-sectional shapes
,”
J. Hydraul. Eng.
146
(
1
),
04019045
(
2020
).
34.
Wang
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
X.
,
Yao
,
C.
,
Li
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
S.
, and
Zhang
,
X.
, “
Finite release of debris flows around round and square piers
,”
J. Hydraul. Eng.
144
(
12
),
06018015
(
2018b
).
35.
Yan
,
Y.
,
Tang
,
H.
,
Hu
,
K.
,
Turowski
,
J. M.
, and
Wei
,
F.
, “
Deriving debris-flow dynamics from real-time impact-force measurements
,”
J. Geophys. Res.
128
(
3
),
e2022JF006715
, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JF006715 (
2023
).