Landslide Types and Processes David M. Cruden y Davi J. Varnes
Landslide Types and Processes David M. Cruden y Davi J. Varnes
Landslide Types and Processes David M. Cruden y Davi J. Varnes
DAVID
M.
CRUDEN AND
DAVID
J. VARNES
LANDSLIDE TYPES
AND PROCESSES
1. INTRODUCTION
.T
36
with landslide activity, many of Hutchinson's sugCosta and Wieczorek (1987). Eisbacher and
Clague (1984) and Skermer's translation of Heim's
gestions from the Working Party on the World
Bergsturz und Menschenleben (1932) have made
Landslide Inventory (WP/WLl) have been
adopted (WP/WLI 1993a,b).
descriptions of the classic landslides of the European Alps more accessible to North Americans.
Under Hutchinson's chairmanship, the International Association of Engineering Geology (IAEG)
Important reviews of landsliding around the
world were edited by Brabb and Harrod (1989) and
Commission on Landslides and Other Mass MoveKozlovskii (1988). Kyunttsel (1988) reviewed
ments continued its work on terminology. The
declaration by the United Nations of the Interexperience with classification in the USSR and
noted "considerable divergences of views between
national Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
various researchers concerning the mechanisms
(1990-2000) prompted the IAEG Commission's
underlying certain types oflandslides. This applies
Suggested Nomenclature for Landslides (1990) and
the creation of the WP/WLI by the International
particularly to lateral spreads."
A historical perspective has been added to, the
Geotechnical Societies and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
discussion of spreading to show that this type of
landslide was recognized in North America over - (UNESCO). The Working Party, formed from the
IAEG Commission, the Technical Committee on
100 years ago and is represt:,nted here by some
extremely large movements. Both the size and the
Landslides of the International Society for Soil
gentle slopes of these movements command parMechanics and Foundation Engineering, and nomticular attention.
inees of the International Society for Rock MeCrozier commented:
chanics, published Directory of the World Landslide
Inventory (Brown et al. 1992) listing many workers
The two generalized classifications most likely
interested in the description of landslides worldto be encountered in the English speaking
wide. The Working Party has also prepared the
world are by}.N. Hutchinson (1968; Skempton
MultilinguaL Landslide Glossary, which will encourand Hutchinson, 1969) and D.}. Varnes (1958;
age the use of standard terminology in describing
1978).... Both authors use type of movement
landslides (WP/WLI 1993b). The terminology
to establish the principal groups.... The major
suggested in this chapter is consistent with the sugdistinction between the two classifications is
gested methods and the glossary of the UNESCO
the difference accorded to the status of flow
Working Party (WP/WLI 1990, 1991, 1993a,b).
movements ... slope movements which are
initiated by shear failure on distinct, boundary
2. FORMING NAMES
shear surfaces but which subsequently achieve
most of their translational movement by
The criteria used in the classification of landslides
flowage . . . this dilemma depends on whether
presented here follow Varnes (1978) in emphasizthe principal interest rests with analyzing the
ing type of movement and type of material. Any
conditions offailure or with treating the results
landslide
can be classified and described by two
of movement. Hutchinson's classification
the
first describes the material and the secnouns:
appears to be related more closely to this first
ond describes the type of movement, as shown in
purpose. . .. Both Hutchinson's and Varnes'
Table 3-1 (e.g., rock fall, debris flow).
classifications have tended to converge over
The names for the types of materials are un. recent years, particularly in terminology.. .' .
changed from Varnes's classification (1978): rock,
Whereas Varnes' scheme is perhaps easier
debris, and earth. The definitions for these terms are
to apply and requires less expertise to use,
given in Section 7. Movements have again been
Hutchinson's classification has particular
divided into five types: falls, topples, slides, spreads,
appeal to the engineer contemplating stability
analysis. (Crozier 1986, Ch. 2)
and flows, defined and described in Section 8. The
sixth type proposed by Varnes (1978, Figure 2.2),
complex landslides, has been dropped from the forThe synthesis of these two classifications has conmal classification, although the term complex has
tinued. Hutchinson (1988) included topples, and
this chapter has benefited from his comments,' In
been retained asa description of the style of activity of a landslide. Complexity can also be indicated
Section 4 of this chapter particularly, which deals
37
38
TYPE OF
MOVEMENT
BEDROCK
PREDOMINANTLY COARSE
PREDOMINANTLY FINE .
Fall
Topple
Slide
Spread
Flow
Rock fall
Rock topple
Rock slide
Rock spread
Rock flow
Debris fall
Debris topple
Debris slide
Debris spread
Debris flow
Earth fall
Earth topple
Earth slide
Earth spread
Earth flow
STATE
DISTRIBUTION
STYLE
Active
Reactivated
Suspended
Inactive
Dormant
Abandoned
Stabilized
Relict
Advancing
Rerrogressive
Widening
Enlarging
Confined
Diminishing
Moving
Complex
Composite
Multiple
Successive
Single
WATER CONTENT
MATERIAL
TYPE
Extremely rapid
Very rapid
Rapid
Moderate
Slow
Very slow
Extremely slow
Dry
Moist
Wet
Very wet
Rock
Soil
Earth
Debris
Fall
Topple
Slide
Spread
Flow
WATER CoNTENT
MATERIAL
TYPE
Extremely rapid
Very rapid
Rapid
Moderate
Slow
Very slow
Extremely slow
Dry
Moist
Wet
Very wet
Rock
Soil
Earth
Debris
Fall
Topple
Slide
Spread
Flow
The name of a landslide can become more elaborate as more information about the movement
becomes available. To build up the complete identification of the movement, descriptors are added
in front of the two-noun classification using a preferred sequence of terms. The suggested sequence .
provides a progressive narrowing of the focus of the
descriptors, first by time and then by spatiallocation, beginning with a view of the whole landslide,
continuing with parts of the movement, and finally
defining the materials involved: The recommended
sequence, as shown in Table 3-2, describes activity
(including state, distribution, and style) followed
by descriptions of all movements (including rate,
water content, material, and type).
This sequence is followed throughout the chapter and all terms given in Table 3-2 are highlighted
in bold type and discussed. Second or subsequent
movements in complex or composite landslides
can be described by repeating, as many times as
necessary, the descriptors used in Table 3-2.
Descriptors that are the same as those for the first
movement may then be dropped. from the name.
For instance, the very large, and rapid slope
movement that occurred near the town of Frank,
Alberta, Canada, in 1903 (McConnell and Brock
1904) was a complex, extremely rapid, dry rock
fall-debris flow (Figure 3 ~ 1). From the full name of
this landslide at Frank, one would know that both
the debris flow and the rock fall "Yere extremely
rapid and dry because no other descriptors are used
for the debris flow.
As discussed in Section 4.3, the addition of the
descriptor complex to the name indicates the
sequence of movement in the landslide and distinguishes this landslide from a composite rock
fall-debris flow, in which rock fall and debris flow
movements were occurring, sometimes siinultaneously, on different parts of the displaced mass. The
39
(oblique aerial
photograph from
south). About 4: 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ . _ . _.._
40
FIGURE 3-2
Blackhawk landslide:
view upslope to
south over lobe
of dark marble
breccia spread
beyond mouth of
Blackhawk Canyon
on north slope of
San Bernardino
Mountains in
;outhern California.
Maximum width of
obe is 2 to 3 km;
1eight of scarp at
lear edge is about
15 m [Varnes 1978,
:igure 2.28 (Shelton
1966)].
:OPYRIGHT JOHN
,HELTON
s.
:IGURE 3-3
310ck diagram of
dealized complex
~arth slide-earth
low (Varnes 1978,
:igure 2.1 t).
'.1
"
19
/--I
Bfi
-9
(
6
19
B
11..
41
FIGURE 3-4
Landslide features:
upper portion, plan
of typical landslide
in which dashed line
indicates trace of
rupture surface on
original ground
surface; lower
portion, section in
which hatching
indicates undisturbed
ground and stippling
shows extent of "
displaced material.
Numbers refer to
features defined in
Table 3-3 (lAEG
Commission
on Landslides 1990).
Table 3-3
Definitions of Landslide Features
NUMBER
NAME
DEFINITION
1
2
Crown
Main scarp
4
5
Top
Head
Minor scarp
Main body
Foot
8
9
Tip
Toe
10
Surface of rupture
11
13
Toe of surface of
rupture
Surface of separation
Displaced material
14
Zone of depletion
15
16
17
Zone of accumulation
Depletion
Depleted mass
18
19
Accumulation
Flank
20
12
42
VOL.eps =.1.
1ta . b . c
3
where a, b, and care semimajor axes. Thus, the
volume of a "spoon shape" corresponding to onehalf an ellipsoid is
4
4
VOL =-1 -1ta
. b . c =-1ta
. b.C
Is
23
FIGURE 3-5
Landslide dimensions:
upper portion, plan
of typical landslide
in which dashed line
is trace of rupture
surface on original
ground surface;
VOL
Is
= - 1ta .
6
1
b . c =-4 1tD . W /2 . L /2
.6'
=-1tD
W
L,
6
r
,
B
lower portion,
section in which
hatching indicates
undisturbed ground,
stippling shows
extent of displaced
material, and broken
line is original ground
surface. Numbers
refer to dimensions
defined in Table 3-4
(IAEG Commission
on Landslides 1990).
ful in remedial work. For instance, for many rotational landslides, the surface of rupture can be
approximated by half an ellipsoid with semiaxes
q, W)2, LJ2. As shown in Figure 3-6(a), the
volume of an ellipsoid is (Beyer 1987, 162)
Table 3-4
Definitions of Landslide Dimensions
NUMBER
NAME
DEFINITION
1
2
Total length, L
Length of center line, Lei
(a) Ellipsoid
(b) Landslide
','.;,
43
FIGURE 3-6
Estimation of
landslide volume
assuming a
half-ellipsoid
shape.
from the crown despite the frequency of this assumption, originally due to Heim (1932). Material
displaced from close to the landslide crown usually
comes to rest close to the head of the landslide.
Nicoletti and Sorriso-Valvo (1991) proposed that
an estimate of the "overall runout" of a landslide be
determined by measuring the length of a line constructed along the original ground surface equidistant from the lateral margins of the displaced
material. However, such measurements may not
have immediate physical significance and are also
more difficult and imprecise than measurements of
L. The length of the landslide measured through
these central points is called the length ofcenter line,
Lei' Note that Lei will increase w~th the number of
points surveyed on the center line, and the ratio
L)L will increase with the curvature of the center
line in plan and section.
The difference in elevation between the crown
and the tip of the landslide may be used to determine H, the height of the landslide. Combining
estimates of Hand L allows computation of the
travel angle ex, as shown by Figure 3-7. If the tip is
visible from the crown, the travel angle can be mea-
FIGURE 3-7
Definition of
travel angle (ex)
of a landslide.
11
44
FIGURE 3-8
Mobility of
sturzstroms, chalk
debris flows, and
landslides in mine
wastes related to
travel angle (a)
and debris volume
. (modified from
Hutchinson 1988,
Figure 12).
4. LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY
r----...,..-----r------r----~----r_---___r__=
60
KEY
_ Chalk failures forming a talus
failures forming a flow slide
Flow slide in coal mine waste
o Flow slide in kaolinized granite
7 6 Approximate value of H (m)
More mobile Alpine and Cordilleran
sturzstroms
(reported by Hsu,1 975)
1.6
o Chalk
-1;:- ..........
,...,
zo "-
Q)
C,
c:
C'lI
"-
-Z1
1.2
talus
format! on
'\
'5\
"-
Qi
>
...
c:
...
C'lI
~
'-"
C'lI
'\
9~~~
II
.....
\\
-I
....... 0.4
:I:
0.0 L -
10 3
'\
~}.
'\ '
~8Z
-I
CI
Z
"-.......
granite
---J
40
30
.........._0 85
0)
'-"
-I
>
20
a:
135Crt:t_
"
Q)
Q)
Q)
'g
,,,,,'.
"-
I I)
50
Tentative
for chalk
\
increasing
:\ degree of
0.8
138 145
0 -
I-
10
---Ji--
---J
.....I._---'_ _--L
10 7
10 6
lOS
DEBRIS
VOLUME
(m 3 )
10 8
- - - J _....
10 9
FIGURE 3-9
Proposed standard
landslide report
form.
LANDSLIDE REPORT
Inventory Number:
Date of Report:
day
month
year
month
year
Degrees
Position:
Minutes
Seconds
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation:
crown
m as.I.
Surface of rupture
toe
m as.I.
tip
m as.I.
Geometry:
Volume:
Damage:
Surface.of rupture
Displaced Mass
Length
L=
r
LeF
Width
W=
r
Wd =
Depth
D=
r
Dd =
V= nLdDdW./6
orV =
Swell factor =
V=
m3 x 10"
n=
Value
Injuries
Deaths
L=
46
tem is compared with a stability classification proposed by Crozier (1984). For further information
on such alternative systems, the reader should refer
to Tables 9-1, 9-2, and 9-6 and the associated text
in Chapter 9.
FIGURE 3-10
Sections through
topples in different
states of activity:
(1) active-erosion at
toe of slope causes
block to topple;
(2) suspendedlocal cracking in
crown of topple;
(3) reactivatedanother block
topples;
(4) dormantdisplaced mass
begins to regain its
tree cover and
scarps are modified
by weathering;
(5) stabilized-fluvial
deposition stabilizes
toe of slope, which
begins to regain its
tree cover; and
(6) relict-uniform
tree cover over slope.
1~
2
47
Displacement of
landslide in different
states of activity.
SUSl'ENDED-+
SUSPENDED
Time in years
can be created by plotting differences in the position of a target on the displacing material with
time. Such graphs are particularly well suited to
portraying the behavior of slow-moving landslides
because they presuppose that the target is not displaced significantly over the time period during
which measurement takes place. The velocity of
the'target can be estimated by the average rate of
displacement of the target over the time period
between measurements.
There is some redundancy in using the descriptions of activity state with those for rate of movement (see Section 5). Clearly, if the landslide has
a measurable rate of movement, it is either active
or reactivated. The state of activity might then be
used to refer to conditions before the current
movements of the landslide. If, for instance, remedial measures had been undertaken on a landslide
that is now moving with moderate velocity, the
landslide might be described as a previously stabilized, moving, moderate-velocity landslide. Landslides
with no discernible history of previous movement
would be described as active.
4.2 Distribution of Activity
Varnes (1978) defined a number of terms that can
be used to describe the activity distribution in a
landslide. Figure 3-12 shows idealized sections
through landslides exhibiting various distributions
of activity.
If the surface of rupture is extending in the direction of movement, the landslide is advancing,
whereas if the surface of rupture is extending in the
direction opposite the movement of the displaced
material, the landslide is said to be retrogressive. If
the surface of rupture is extending at one or both
lateral margins, the landslide is widening. Movement may be limited to the displacing material or
(5) confined.
In 1-4, Section 2
shows slope after
movement on
rupture surface
indicated by shear
arrow. Stippling
indicates displaced
material.
48
landslide may exhibit diminishing behavior. Movement may stop in parts of both rotational slides and
topples after substantial displacements because the
movements themselves reduce the gravitational
forces on the displaced masses. Similarly, movements of rock masses may rapidly dilate cracks in
the masses, cause decreases in fluid pore pressures
within these cracks, and hence decrease rates of
movement. However, it may be premature to conclude that the displacing material is stabilizing
because the volume being displaced is decreasing
with time. Hutchinson (1973) pointed out that the
activity of rotational slides caused by erosion at the
toe of slopes in cohesive soils is often cyclic.
4.3 Style of Activity
FIGURE 3-13
Sections through
landsliaes showing
different styles of
activity. (1) Complex:
gneiss (A) and
migmatites (I) are
forming topples
caused by valley
incision; alluvial
materials fill valley
bottom; after
weathering further
weakens toppled
material, some of
displaced mass
moves by sliding
(modified from
Giraud et al. 1990).
(2) Composite:
limestones have
slid on underlying
shales, causing
toppling failures
below toe of slide
rupture surface
(modified from
Harrison and
Falcon 1934).
(3) Successive:
later landslide (AB)
is same type as
landslide CD but
does not share
displaced material
or rupture surface.
(4) Single.
Pion
A
........-.
6m
I
1
I
2
I!
t
f
: i
49
(b)
Inactive head scarp
(a)
Comoosite
head scarps
(a)
Single Topple
5. RATE OF MOVEMENT
weak
(b)
Multiple
substratum
Topples
HWM
LWM
FIGURE 3-15
Comparison of (a) single topple (Hutchinson 1988) with (b) multiple
topples [modified from Varnes 1978, Figure 2.1 d1 (de Freitas and
Watters 1973)].
50
FIGURE 3-16
Varnes landslide
movement scale
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.1 u).
Typical
Velocity
Velocity Description
(ft/sec)
10 2
Extremely
Rapid
10 1
10 0
10ft/sec
Very
3 m/sec
Rapid
10- 1
lft/min
1010- 3
Rapid
10- 4
10- 5
10- 6
10- 7
5ft/day
1.5 m/day
5ft/mo
1.5 m/mo
Slow
5ft/yr
Very
1.5 m/yr
Slow
1ft/5yr
60 mm/yr
Extremely
Slow
Velocity Description
Class
Moderate
10- 8
10- 9
0.3 m/min
Velocity
(mm/sec)
Typical
Velocity
5xl0 3
5 m/sec
5xl0 l
3 m/min
5x 10- 1
1.8 m/hr
5xl0- 3
13 m/month
5xl0- 5
1.6 m/year
5x 10- 7
16
Extremely
Rapid
Very
Rapid
I
FIGURE 3-17
Proposed landslide
velocity scale.
Rapid
Moderate
Slow
Very
Slow
Extremely
Slow
mm/year
51
Table 3-5
Definition of Probable Destructive Significance of Landslides of Different
Velocity Classes
LANDSLIDE
VELOCITY
CLASS
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Table 3-6
Examples of Landslide Velocity and Damage
LANDSLIDE
NAME OR
LOCATION
REFERENCE
EsTIMATED
LANDSLIDE
VELOCITY
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
Elm
Goldau
Jupille
Frank
Vaiont
Ikuta
St. Jean Vianney
Aberfan
Heim (1932)
Heim (1932)
Bishop (1973)
McConnell and Brock (1904)
Mueller (1964)
Engineering News Record (1971)
Tavenas et al. (1971)
Bishop (1973)
70 m/sec
70 m/sec
31 m/sec
28 m/sec
25 m/sec
18 m/sec
7 m/sec
4.5 m/sec
Panama Canal
Cross (l924)
1 m/min
Handlova
6 m/day
3
3
Schuders
Wind Mountain
Huder (l976)
Palmer (1977)
10 m/year
10 m/year
2
2
2
Lugnez
Little Smoky
Klosters
Huder (l976)
Thomson and Hayley (1975)
Haefeli (l965)
0.37 m/year
0.25 m/year
0.02 m/year
Wilson (l970)
0.02 m/year
LANDSLIDE
VELOCITY
CLASS
DAMAGE
115 deaths
457 deaths
11 deaths, houses destroyed
70 deaths
1,900 deaths by indirect damage
15 deaths, equipment destroyed
14 d~aths, structures destroyed
144 deaths, some buildings
damaged
Equipment trapped, people
escaped
150 houses destroyed, complete
evacuation
Road maintained with difficulty
Road and railway requir~ frequent
maintenance, buildings adjusted
periodically
Six villages on slope undisturbed
Bridge protected by slip joint
Tunnel maintained, bridge
protected by slip joint
Movements unacceptable,
slope flattened
52
FIGURE 3-18
Mudslide fabric and
associated variability
in water content
(modified from
Hutchinson 1988,
Figure 9).
Location of
water-content
sample
etJ1
Varnes (1978) suggested the following modifications to terms first proposed by Radbruch-Hall
(1978) to describe the water content of landslide
materials by simple observations of the displaced
material:
7. MATERIAL
Site B
(Sheppey)
Overall
Sample
43%
48%
Lump
41%
34%
General
Matrix
46%
52%
True
1(>46%)
1(>52%)
Matrix
6. WATER CONTENT
Typical water-content
values for London Clay
Site A
(Beltinge)
53
(a)
(b)
-=-3m
(c)
8. TYPE OF MOVEMENT
~l
(d)
5(X)m
(e)
8.1 Fall
FIGURE 3-19
Types of landslides:
(a) fall, (b) topple,
(c) slide, (d) spread,
(e) flow. Broken
lines indicate original
ground surfaces;
arrows show portions
of trajectories of
individual particles
of displaced mass
[modified from
Varnes 1978, Figure
2.1 (Zaruba and
Mencl 1969)].
54
8.2 Topple
of Toppling
Bray as
occurring in rocks with one preferred discontinuity system, oriented to present a rock slope
with semi-continuous cantilever beams....
Continuous columns break in flexure as they
bend forward.... Sliding, undermining or erosion of the toe (of the displaced mass) lets the
failure begin and it retrogresses backwards with
deep, wide tension cracks. The lower portion
of the slope is covered with disoriented and disordered blocks.... The outward movement of
each cantilever produces interlayer sliding
(flexural slip) and ... back-facin{scarps (obsequent scarps).... It is hard to say where the
base of the disturbance lies for the change is
gradual. . . . Flexural toppling occurs most
notably in slates, phyllites and schists. (Goodman and Bray 1976, 203)
A flexural topple in the proposed classification is a
I
!
55
(a)
(c)
FIGURE 3-20
Three modes of toppling. (a) Flexural: cracks indicate tension-crack topple;
fallen blocks below topple show movement is complex rock topple-rock
fall. (b) Chevron: multiple block topple; hinge surface of chevron may
develop into surface of rupture of slide forming complex multiple rock
topple-rock slide. (c) Block-flexure.
56
8.3 Slide
FIGURE 3-21
Debris topple
(Varnes .1978,
Figure 2.1 e).
.q.
I
!
I
I
(a)
(b)
(d)
57
FIGURE 3-22
Examples of
rotational and
translational slides:
(a) rotational rock
slide; (b) rotational
earth slide;
(c) translational rock
slide (upper portion
is rock block slide);
(d) debris slide;
(e) translational earth
block slide[Varnes
1978, Figures 2.1 g,
2.1i, 2.1j2, 2.1k, 2.11
(Hansen 1965)].
(c)
tribute to a sag pond in the backward-tilted, displaced mass. This disruption of drainage may keep
the displaced material wet and perpetuate the
slope movements until a slope of sufficiently low
gradient is formed.
In translational slides (Figures 3-22, 3-25, and
3-26) the mass displaces along a planar or undulating surface of rupture, sliding out over the original ground surface. Translational slides generally
are relatively shallower than rotational slides.
Therefore, ratios of DJLr for translational slides in
soils are typically less than 0.1 (Skempton and
Hutchinson 1969). The surfaces of rupture of
translational slides are often broadly channelshaped in cross section (Hutchinson 1988).
Whereas the rotation of a rotational slide tends to
restore the displaced mass to equilibrium, translation may continue unchecked if the surface of
separation is sufficiently inclined.
As translational sliding continues, the displaced
mass may break up, particularly if its velocity or
FIGURE 3-23
Cut through rotational slide of fine-grained, thin-bedded lake deposits,
Columbia River valley; beds above surface of rupture have been rotated by
slide to dip into slope (Varnes 1978, Figure 2.7).
58
FIGURE 3-24
Rotational slides
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.5).
FIGURE 3-25
(below)
Translational slide
of colluvium
on inclined
metasiltstone
strata along 1-40,
Cocke County,
Tennessee (Varnes
1978, Figure 2.11).
59
face of rupture follows a discontinuity that is parallel to the slope, the toe of the displaced mass may
form a wedge that overrides or ploughs into undisplaced material causing folding beyond the toe of
the surface of rupture (Walton and Atkinson
1978). Composite rock slide-rock topples [Figure
313(2)] or buckles and confined slides may result.
The surface of rupture may be formed by two
discontinuities that cause the contained rock mass
to displace down the line of intersection of the discontinuities, forming a wedge slide [Figure 3-27(a)
and Chapter 15, Figures 15-8 through 1514].
Similarly shaped displaced masses may be bounded
by one discontinuity that forms the main scarp of
the slide and another that forms the surface of rupture. The mode of movement depends on the orientations of the free surfaces relative to the
discontinuities in the rock masses (Hocking 1976;
Cruden 1978, 1984). Stepped rupture surfaces may
result if two or more sets of discontinuities, such as
bedding surfaces and some joint sets, penetrate the
rock masses. As shown in Figure 3-27(b), one set
of surfaces forms the risers of the steps and the
other forms the treads, creating a stepped slide
(Kovari and Fritz 1984).
Compound slides are intermediate between rotational and translational slides and their D, I L, ratios
reflect this position (Skempton and Hutchinson
1969). Surfaces of ruptUre have steep main scarps
that may flatten with depth [Figure 3-22(e)]. The
toes of the surfaces of rupture may dip upslope.
Displacement along complexly curved surfaces of
rupture usually requires internal deformation and
shear along surfaces within the displaced material
and results in the formation of intermediate scarps.
Abrupt decreases in downslope dips of surfaces of
rupture may be marked by uphill.facing scarps in
displaced masses and the subsidence of blocks of
displaced material to form depressed areas, grabens
[Figure 322(e)]. A compound slide often indicates
the presence of a weak layer or the boundary between weathered and unweathered material. Such
zones control the location of the surface of rupture
(Hutchinson 1988). In single compound slides, the
width of the graben may be proportional to the
depth to the surface of rupture (Crudenet al. 1991).
8.3.2 Complex and Composite Slides
Complex and composite slide movements are
common and the'litenlture contains numerous ref-
FIGURE 3-26
(above)
Shallow translational
slide that developed
on shaly rock slope
in Puente Hills of
southern California;
slide has low 0, IL,
ratio; note wrinkles
0.0 surface [Varnes
1978, Figure 2.33;
(Shelton 1966)].
(a)
COPYRIGHT JOHN S.
SHELTON
(b)
FIGURE 3-27
(left)
(a) Wedge and
(b) stepped
translational
slides.
60
silt. Landslides occurring in loosely dumped anthropogenic materials, both stockpiles and waste
dumps, have also been termed flowslides. These
loose, cohesionless materials contract on shearing
and so may generate high pore-water pressures after
some sliding (Eckersley 1990). Similar landslides
may also occur in rapidly deposited natural silts and
fine sands (Hutchinson 1988, 14). Since these
movements involve both sliding and then flowage,
they may be better described as complex slide flows.
Because these separate and distinguishable phenomena are comparatively distinct types of landslides that may be more accurately described by
standard descriptors, the use of the term f/.owslide
for all these types of movements is redundant, confusing, and potentially ambiguous.
In contrast, one form of compound sliding failure appears to warrant a special term. Sags (or sackungen) are deformations of the crests and steep
slopes of mountain ridges that form scarps and
grabens and result in some ridges with double
crests and small summit lakes. Material can be displaced tens of meters at individual scarps. The
state of activity, however, is generally dormant and
may be relict. The term sag may be useful to indicate uncertainty about the type of movement visible on a mountain ridge.
Movement is often confined, and small bulges
in local slopes are the only evidence of the toes of
the displaced material. Detailed subsurface investigations of these features are rare, and classification should awa'it this more detailed exploration.
As Hutchinson (1988, 8) demonstrated, the geometry of the scarps (which often face uphill) may be
used to suggest types of movement, which may
include slides, spreads, and topples. The modes of
sagging depend on the lithology of the displaced
material and the orientation and strength of the
discontinuities in the displacing rock mass. Varnes
et al. (1989, 1) distinguished
1. "Massive, strong (although jointed) rocks lying
on weak rocks,"
2. "Ridges composed generally of metamorphosed
rocks with pronounced foliation, schistosity or
cleavage," and
3. "Ridges composed of hard, but fractured, crystalline igneous rocks."
Sags of the first type are usually spreads
(Radbruch-Hall1978; Radbruch-Hall et al. 1976),
8.4 Spread
The term spread was introduced to geotechnical
engineering by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) to
describe sudden movements on water-bearing
seams of sand or silt overlain by homogeneous
clays or loaded by fills:
61
FIGURE 3-28
ZONE A
~chieflyby""'"
....
-=ate slumping
.'ont
tnp
:;i~i~;~ump units
B,S'
Narrow slump unit with
axes perpendicular to
axes of main slump units
and parallel with length
of main slide
C
"'$1800" remaining after
downward mcwement of
unit D 1rom IIfea E.
ZONE 8
Zone of earth flow;
movement chiefly by
flowage.
ZONEC
Toe of slide area; original
form aitered bV railroad
r8l;onstruetion work.
100m
328ft
62
(a)
FIGURE 3-29
Rock and earth
spreads: (a), (b) rock
spreads that have
experienced lateral
extension without
well-defined basal
shear surface or
zone of plastic flow
[Varnes 1978, Figure
2.1 m2 (Zaruba and
, Mend 1969); Figure
2.1 m3 (Ostaficzuk
1973)]; (c) earth
spread resulting
from liquefaction
or plastic flow of
subjacent material
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.10).
(b)
,
,500m
-.l
.-
--
.".
63
The Grabens
Needles
Cataract
Canyon
FIGURE 3-30
Geological cross section showing formation of The Grabens in Needles
District of Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Colorado River has carved
Cataract Canyon to within a few meters of top of Paradox Salt beds (IPps),
undercutting inclined layers of overlying Honaker Trail (IPht), Elephant
Canyon (Pee), and Cedar Mesa (Pern) formations. These formations have
broken up and are moving toward canyon by flowage within salt. Colorado
River follows crest of Meander anticline, a salt-intruded fold located above
a deep-seated fault zone (Baars 1989).
FIGURE 3-31
Earth spread-earth flow near Greensboro, Florida. Material is flat-lying,
partly indurated clayey sand of Hawthorn Formation. Length of slide is
275 m from scarp to edge of trees in foreground. Vertical distance is about
15 m from top to base of scarp and about 20 m from top of scarp to toe.
Landslide occurred in April 1948 after a year of unusually heavy rainfall,
including 40 cm in the 30 days preceding landslide [Varnes 1978, Figure
2.19 (modified from Jordan 1949)].
64
Extension and valleyward toppling of the capping rocks in the camber, resulting in opening of
near-vertical joints to form wide-open fissures,
termed gulls, in valleyward dips of the camber
blocks and in the development of dip-and-fault
structures between camber blocks as a consequence of their toppling.
The rotation of the dip of the rock blocks produces the slightly arched or convex form popularly
called a camber. Rotation is made possible by the
extension of "the <;ap-rock towards the valley producing widened joints (called gulls) often infilled
by till" (Hutchinson 1988, 19). The cap rock has
spread. The underlying clay exhibits
FIGURE 3-32
Cambering and
valley blJ1ging at
Empingham,
England:
(a) detailed cross
section with 4x
vertical exaggeration
(modified from
Horswill and Horton
1976); and
(b) generalized
cross section drawn
without vertical
exaggeration
(modified from
Hutchinson 1991).
Normal sub-horizonUil
(a)
Clay shale
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
camber slope'
~~~B'b"U~"dL!re~2Aj~~/~GU~"i~
...."
Caprock
8.5 Flow
----,
-
--
- ------ -Thinni;:;
b~ ~.// ~
It
0~
- - - - - ~ / \:::~~--:.
-- -- -- -
-. _-r.ene
---../'\.j'''-...
of decollement!
Competant subs'tratlJm'
(b)
melre,OO
120
100
80
60
.0
20
o
Hood
:==:;===;:~~~~~~=Ma="'='on~.
R::DC='8od=~~==;::==::::::;==::;:==:=;::==:::;===::;:::::==;:::==-~
I
-500
i
-~oo
-300
-200
-100
0 -100
-200
-300
-400
-500
Pipeline Choinoge{ml
-600
-700
-800
-900
:~~
80
60
'0
20
0
65
FIGURE 3-34
Channelized
debris flows:
(a) debris flow,
(b) debris avalanche,
and (c) block stream
(Varnes 1978,
Figures 2.1q1,
2.1q3,2.1q5).
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Dry sand
Firm silt
Sand
FIGURE 3-33
Examples of flows:
(a) slow earth flow
[Varnes 1978, Figure
2.1 r3 (Zaruba and
Mend 1969), .
(b) loess flow, and
(c) dry sand flow
(Varnes 1978,
Figures 2.1 r5
and 2.1 r4).
66
FIGURE 3-35
Earth flow
developing from
initial rotational
earth slide near
Berkeley, California
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.22).
FIGURE 3-36
Dry sand flow in
Columbia River
valley; dry sand
from upper terrace
flowed through
notch in cliffs of
more compact
sand and silt below
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.24).
67
FIGURE 3-37
Shallow dry sand
flow along shore
of Lake Roosevelt,
Washington State;
wave erosion or
saturation of
sediment by lake
water caused thin
skin of material to
lose support and
ravel off slope,
formed on older
terrace deposit
[Varnes 1978, Figure
2.25 (modified from
Jones et al. 1961 )].
9. LANDSLIDE PROCESSES
"The processes involved in slope movements comprise a continuous series of events from cause to
effect" (Varnes 1978, 26). In some cases, it may be
more economical to repair the effects of a landslide
than to remove the cause; a highway on the crest
of a slope may be relocated rather than armoring
the toe of the slope to prevent further erosion.
However, the design of appropriate, cost-effective
remedial measures still requires a clear understanding of the processes that are causing the landslide. Although this understanding may require a
FIGURE 3-38
Old debris flow in
altered volcanic
rocks west of
Pahsimeroi River
in south central
Idaho (Shaller
1991, Figure 8).
COPYRIGHT
JOHN S. SHELTON
68
FIGURE 3-39
Continuous
spectrum of
sediment
concentrations
from sediment-laden
rivers to debris flows
(modified from
Hutchinson 1988,
Figure 15).
99
2.8
91
80
5040
......
E
z
~
2.6
...
2.4
II
"-
Canyon
III
~
~~-----'lSAT
II)
r:: ..
2.2
IlIUl"
"-lllUl
ClQ..lI)
...
0
....0(
?",Vl
...
Cl
'G)
Rio
c:
Puerco
(El
1.8
River
(El
1.6
1.4
Mudflow
(Debris Flow)
3:
;!:
2.0
Q)
c:
c:
=(L......w,.G'l'w
1.wG)
Reventado
en
l 'I'l
III
0.99
Debris Flow
Stre.amflow (E=ephemeral)
~ Wet Concrete
E
.......
5.0
><
9.1
l'I'l
.......
20
1.2
::J
River
White
River
1.0
1
10
100
Water Content, w (96)
FIGURE 3-40
Very rapid debris
flow, or debris
avalanche, at
Franconia Notch,
New Hampshire,
June 24, 1948,
after several days
of heavy rainfall.
Colluvial soil up to
5 m thick moved
down over bedrock
along 450 m of a
45-degree slope.
Levees appear at
lateral margins.
Flow covered US-3
(foreground)
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.17).
1,000
..
10,000 .
'i
it
,Ii
69
-=-
~,~P
......
lkm
FIGURE 3-42
Examples of rock
flows [Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.1 p1
(Nemcok et al. 1972;
Zischinsky 1966)].
70
rivers, glaciers, waves and currents, and slope movements. Anthropogenic landslides can be caused by
excavations for cuts, quarries, pits, and canals, and
by the drawdown of lakes and reservoirs.
Removal of material from the lateral margins of
the displaced mass can also cause movement.
Material can be removed from below the landslide
by solution in karst terrain, by piping (the transport of sediment in groundwater flows), or by mining. In some spreads, the loss of strength of the
REFERENCES
ABBREVIATIONS
IAEG
UNESCO
WP/WLI
71
72
Crozier, M.J. 1984. Field Assessment of Slope Instability. In Slope Instability (D. Brunsen and D.B.
Prior, eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp.103-142.
Crozier, M.J. 1986. Landslides: Causes, Consequences,
and Environment. Croom Helm, London, 252 pp..
Cruden, D.M. 1978. Discussion of Hocking's Paper.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science, Vol. 15, No.4, p. 217.
Cruden, D.M. 1984. More Rapid Analysis of Rock
Slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21,
No.4,pp.678-683.
Cruden, D.M. 1986. Discussion of Carter, M., and
S.P. Bentley. 1985. The Geometry ofSlip Surfaces
Beneath Landslides: Predictions from Surface
Measurements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 23, No.1, p. 94.
Cruden, D.M. 1991. A Simple Definition of a
Landslide. Bulletin of the International Association
of Engineering Geology, No. 43, pp. 27-29.
Cruden, D.M., Z.Q. Hu, and Z.Y. Lu. 1993. Rock
Topples in the Highway Cut West ofClairvivaux
Creek, Jasper, Alberta. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 30, No.6, pp. 1016-1023.
Cruden, D.M., S. Thomson, and B.A. Hoffman.
1991. Observations of Graben Geometry in Landslides. In Slope Stability Engineering-Developments
and Applications: Pmc. , International Conference on
Slope Stability, Isle of Wight, 15-18 April (R.J.
Chandler, ed.), Thomas Telford Ltd., London,
pp.33-36.
Dana, J.D. 1877. New Text-book of Geology Designed
for Schools and Academies. Ivison, Blakeman,
Taylor, New York, 366 pp.
De Freitas, M.H., and R.J. Watters. 1973. Some Field
Examples of Toppling Failure. Geotechnique, Vol.
23, No. 4,pp. 495-514.
Eckersley, J.D. 1990. Instrumented Laboratory Flowslides. Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No.3, pp. 489-502.
Eisbacher, G.H., and J.J. Clague. 1984. Destructive
Mass Movements in High Mountains: Hazard and
Management. Paper 84-16. Geological Survey of
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 230 pp.
Eliot, T.S. 1963. Collected Poems 1909-1962. Faber,
London, 234 pp.
Engineering News Record. 1971. Contrived Landslide
Kills 15 in Japan. Vol. 187, p. 18.
Evans, S.G., J.J. Clague, G.].Woodsworth, and O.
Hungr. 1989. The Pandemonium Creek Rock
Avalanche, British Columbia. Canadian GeotechnicalJournal, Vol. 26, No.3, pp. 427-446.
Giraud, A., L. Rochet, and P. Antoine. 1990.
Processes of Slope Failure in Crystallophyllian
Formations. Engineering Geology, Vol. 29, No. 3,pp.241-253.
73
74
Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering Symposium, University ofIdaho, Moscow, pp. 99-120.
McConnell, R.G., and R.W Brock. 1904. Report on
the Great Landslide at Frank, Alberta. In Annual
Report for 1903, Department of the Interior,
Ottawa, Canada, Part 8, 17 pp.
McGill, G.E., and A.W. Stromquist. 1979. The
Grabens of Canyonlands National Park, Utah:
Geometry, Mechanics, and Kinematics. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 84, No. B9, pp. 45474563.
McRoberts, E.C., and N.R. Morgenstern. 1974.
Stability of Slopes in Frozen Soil, Mackenzie
Valley, North West Territories. Canadian Geotechnical]ournal, Vol. 11, No.4, pp. 554-573.
Morgenstern, N.R. 1985. Geotechnical Aspects of
Environmental Control. In Proc., 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 1, pp. 155-185.
Mueller, L. 1964. The Rock Slide in the Vaiont
Valley. Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology,
Vol. 2, No. 3-4, pp. 148-212.
Nemcok, A, J. Pasek, and J. Rybar. 1972. Classification of Landslides and Other Mass Movements.
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 4, pp. 71-78.
Nicoletti, P.G., and M. Sorriso-Valvo. 1991. Geomorphic Controls of the Shape and Mobility of
Rock Avalanches. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of America, Vol. 103, No. 10, pp. 1365-1373.
Ostaficzuk, S. 1973. Large-Scale Landslides in Northwestern Libya. Acta Geologica Pdlonica, Vol. 23,
No.2, pp. 231-244.
Palmer, L. 1977. Large Landslides of the Columbia
River Gorge, Oregon and Washington. In Landslides (D.R. Coates, ed.), Reviews in Engineering
Geology, Vol. 3, Geological Society of America,
Boulder, Colo., pp. 69--83.
Panet, M. 1969. Discussion of K.W. John's Paper
(ASCE Proc. Paper 5865, March 1968).]ournal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE,
Vol. 95, No. SM2, pp. 685-686.
Pierson, T.C., and J.E. Costa. 1987. A Rheologic
Classification of Subaerial Sediment-Water
Rows. In Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitigation (J.E. Costa and G.P. Wieczorek, eds.), Reviews in Engineering Geology, VoL
7, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.,
pp.l-12.
Potter, D.B., and G.E. McGill. 1978. Valley Anticlines of the Needles District, Canyonlands
National Park, Utah. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of America, Vol. 89, No.6, pp. 952-960.
Prior, D.B., N. Stephens, and D.R. Archer. 1968.
Composite Mudflows on the Antrim Coast of
North-East Ireland. Geografiska Annaler, Vol.
50A, No.2, pp. 65-78.
Radbruch-Hall, D.H. 1978. Gravitational Creep of
Rock Masses on Slopes. In Rockslides and Avalanches (B. Voight, ed.), Vol. 1: Natural Phenomena, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp.
607-657.
Radbruch-Hall, D.H., D.J. Varnes, and W.Z. Savage.
1976. Gravitational Spreading of Steep-Sided
Ridges ("sackung") in Western United States.
Bulletin of the International Association of EngineeringGeology, No. 14, pp. 23-35.
Ramsay, J.G. 1967. Folding and Fracturing of Rocks.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 568 pp.
Ritchie, .AM. 1963. Evaluation of Rockfall and Its
Control. In Highway Research Record 17, HRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
pp.13-28.
Rybar,J., andJ. Dobr. 1966. Fold Deformations in the
North-Bohemian Coal Basins. Sbomikgeologickych
ved, Rada HIG, No.5, pp. 133-140.
Shaller, P.J. 1991. Analysis of a Large, Moist landslide, Lost River Range, Idaho, U.S.A Canadian
Geotechnical]ournal, Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 584-600.
Shelton, J.S. 1966. Geology Illustrated. WHo Freeman
and Co., San Francisco, 434 pp.
Shreve, R.L. 1968. The Blackhawk Landslide. Special
Paper 108. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, Colo., 47 pp.
Sh~oder, J.E 1971. Landslides of Utah. Bulletin 90.
Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, 50 pp.
Skempton, A.W 1970. First-Time Slides in OverConsolidated Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No.3,
pp.320-324.
Skempton, AW., and J.N. Hutchinson. 1969. Stability of Natural Slopes and Embankment Foundations. In Proc., Seventh International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Sociedad Mexicana de Mecana de Suelos, Mexico
City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 291-340.
Skempton, A.W., and AG. Weeks. 1976. The
Quaternary History of the Lower Greensand
Escarpment and Weald Clay Vale near Sevenoaks,
Kent. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Series A, Vol. 283, pp. 493-526.
Varnes, H.D. 1949. Landslide Problems of Southwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 31,
13 pp.
Voight, B. 1990. The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz Volcano
Catastrophe: Anatomy and Retrospection. Journal
of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 44,
No. 1-2, pp. 349-386.
Walton, G., and T. Atkinson. 1978. Some Geotechnical Considerations in the Planning of Surface Coal Mines. Transactions of the Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 87, pp. A147-A171.
Ward, W.H. 1948. A Coastal Landslip. In Proc.,
75