Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 535

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

The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large‐scale experiments

Iverson, Richard M., Logan, Matthew, LaHusen, Richard G., Berti, Matteo·2010·Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface

Abstract

Aggregation of data collected in 28 controlled experiments reveals reproducible debris‐flow behavior that provides a clear target for model tests. In each experiment ∼10 m 3 of unsorted, water‐saturated sediment composed mostly of sand and gravel discharged from behind a gate, descended a steep, 95‐m flume, and formed a deposit on a nearly horizontal runout surface. Experiment subsets were distinguished by differing basal boundary conditions (1 versus 16 mm roughness heights) and sediment mud contents (1 versus 7 percent dry weight). Sensor measurements of evolving flow thicknesses, basal normal stresses, and basal pore fluid pressures demonstrate that debris flows in all subsets developed dilated, coarse‐grained, high‐friction snouts, followed by bodies of nearly liquefied, finer‐grained debris. Mud enhanced flow mobility by maintaining high pore pressures in flow bodies, and bed roughness reduced flow speeds but not distances of flow runout. Roughness had these effects because it promoted debris agitation and grain‐size segregation, and thereby aided growth of lateral levees that channelized flow. Grain‐size segregation also contributed to development of ubiquitous roll waves, which had diverse amplitudes exhibiting fractal number‐size distributions. Despite the influence of these waves and other sources of dispersion, the aggregated data have well‐defined patterns that help constrain individual terms in a depth‐averaged debris‐flow model. The patterns imply that local flow resistance evolved together with global flow dynamics, contradicting the hypothesis that any consistent rheology applied. We infer that new evolution equations, not new rheologies, are needed to explain how characteristic debris‐flow behavior emerges from the interactions of debris constituents.

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 · 10.1029/2009jf001514

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

See all 535

Metadata

Authors
Iverson, R. M., Logan, M., LaHusen, R. G., & Berti, M.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
Published
2010-07-10
Volume
115
Issue
F3
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051896092
Cited by
535
References
1
FWCI
52.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large‐scale experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2009jf001514
The paper
Iverson, R. M., Logan, M., LaHusen, R. G., & Berti, M. (2010). The perfect debris flow? Aggregated results from 28 large‐scale experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jf001514

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.