## 4 Results
### Simulation Results and Field Evidence  
The modelled hillslope debris flow runout and deposition behavior are shown in Figure 8. We use photos taken by local residents immediately after the event and our terrain surveys as reference to compare the simulation results with real conditions. The initial source areas in the upslope position, determined by the hillslope debris flow disposition index, represent plausible locations with nearly identical dimensions compared to the actual scar. For the modelling framework we estimated the mass to drag ratio (\(m/d\)) based on a combination of field observations. We integrated the relatively large mobilized mass (\(\sim\)1350 m\({}^{3}\)) calculated by the mass balance of the DEM difference, the high amount of fine material as observed in the scar and, based on stratigraphical evidence derived from sediment coring, the relatively low incision rate in the runout track as an indication of a moderate flow rate as well as the measured flow length. The sliding friction coefficient \(\mu\) is highly dependent on the land cover, and therefore we used spatially distributed friction values based on the land cover type in comparison with the literature values [42; 43; 45; 46]. The downstream flow calculated from these input parameters (c.f. Table 2) is largely consistent with the real runout behavior (Figure 8).  
The accordance between the generated model and the observed runout is about 97%. In agreement with the real event, the model shows moderate erosion along the slope and high deposition rates (up to 3 m, anthropogenically leveled after the event) at the foot slope, where the house functions as a barrier. In addition, the accumulation of material on the road coincides with the real event as documented (Figure 8).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Sediment Unit (SU)** & **Description** \\ \hline Ia & topsoil, clayy silt, dark brown, soft, non-calcareous, humous, charcoal and root fragments, sand- and claystone debris \\ \hline Ib & topsoil, clayy silt, greyish brown, soft, non-calcareous, weakly humous, charcoal and root fragments, sand- and limestone debris \\ \hline Ic & topsoil, clayy silt, dark greyish brown, soft, non-calcareous, humous, root fragments \\ \hline II & periglacial slope deposits, clayey silt to silty clay, reddish brown, slightly hard, non-calcareous, rich in sandstone debris \\ \hline III & periglacial slope deposits, clayey silt to silty clay, reddish brown, hard (dense), non-calcareous, including little sandstone debris \\ \hline Iva & weathered bedrock, clay, reddish brown, extremely hard, non-calcareous \\ \hline Ivb & weathered bedrock, clay, purple grey, extremely hard, slightly calcareous, solid limestone at its base \\ \hline V & colluvial deposits, clayey silt, reddish grey-brown, soft, non-calcareous, weakly humous, including little sandstone debris, charcoal and root fragments \\ \hline VI & periglacial slope deposits, clayey to silty sand, reddish grey, loose to slightly hard (porous), non-calcareous, sandstone debris \\ \hline VII & periglacial slope deposits, limestone debris (yellowish-grey) and intercalated, thin clayey silt layers (brown), loose (porous) to slightly hard (clayey silt layers), slightly calcareous \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Sediment units described for the Biersdorf sediment cores.