the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Distinguishing run-up height from pressure distribution during avalanche impact on narrow obstacles: mechanisms and semi-empirical prediction
Abstract. In current engineering practice, run-up height is assumed to define the vertical extent of significant impact pressure of snow avalanches on narrow obstacles, such as cableway masts or transmission towers. Laboratory experiments indicate that this assumption is invalid in fast, inertia-driven regimes; however, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood, limiting the physical basis for improving design practice. To clarify these mechanisms and refine engineering formulations, we conduct a comprehensive numerical investigation using a three-dimensional Material Point Method, varying avalanche velocity and rheological parameters. Our results substantiate that run-up height and the vertical extent of significant impact pressure, which we term pressure height, are distinct quantities governed by different mechanisms. Both include a gravity-driven component controlled by avalanche rheology, largely independent of flow velocity. In fast flows, however, the two quantities diverge: run-up height gains a dominant inertia-driven component scaling with the square of flow velocity, with avalanche rheology controlling energy dissipation. Pressure height, by contrast, remains velocity-independent. This divergence arises from flow deflection at a granular dead zone near the obstacle base, where momentum is redirected, and impact pressure concentrates. Building on these distinctions, we propose separate semi-empirical formulations for run-up height and pressure height. The run-up formulation follows the structure of the widely used Swiss avalanche guidelines, but replaces simplified avalanche-type classifications with a rheological parametrization. The pressure-height relation adopts the same framework, while reflecting its distinct, velocity-independent governing mechanism.
- Preprint
(11102 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1181', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jun 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael Josef Kohler, 27 Aug 2026
We would like to thank Anonymous Referee #1 for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the constructive feedback, which will help improve its quality. In the attached document, we list each comment verbatim, give our response, and describe how we address it in the revised manuscript.
Â
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael Josef Kohler, 27 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1181', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Aug 2026
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this very interesting paper.
GeneralAs a practicing engineer, I appreciate the author’s efforts to improve on methods to calculate pressure height distribution on narrow objects. I like the definition of pressure height. The rheology-flow regime parameters seem reasonable.Â
Since the design of tall narrow structures subject to avalanche impact is often determined by the overturning moment rather than the total force, the heights of impact are critical for design. The simplifed point-mass methods overestimate impact pressure heights and can lead to overly-conservative designed, unless modified by engineering judgement.Â
SpecificThe graphical abstract (adapted from Margreth, et.al., 2015) shows a curious pressure distribution with the highest pressure at the base. This differs from Fig. 1 in the reference.
Constitutive model oversimplifies, Â but is reasonable.
Results for the inertia-driven regime (Fr=5) represent common conditions for design. However, Froude numbers up to 10 occur for dry dense flowing avalanches. Why were higher Froude numbers not modeled?
Fig. 3 illustrates findings nicely and is consistent with full scale avalanches.
An example calculation and comparison with traditional method for the proposed empirical method might be helpful. One possibility is Example E.2 , Load on a 20m mast in the 2009 EC Design of Avalanche Protection Dams.
There is no discussion of temperature or wet avalanches flows. This might be stated directly or describe limits of temperature and/or water content that the methods are limited to. Conversely, state the “ideal” conditions where confidence is highest.
On line 242, “the spirit of the Swiss guidelines” is referenced. What is meant by this?Â
My experience and judgment are consistent with the finding that pressure height becomes “saturated” and empirical methods are off at high Fr. Numbers. Fig. 5 illustrates this nicely.
Perhaps the most interesting finding of the numerical approach is the w/H affect for narrow structures. Lines 332-333 are relevant for design purposes. I calculate a 23% underestimation of f-r(w/H) for dense flow at w/H=0.5 based on Fig. 10. This is very interesting and important for design purposes. I look forward to seeing this finding tested, verified or modified as new data becomes available.ÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1181-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Michael Josef Kohler, 27 Aug 2026
We would like to thank Anonymous Referee #2 for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the constructive feedback, which will help improve its quality. In the attached document, we list each comment verbatim, give our response, and describe how we address it in the revised manuscript.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Michael Josef Kohler, 27 Aug 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 373 | 231 | 41 | 645 | 35 | 31 |
- HTML: 373
- PDF: 231
- XML: 41
- Total: 645
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
The presented manuscript introduces a new approach determining the influence of granular flows on mast-like structures. It addresses an important question in the structural designing process: How high does an avalanche run up and what pressure acts on a structure? The concept of separating run up height from the hight of relevant pressure is described and well justified. Although simplifications were necessary, these are stated on the one hand and, on the other hand, the results demonstrate an improvement over existing approaches. Relating to this only Swiss guidelines are referenced, while a similar approach is also defined in a recently published Austrian standard (OENORM B 4801). Including this standard could further emphasize the importance of the topic.
Specific comments
Title: The authors could reconsider the title of the publication to clearly indicate that their results are based on numerical simulations.
Line 16: In this sentence the authors define snow avalanches as natural granular flows. In my opinion granular flows are conceptual models that provide an approximaton to nature.Â
Line 110; 391: How was the value of 25kPa choosen?Â
Line 118: What is meant by "...sufficiently large to minimize boundary effects and adjusted based on the compressibility"? It would be helpful to clarify the underlying assumptions.
Figure 3(a): It would be helpful to explain the pronounced drop of the upper envelope of FR=5 at t/tmax = 0.55.Â
Technical comments
Some full stops are missing at the end of figure captions.Â
Parts of the text in figure A1 ist hard to read ("2.5 dx"). Adding a halo or outline around the text could improve readability.Â
Figure 8: Since lambda is mentioned before zeta in the text (Line 293), the panels a and b could be swapped for consistency.Â
Line 340-341: Please check sentence structure
Figure A2/A4: The variable phi is presented in different styles to Figure 1. A uniform notation is recommended.Â