Abstract:Flexible, slit, and rigid barriers are common countermeasures to mitigate natural geophysical mass flows, but presently, quantitative comparisons of their performance are lacking, due to the challenges involved in accurately representing the multi‐body and multi‐phase interactions. This study presents a numerical appraisal on this issue using a physics‐based coupled computational fluid dynamics and discrete element method (CFD‐DEM). A geophysical flow is considered as a mixture of discrete gap‐graded particles (DEM) and a continuous viscous slurry (CFD), whereas a permeable and deformable barrier structure can be modeled by DEM. The in‐flow multiphase interactions and flow‐barrier interactions can be rigorously modeled by a coupling scheme between DEM and CFD. Our numerical simulations reasonably capture both field and experimental observations on key features of flow‐barrier interactions and barrier responses. The different intercepting mechanisms of three barriers via pile‐up and runup modes are revealed by qualitative and quantitative characterizations. Flexible barriers perform the best under runup mode regarding much larger peak load reduction ratios (up to 89%) due to their high permeability and Fr‐dependent load‐deflection behavior. We further compile a barrier‐specific design diagram that suggests existing analytical models calibrated by limited experiments may underestimate the peak impact for slit and rigid barriers due to their neglect of large solid particles in the impinging flows while leading to overestimations for flexible barriers owing to inappropriate representations of barrier permeability and structural deformability. Our findings may offer a basis for model improvements and developments in practical barrier selection and design. Engineers commonly use flexible, open‐type, and closed‐type barriers to reduce the adverse impacts of natural geophysical mass flows. However, the selection and design of barriers mainly rely on engineering experience and simplified models. We present a numerical study based on the coupled fluid‐solid modeling to offer quantitative reference on this issue. The numerical framework employed enables a unified description of a geophysical flow as a mixture of solid particles and a continuous viscous slurry and any of the three barrier types, offering a consistent comparison basis. We compare the different intercepting mechanisms of three types of barriers in resisting an impinging flow and identify their intertwined dependence of incoming flow characteristics, barrier deformability and passing ability, and peak impact loads. A flexible barrier is found to outperform the other two in achieving better peak load reduction ratios (up to 89%) with a runup mode, due to its high passing ability and load‐deflection behavior. The compilation of a unified barrier‐specific design diagram highlights the influences of barrier passing ability, structure deformability, and large solid particles on the peak impacts. This work could help for developing better analytical models on specific barrier design to mitigate natural geohazards caused by geophysical mass flows. Coupled fluid‐solid simulations of geophysical flows against flexible, slit and rigid barriers reveal their distinct intercepting mechanisms The flexible barrier performs the best under runup mode owing to its high permeability and Fr‐dependent load‐deflection behavior Compilation of a barrier‐specific design diagram highlights the effects of large particles, barrier permeability, and structure deformability Coupled fluid‐solid simulations of geophysical flows against flexible, slit and rigid barriers reveal their distinct intercepting mechanisms The flexible barrier performs the best under runup mode owing to its high permeability and Fr‐dependent load‐deflection behavior Compilation of a barrier‐specific design diagram highlights the effects of large particles, barrier permeability, and structure deformability

How Flexible, Slit and Rigid Barriers Mitigate Two‐Phase Geophysical Mass Flows: A Numerical Appraisal

A New Insight into the Dynamic Impact Between Geophysical Flow and Rigid Barrier

Quantifying the transition of impact mechanisms of geophysical flows against flexible barrier

Influence of Solid–fluid Interaction on Impact Dynamics Against Rigid Barrier: CFD–DEM Modelling

Geophysical flows impacting a flexible barrier: effects of solid-fluid interaction

Load deflection of flexible ring net barrier in resisting debris flows

Deciphering controls for the impact of geophysical flows on a flexible barrier: Insights from coupled CFD-DEM modeling

A coupled SPH–DEM–FEM approach for modeling of debris flow impacts on flexible barriers

Large Scale Physical Modelling Study of a Flexible Barrier under the Impact of Granular Flows

Performance of debris flow barriers: an energy perspective

Large-scale physical modelling study of a flexible barrier under the impact of granular flows

Effects of Particle Size of Mono-Disperse Granular Flows Impacting a Rigid Barrier

Reply to the Discussion by Liu Et Al. on "physical and Numerical Study of Lateral Diversion by Three-Layer Inclined Capillary Barrier Covers under Humid Climatic Conditions"

Interaction Mechanisms between Natural Debris Flow and Rigid Barrier Deflectors: A New Perspective for Rational Design and Optimal Arrangement

Dynamic Response of Granular Flows on a Rigid Barrier: Dense versus Dilute Flow

Coupled numerical simulation of a flexible barrier impacted by debris flow with boulders in front

Quantitative analysis of debris-flow flexible barrier capacity from momentum and energy perspectives

Impact Mechanisms of Granular Flow Against Curved Barriers

Debris flow overflowing flexible barrier: physical process and drag load characteristics

Numerical Investigation of Multiple-Impact Behavior of Granular Flow on a Rigid Barrier

Effects of Barrier Stiffness on Debris Flow Dynamic Impact—II: Numerical Simulation