53 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Integrating experimental and numerical approaches to simulate viscous debris flows using an HBP-SPH framework N. Pandey et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01603-0
2. Shear-thinning, Coulomb friction and grain collisions in debris-flow waterfalls: Applications of a 3D phase mixture model with a single calibration parameter and a complex 4-way coupled resolved CFD-DEM approach A. von Boetticher et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202341502024
3. Numerical modeling of tsunamis generated by granular landslides in OpenFOAM®: A Coulomb viscoplastic rheology A. Romano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2023.104391
4. Tree-Based Machine Learning and Flow Simulation for Debris Flow Susceptibility, Runout Propagation, and Dynamics in the Higher Himalayas H. Daud et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-025-10196-3
5. Optimizing rheological properties for printability: low-temperature extrusion 3D printing of hydroxyapatite-polycaprolactone mixture inks for bone tissue engineering M. Yan & H. Awad https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2023.1239692
6. The force exerted by granular flows on slit dams A. Leonardi et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-00842-6
7. Effect of gradation variation on particle transport process in a generalized flash flood gully via CFD-DEM method Y. Nie et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-022-00862-z
8. On the energy transfer of tsunamis generated by subaerial granular landslides: A 2D numerical analysis A. Romano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2025.104821
9. Topography-based and vectorized algorithm for extracting physical quantities in 3D-SPH form and its application in debris-flow entrainment modeling B. Su et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107693
10. Load–deflection of flexible ring-net barrier in resisting debris flows Y. Kong et al. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.22.00135
11. Modeling submerged granular flow across multiple regimes using the Eulerian–Eulerian approach with shear-induced volumetric behavior Q. Phan et al. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0092726
12. Bi‐Linear Laws Govern the Impacts of Debris Flows, Debris Avalanches, and Rock Avalanches on Flexible Barrier Y. Kong et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JF006870
13. Understanding the 2004 glacier detachment in the Amney Machen Mountains, northeastern Tibetan Plateau, via multi-phase modeling T. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-022-01989-2
14. A generalized quasi two-phase bulk mixture model for mass flow P. Pokhrel et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2017.12.003
15. A general analytical model for superelevation in landslide S. Pudasaini & M. Jaboyedoff https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01333-1
16. A fully analytical model for virtual mass force in mixture flows S. Pudasaini https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.01.005
17. Application of Sensitivity Analysis for Process Model Calibration of Natural Hazards C. Chow et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060218
18. Modeling Near-Field Impulsive Waves Generated by Deformable Landslide Using the HBP Model Based on the SPH Method W. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11802-024-5527-y
19. Brief communication: In-situ measurements of basal sliding in natural debris flows G. Nagl et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-1883-2026
20. A Numerical Investigation on Droplet Bag Breakup Behavior of Polymer Solution G. Chu et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12102172
21. EDDA 2.0: integrated simulation of debris flow initiation and dynamics considering two initiation mechanisms P. Shen et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2841-2018
22. Numerical Modeling and a Parametric Study of Various Mass Flows Based on a Multi-Phase Computational Framework M. Naqvi et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics2030025
23. SPH simulations of non-isothermal viscoplastic free-surface flows incorporating Herschel-Bulkley-Papanastasiou model X. Xu & W. Yu https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2024.106491
24. An overview of debris-flow mathematical modelling M. Trujillo-Vela et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104135
25. A numerical study of the transition process from rock-ice avalanche to debris flow W. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-026-02701-4
26. Landslide impacts on built environment: Numerical analysis of the forces exerted by granular material collapsing on dry and submerged conditions G. Barajas et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2025.104902
27. Effect of debris-flow sediment grain-size distribution on fan morphology H. Tsunetaka et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-10-775-2022
28. Debris Flow Analyst (DA): A debris flow model considering kinematic uncertainties and using a GIS platform Y. Wu & H. Lan https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105877
29. An optimized volume of fluid method for modelling three-dimensional debris flows. Implementation in OpenFOAM, validation, and application in the Aiwa Watershed, Beijing Y. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104651
30. Runout Scaling and Deposit Morphology of Rapid Mudflows L. Jing et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JF004667
31. A multiphase virtual mass model for debris flow P. Kattel et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2020.103638
32. Coalescence and mixing of a polymeric drop impacting on a dissimilar, miscible polymeric liquid film A. Bera et al. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0270238
33. Debris-Flow Impact on Piers with Different Cross-Sectional Shapes Y. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001656
34. Experimental study of viscous debris flow characteristics in drainage channel with oblique symmetrical sills T. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.11.024
35. Changes in granular textures of debris flow viewed from the unified grain size distribution T. Yang et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-025-07297-x
36. The compressible granular collapse in a fluid as a continuum: validity of a Navier–Stokes model with , -rheology M. Rauter https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2021.107
37. A modeling methodology to study the tributary-junction alluvial fan connectivity during a debris flow event A. Garcés et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-377-2022
38. An Integrated Study to Evaluate Debris Flow Hazard in Alpine Environment D. Tiranti et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00060
39. Including μ(I) rheology in three-dimensional Navier–stokes-governed dynamic model for natural avalanches Z. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.11.003
40. Determining trigger factors of soil mass failure in a hollow: A study based in the Sichuan Province, China J. Habumugisha et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106368
41. An improved DebrisInterMixingFoam for debris flow simulation: numerical investigation and application R. Li & Y. Teng https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05376-x
42. An extended quasi two-phase mass flow model K. Khattri & S. Pudasaini https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2018.07.008
43. A Multi‐Phase Mass Flow Model S. Pudasaini & M. Mergili https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005204
44. Development of a mathematical model for submarine granular flows P. Si et al. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5030349
45. Channel flow simulation of a mixture with a full-dimensional generalized quasi two-phase model K. Khattri & S. Pudasaini https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2019.03.014
46. Methodology for assessing pipeline failure probability due to a debris flow in the near field S. Song et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15956
47. A homogenized sliding-block model for landslide motion analysis F. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2025.02.019
48. faSavageHutterFOAM 1.0: depth-integrated simulation of dense snow avalanches on natural terrain with OpenFOAM M. Rauter et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2923-2018
49. DebrisInterMixing-2.3: a finite volume solver for three-dimensional debris-flow simulations with two calibration parameters – Part 2: Model validation with experiments A. von Boetticher et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3963-2017
50. Debris-Flow Hazard Assessments: A Practitioner's View M. Jakob https://doi.org/10.2113/EEG-D-20-00110
51. Numerical simulation of debris-flow behavior based on the SPH method incorporating the Herschel-Bulkley-Papanastasiou rheology model Z. Han et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.04.013
52. How Flexible, Slit and Rigid Barriers Mitigate Two‐Phase Geophysical Mass Flows: A Numerical Appraisal Y. Kong et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JF006587
53. Two-particle method for liquid–solid two-phase mixed flow F. Chen et al. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0140599