Numerical modeling using an elastoplastic-adhesive  discrete element code for simulating hillslope debris flows  and calibration against field experiments

Albaba, Adel; Schwarz, Massimiliano; Wendeler, Corinna; Loup, Bernard; Dorren, Luuk

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2339-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2339-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2339-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 11

Research article

|

30 Oct 2019

Research article |

| 30 Oct 2019

Numerical modeling using an elastoplastic-adhesive discrete element code for simulating hillslope debris flows and calibration against field experiments

Adel Albaba, Massimiliano Schwarz, Corinna Wendeler, Bernard Loup, and Luuk Dorren

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Oct 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 28 Nov 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Effects of Grain Size', Bruno Cagnoli, 10 Dec 2018
- AC3: 'Authors' reply to comments', Adel Albaba, 14 Jun 2019
RC1: 'Some comments on NHESS 2018-301', Stéphane Lambert, 20 Dec 2018
- AC1: 'Authors' reply 1', Adel Albaba, 14 Jun 2019
RC2: 'Elasto-plastic-adhesiveDEM model for simulating hillslope debris flows:cross comparison with field experiments', Alessandro Leonardi, 19 Mar 2019
- AC2: 'Authors' reply 2', Adel Albaba, 14 Jun 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (23 Jun 2019) by Mario Parise

AR by Adel Albaba on behalf of the Authors (04 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Aug 2019) by Mario Parise

RR by Stéphane Lambert (19 Aug 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear authors

I acknowledge the work made for improving the article, based on the comments and suggestion from the reviewers. The changes made to the article title, content and structure are significant and appropriate. This revised version is worth being published providing the minor comments below are accounted for.

There are some typos (row 4 of page 1; row 34 of page 9 …row 15 of page 17 …row 1 of page 20...).

Pieces of information given at the beginning of section 2.1.2 are redundant with section 2.1.1.

The reason for having kc=k1 is arbitrary. It could be debated. A kc value much less than k1 could have been proposed. At least, the authors should state this choice is arbitrary and not supported by any data (or physical considerations), if correct.

What is the volume mentioned row 2 of page 9 ? (sum of the particles volume ?)

On row 3 of page 9, I would replace 'dense' by 'denser'.

Row 9 of page 10: the fact that the height is measured perpendicular to the slope should be mentioned here and not page 17.

Plotting results presented Fig. 8 as the ratio of the measured value to the mean value would be more appropriate, and would facilitate the point made based on this figure.

Row 24-25 of page 14 : the way the error is computed is not clear. Why comparing 2 successive values ?

Figure 9 : replace 'signal' by 'interval'

From figure 9, I would suggest not using continuous lines without symbols for plotting discontinuous measures or data.

Row 18 of page 15 : here and in different places, I would replace 'impact' by 'load'. (also for ‘impact rate’, page 24)
Row 7 of page 18: correct to Figure 14.

At the beginning of section 3.3.1 the calibration parameters considered for these simulations should be indicated. Either refer to fig. A1(a) or to Figure 22.

Row 12 of page 20: please indicate the filtering interval considered here.

Row 18 of page 22: I suggest replacing ‘best’ by ‘better’, because no comparison with other fitting approaches has been made up to now.

Rows 17 of page 25 to row 2 of page 26: this is not crystal clear and deserves improvement.

Rows16-18 of page 26: This comment opens to an important point the authors should mention one way or another. The flow is made of fine materials but is modeled using ‘large’ particles. As a consequence, the rheology of the flowing material can’t be accounted for precisely. For instance, the model is not able to model the velocity gradient near the flume base. The magnitude of this phenomenon and its influence on the flow mean velocity is variable depending on the flowing material characteristics. The proposed model indirectly accounts for this phenomenon via the basal friction angle. A high fiction angle induces a basal shear with similar effect on the flow mean velocity. This may explain why a high friction angle is considered for flow 16, exhibiting the higher fine fraction together with a low water fraction. This at lesat deserves a comment.

S. Lambert

Hide

RR by Alessandro Leonardi (05 Sep 2019)

ED: Publish as is (09 Sep 2019) by Mario Parise

Short summary

We present a discrete-element-based model which is adapted and used to produce hillslope debris flows. The model parameters were calibrated using field experiments, and a very good agreement was found in terms of pressure and flow velocity. Calibration results suggested that a link might exist between the model parameters and the initial conditions of the granular material. However, to better understand this link, further investigations are required by conducting detailed lab-scale experiments.