the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Comparative Analysis of μ (I) and Voellmy-Type Grain Flow Rheologies in Geophysical Mass Flows: Insights from Theoretical and Real Case Studies
Abstract. The experimental-based μ(I) rheology is now prevalent to describe the movement of gravitational mass flows. Here, we reformulate μ(I) rheology as a Voellmy-type relationship to illustrate its physical implications. Through one-dimensional block modeling and a real case study, we explore the equivalence between μ(I) and widely-used Voellmy-type grain flow rheologies. Results indicate that μ(I) rheology utilizes a dimensionless inertial number to mimic contributions of granular temperature/fluctuation energy. In terms of Voellmy, the μ(I) rheolgy contains a velocity-dependent turbulent friction coefficient modelling shear thinning behavior. This turbulent friction assumes the production and decay of fluctuation energy are in balance, exhibiting no difference during accelerative and dipositional phases. The constant Coulomb friction coefficient prevents μ(I) rheology from accurately modeling the dispositional characteristics of actual mass flows. Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of both μ(I) and Voellmy rheologies, bolstering the theoretical foundation of mass flow modeling while revealing practical engineering challenges.
- Preprint
(1402 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Sep 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-87', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Aug 2024
reply
This manuscript, based on theoretical derivation and practical cases, comparatively analyzes the μ(I) and Voellmy-type rheological relationships in geophysical mass flows. The study has positive value for modeling granular flows. Specific suggestions are as follows: (1) Please clearly specify the information about the case study in the abstract. (2) Provide more information about Figure 4, including the latitude and longitude grid and the location of the event on a larger map, so that readers can easily identify where the event occurred. (3) In the discussion, it is recommended to add a description and analysis of the limitations of the methods and results of this manuscript, as well as future work prospects. (4) Add a conclusion section. In summary, major revisions are recommended."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-87-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
151 | 52 | 6 | 209 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 151
- PDF: 52
- XML: 6
- Total: 209
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1