Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Debris-flow monitoring and warning: Review and examples

Open access
Hürlimann, Marcel, Coviello, Velio, Bel, Coraline, Guo, Xiaojun, Berti, Matteo, Graf, Christoph, Hübl, Johannes, Miyata, Shusuke, Smith, Joel B., Yin, Hsiao-Yuan·2019·Earth-Science Reviews

Abstract

Abstract Debris flows represent one of the most dangerous types of mass movements, because of their high velocities, large impact forces and long runout distances. This review describes the available debris-flow monitoring techniques and proposes recommendations to inform the design of future monitoring and warning/alarm systems. The selection and application of these techniques is highly dependent on site and hazard characterization, which is illustrated through detailed descriptions of nine monitoring sites: five in Europe, three in Asia and one in the USA. Most of these monitored catchments cover less than ∼10 km2 and are topographically rugged with Melton Indices greater than 0.5. Hourly rainfall intensities between 5 and 15 mm/h are sufficient to trigger debris flows at many of the sites, and observed debris-flow volumes range from a few hundred up to almost one million cubic meters. The sensors found in these monitoring systems can be separated into two classes: a class measuring the initiation mechanisms, and another class measuring the flow dynamics. The first class principally includes rain gauges, but also contains of soil moisture and pore-water pressure sensors. The second class involves a large variety of sensors focusing on flow stage or ground vibrations and commonly includes video cameras to validate and aid in the data interpretation. Given the sporadic nature of debris flows, an essential characteristic of the monitoring systems is the differentiation between a continuous mode that samples at low frequency (“non-event mode”) and another mode that records the measurements at high frequency (“event mode”). The event detection algorithm, used to switch into the “event mode” depends on a threshold that is typically based on rainfall or ground vibration. Identifying the correct definition of these thresholds is a fundamental task not only for monitoring purposes, but also for the implementation of warning and alarm systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102981

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hürlimann, M., Coviello, V., Bel, C., Guo, X., Berti, M., Graf, C., Hübl, J., Miyata, S., Smith, J. B., & Yin, H.-Y.
Venue
Earth-Science Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
199
Pages
102981
ISSN
0012-8252 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981386717
Cited by
297
References
1
FWCI
25.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.