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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Iverson, R. M. (1997) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/97rg00426 · Cited by 3,092
Self-citation
Cited by
Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sediment
Iverson, R. M., Reid, M. E., Logan, M., LaHusen, R. G., Godt, J. W., & Griswold, J. P. (2011) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo1040 · Cited by 630
Self-citationParticle Segregation in Dense Granular Flows
Gray, J. M. N. T. (2018) · Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-122316-045201 · Cited by 353
Iverson, R. M., & Ouyang, C. (2015) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2013rg000447 · Cited by 340
Self-citationElementary theory of bed‐sediment entrainment by debris flows and avalanches
Iverson, R. M. (2012) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface · doi:10.1029/2011jf002189 · Cited by 320
Self-citationTalling, P. J., Paull, C. K., & Piper, D. J. W. (2013) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.07.005 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Iverson, R. M., Logan, M., LaHusen, R. G., & Berti, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- 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.