Properties of debris flow deposits and source materials compared: Implications for debris flow characterization

21Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In the Alps, debris flow deposits generally contain <5% clay-size particles, and the role of the surface-charged <2 μm particles is often neglected, although these particles may have a significant impact on the rheological properties of the interstitial fluid. The objective of this study was to compare debris flow deposits and parent materials from two neighbouring catchments of the Swiss Alps, with special emphasis on the colloidal constituents. The catchments are small in area (4 km2), 2.5 km long, similar in morphology, but different in geology. The average slopes are 35-40%. The catchments were monitored for debris flow events and mapped for surface aspect and erosion activity. Debris flow deposits and parent materials were sampled, the clay and silt fractions extracted and the bulk density, <2 mm fraction bulk density, particle size distribution, chemical composition, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and mineralogy analysed. The results show that the deposits are similar to the parent screes in terms of chemical composition, but differ in terms of: (i) particle size distribution; and (ii) mineralogy, reactivity and density of the <2 mm fraction. In this fraction, compared with the parent materials the deposits show dense materials enriched in coarse monocrystalline particles, of which the smallest and more reactive particles were leached. The results suggest that deposit samples should not be considered as representative of source or flow materials, particularly with respect to their physical properties. © Journal compilation 2007 International Association of Sedimentologists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bardou, E., Boivin, P., & Pfeifer, H. R. (2007). Properties of debris flow deposits and source materials compared: Implications for debris flow characterization. Sedimentology, 54(2), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00855.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free