Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
developed by
John B. Ritter
Department of Geology
Wittenberg University
January, 2004
Falls
Slides
Rotational
Translational
Flows
Complex
Coarse
Fine
Rockfall
Debris Fall
Earth Fall
Rock Slump
Debris Slump
Earth Slump
Rock Slide
Debris Slide
Earth Slide
Rock Flow
Debris Flow
Earth Flow
The three primary types of landslides, falls, slides, and flows, are distinguished on the
basis of the relationship between the unstable mass and the failure surface and the
internal structure and deformation of the mass. In falls, the material may be in freefall,
losing contact with the failure surface intermittently or entirely. In this type of landslide
the mass moves as individual particles, with no coherent structure developing between
particles. Slides move as coherent blocks or masses along the failure plane. Slides
exhibit little internal shear or deformation such that patches of turf, trees, and structures
on the surface may stay relatively intact and are not incorporated into the slide. Soil or
sediment stratigraphy within the sliding mass also may be preserved. Flows move as a
coherent but constantly changing mass, involving internal shear or mixing of the mass,
even sorting based on particle size and position in the flow. Surface features such as
turf, shrubs, trees, and structures are incorporated into the flow. Downslope materials
and surface features may be buried by the flow mass, but they may also be incorporated
into the flow as this type of slide tends to be erosive as it travels along its path.
Of the different types of landslides classified in Table 1, slumps, slides,
earthflows, and rockfalls all occur in Ohio (Figure 1) (Hansen, 1995), but are restricted to
areas of high relief in the unglaciated portion of southeastern Ohio, along the Ohio River
and other major rivers in the state, and along the shoreline.
In Hamilton County and the metropolitan Cincinnati area, landslides are particularly
common in high relief areas along the Ohio River and the Mill Creek and Little Miami
River tributaries immediately in the areas where they join the Ohio River (Figure 2).
Landslides in Hamilton County occur in unconsolidated deposits, including colluvium, till,
glacial lake clays, and man-made till derived from colluvium and glacial deposits (Baum
and Johnson, 1996). Both rotational and translational debris slides occur in colluvium
underlain by the Kope and Fairview Formations (Baum and Johnson, 1996). The
characteristics of this and other types of landslides in Hamilton County are summarized in
Table 2.
Figure 2. Landslide damage on U.S. Route 52, along the Ohio River, in March,
1997 following eight inches of rainfall over two days. (Photographs by
Damages resulting from landslides include both property damage and loss of life.
Although landslides are among the most widespread and ubiquitous of geologic hazards,
they occur over fairly restricted spatial and temporal scales, the extent of which is
governed by the scale and duration of the triggering event such as an earthquake or
extreme rainfall. Annually in the United States, landslides result in an estimated 25-50
deaths and damages exceeding $ 2 billion (Spiker and Gori, 2003). The highest
documented per capita losses due to landslides, amounting to $5.80 per person per year,
occur in Hamilton County, in the metropolitan area of Cincinnati (Fleming and Taylor,
1980). These losses are expanding as development pressures increase as a result of
population growth.
Table 2. Characteristics of landslides in Hamilton County, Ohio (from Baum and Johnson, 1996).
Type
Style of Movement
Rate
Thickness
(m)
Materials
<2
Colluvium
Thin Slide
Translation
<2
Thick Slide
Rotation and
translation
0-50 cm/day
2-15
Block Glide
Translation
0-25 cm/yr
2-10
Block-extrusion
Glide
Translation and
extrusion
0-25 cm/yr
10
Strategies for reducing the losses due to landslides are outlined in the National
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy and include the following (from Spiker and Gori,
2003):
Figure 3. Force diagram for thin to thick translational slides. Letters are
defined in Table 3.
The resisting force of earth materials, whether consolidated bedrock or unconsolidated
sediments, is the shear strength ( S ) of the materials (Figures 3 and 4). Shear strength is
a combination of forces, including the slope normal component of gravity (Figures 3 and
4) or normal stress (), pore pressure () within the material, which counteracts the
normal stress, cohesion of the material (C), and the angle of internal friction (). Shear
strength is given by the Coulomb Equation:
S = C + ( - )tan
(Eq 1)
Normal stress is the vertical component of gravity, resisting downslope movement (Eq 2).
= zcoscos
(Eq 2)
The role of water is especially critical in slope stability, but it is incorrect to think of its role
as that of lubrication. Water plays a dual role. In increasing the unit weight of material, it
increases both the resisting (normal stress) and driving (shear stress) forces (Figure 4).
It also creates pore pressure, which opposes the normal stress and therefore reduces the
resisting force or shear strength of the material (it is subtracted from normal stress in Eq
1). It is represented by the following equation:
= w mzcoscos
(Eq 3)
The driving force is shear stress (), the slope parallel component of gravity (Figure 3).
Shear strength is given by the following equation:
= z cos sin
(Eq 4)
SF =
Driving Force
Shear Stress
(Eq 5) and
SF =
(Eq 6)
It also does not account for the impact of adjacent factors like upslope development
or downslope modifications of the hillslope or accentuating factors such as ground
vibrations or acceleration due to earthquakes.
Definition
Units
Value Range
cohesion
kN/m2
0-250
kN/m3
12-22
kN/m3
9.8
1-20
zw
0-20
dimensionless
0-1
degrees
1-40
degrees
22-46
shear strength
shear stress
normal stress
Model Details
Three models are included in this module. The first and second models are spreadsheet
solutions of the infinite slope model as expressed by the Safety Factor (Eq 6) :
Sensitivity Analysis of the Infinite Slope Model.xls This spreadsheet is intended to be
used as an introduction to the infinite slope model and the Safety Factor equation. The
first worksheet, Safety Factor Calculations, presents solutions for four general conditions
(thin and dry, thin and wet, thick and dry, and thick and wet). These solutions are
provided to discuss the role of water and slide thickness on slope stability. This section
can be modified so that students or the instructor can input variable estimations to
determine a site-specific SF value for a local situation.
On the same worksheet, a variable by variable sensitivity analysis of SF is presented.
The x-axis for each variable is the natural range for the variable and the y-axis is the
same for each variable so that the relative differences in the variable-SF relationships
illustrate model sensitivity. The relationships are shown for the four general conditions.
The two right-most columns on this worksheet also pertain to a sensitivity analysis of SF
and the graph comprising the second worksheet, Sensitivity Analysis. The methodology
Landslide type:
Equation 6 Factors:
Other Factors:
2. Access the U.S. Geological Survey website associated with real-time monitoring of
landslides along Highway 50 in northern California REPORT: Real-time Monitoring of
Active Landslides Along Highway 50, El Dorado County, California
(http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/CalifLandslide/Publications/ReidLaHusen/framework.h
tml). Select the Report link with TABLE format and in-line graphics to answer the
following questions.
a. Given the basic definitions of the different types of landslides (i.e., falls, slides,
and flows), their classification in Table 1, and the descriptions of the Highway 50
landslides in the report, what type(s) of landslide occurred along Highway 50?
b. From the description and associated figures, provide a relative estimate of the
parameters included in Equation 6 (e.g., high or low slope) that might have
contributed to the landslide event.
c.
3. From the website, select the link Monitoring California Highway 50 Landslides Project Menu (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/CalifLandslide/framework.html), then
select "Real-Time" Data
(http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/CalifLandslide/Maps/landslide_monitor.html) to
access an interactive graphic of one of the monitored sites along Highway 50.
a. Which of the monitored variables relate to the evaluating the conditions causing
landsliding? Of these variables, which are represented in Equation 6? Which
are not?
b. Of those that are not represented in Equation 6, what role does it or do they play
in driving or resisting landslides?
c.
a. Under what conditions has movement occurred in the past? Can you refine your
threshold set of conditions under which failure occurs?
b. Does movement immediately follow a significant or triggering rainfall event?
Never, sometimes, always? Explain.
c.
How much movement occurs during an event? For the archived data, what is the
range of movement during an event?
What factors might control how wet a landslide is? Again, these might be site
specific factors or more regional factors.
d. According to the safety factor equation (Eq 6), slopes are considered unsafe
when the factor of safety value is less than 1. For the thin, dry slide, increase
slope a degree at a time until the slope would be considered unsafe. At what
slope would the hillslope be considered unsafe?
e. Do the same for the thick, dry slide. At what slope would the hillslope be
considered unsafe?
f.
For the thick, wet slide, make the hillslope safe by adjusting a single variable of
your choosing?
g. Is there a way to physically alter the variable you chose in f to make the hillslope
stable? If yes, this would be an example of a structural means of mitigating
damages due to slope failure.
Close the spreadsheet without saving your changes.
Is the sensitivity of SF to each variable the same under wet and dry and thick and
thin conditions? Describe this relationship for those variables for which
sensitivity of SF does vary and suggest reasons why this is the case.
g. Of the variables presented, which might most easily be physically modified (e.g.,
re-grading slope) as a means of structural mitigation?
3. The two right-most columns on the Safety Factor Calculation worksheet pertain to a
sensitivity analysis of SF and the graph comprising the second worksheet, Sensitivity
Analysis. This graph presents the variables together, with both variables and SF
presented as a percentage of change in SF over the percentage of change of the variable
over its range under natural conditions (i.e., changes are essentially normalized so that
they can be plotted together on one graph for comparison). Click on the Sensitivity
Analysis worksheet to complete the following questions.
a. Is your answer in d of the previous section supported by information presented in
this graph?
b. If you were in charge of evaluating the susceptibility of slopes in a given region of
the country and you had limited dollars available for studying material properties
of the region, how could you use the sensitivity analysis to your advantage?
c.
Prioritize your data collection variable by variable to get the most useful
information?
2. Zoom to the area of concern by selecting the View > Bookmarks > Area of Concern
for the Comprehensive Plan. Using this area, you will evaluate the factors resulting in
unsafe slopes, consider the quality of your model, and address the problem of planning
for development in this area.
a. Using the Information Tool, click on any point on the map to get information on
one or more of the layers.
b. In the Identify Results window, click on <All Layers>. Consider unstable slopes
any which have an SF value less than or equal to 1.25. Click on an a series of
unstable slopes and note the safety factor value, slope value, geology symbol,
and other data included in the GIS model. Provide a range of SF and slope from
10 or so queries in the map area. What formations generally underlie unstable
slopes?
c. In validating the model or considering its quality, you want to compare SF values
respresenting instability (less than or equal to 1.25) to a landslide inventory of
damages. According to the U.S. Geological Surveys landslide inventory, 46
100- x 100-m cells contained damages from landslides as reported for the period
1970-1979. For those cells with reported damages, how many occur within
stable areas? How many occur within unstable areas? Note the cell resolution
of the inventory raster is lower than the resolution of the SF raster as indicated by
the size of the squares. (The SF raster has a 30- x 30-m resolution.)
d. For the cells within stable areas but indicating damage, use the information button
to click on an a series of damaged cells, noting the safety factor value, slope
value, geology symbol, and other data included in the GIS model. Provide a
range of SF and slope from 10 or so queries in the map area. What formations
generally underlie these sites?
The first two situations may be construed to mean the model is working
appropriately as they would be an obvious expected outcome. The latter two might
be evidence that the model does not accurately portray slope stability in the area.
What are reasons why this might happen? For example, do not ignore data
provided by the orthophotographs relative to land use.
f. Gather reasons from the entire class and discuss them relative to overarching
categories (e.g., variables the model does or does not include as indicated in
Equation 6, static variables versus dynamic or time-variant variables).
g. Given your analysis to this point, create a recommendation for future development
in the area of interest.
3. As part of your analysis, you may want to prohibit development on all undeveloped but
like-hillslopes for which damages were reported in the landslide inventory. To explore the
areal extent this sort of criteria might prohibit development from occurring on, you need to
manipulate the GIS model. You recall an earlier study by Bernknopf and others (1988)
that used a simplified infinite slope model to estimate a hillside stability index for the
Cincinnati area. You dig up the description from their original paper because you want to
use it in your manipulation, but you also want to remember it to justify your actions:
Because most of the landslides in the study area have the general shape
of planar slabs that were displaced along slip surfaces approximately
parallel to the topographic slope, the failure mechanism can be
represented by the static factor-of-safety equation (infinite slope model).
For cohesionless, dry material, the equation reduces to the ratio of
tan/tan, where tan is the tangent of the effective residual angle of
internal friction of the geologic material and tan is the tangent of the
topographic slope. Because the available shear strength and slope data
are generalized regional observations, we have termed this ratio the
hillside stability index (SI) and, for a given cell (i), designated the index
SIi. (Bernknopf and others, 1988).
To calculate the SI, follow these steps.
a. Load the Spatial Analyst extension.
c. You will use the Raster Calculator to calculate tan/tan. You will have to create
calculate tan, but a variable TanPhi(times100) is already available in the GIS model with
is tan x 100. To calculate tan, access the Raster Calculator.
d. In the raster calculator, enter the following equation using your mouse to click on the
appropriate layers and functions. Values for slope () are in the layer Slope, in Degrees.
You will need to enter it exactly as shown. Click on the Evaluate button.
e. The result will be labeled Calculation and will show up on the map as the top layer as
well as be added to the layers list for the next raster calculation.
f. Access the Raster Calculator again, and complete the calculation for SI according to
the formula below. Again, enter the formula using only the mouse to enter data layers,
numbers, and functions. Ignore the warning and click on Yes to continue.
g. The resulting calculation will show up with default colors. You will adjust this map to
meet your needs by right-clicking on the title Calculation2 and selecting properties.
h. Bernknopf and others (1988) original work include four classes of data. Select 4 from
the Classes menu, then select Classify...
i. Adjust the break values so that the first three are 4, 6, and 9 and click OK.
j. Change the color scheme by clicking on the box for the 9-132.xxxx value and selecting
No Color. These slopes are stable, so the No Color will de-emphasize their importance.
k. Click on the label column and change the labels as shown below. Click Apply.
l. Before you leave the Layer Properties box, select Display across the top and make the
layer 50 % transparent.
m. Examine your result. You can adjust your class values until all the areas that
exhibited damage during the period 1970-1979 to evaluate a threshold SI above which
damages would not be expected based on historical data.
n. How would you use this information in your comprehensive plan? What does it mean
relative to development in the area of concern?
o. Finally, a quintessential aspect of American property rights is that a person has a right
to do with their land as they wish. How do you manage this as developers and
landowners approach you with concerns on the comprehensive plan?
p. What you have been developing is along the lines of a non-structural or administrative
approach to hazard mitigation. What structural approaches might increase the area of
developable land in the area of concern? Finish your recommendation developed in the
previous exercise to include this discussion.
Part 2. For those familiar with GIS and raster or map algebra functions, sufficient data is
provided for completing a landslide susceptibility map for the Cincinnati East Quadrangle,
the subject of future developments of this module.
Solutions
The models are in their solved state as presented.
Suggestions to Instructors
The methodology for conducting the sensitivity analysis is taken from Hammond and
others (1992) following (Simons and others, 1978):
A sensitivity analysis of the infinite slope model is helpful to
identify the most important variables and thus guide the user in
expending time and money collecting information. One method for
evaluating the sensitivity of the factor of safety (FS) to each variable has
been outlined by Simons and others (1978):
1. Select a realistic range of values for each input variable.
2. Calculate a base FS value using some central value for each
variable, such as the mean, median, or mode value [median is
used in the module].
3. Vary the value for one input variable at a time over the range of
realistic values and compute the FS values.
4. Plot the percentage of change in FS (% FS) relative to the base
value against the percentage of change in each input variable
relative to the central value (% X), where the percentage of
change is calculated as:
% FS =
x i - - central x
100%
central x
(Hammond and others, 1992)
Glossary of Terms
Terms are defined within the text and tables as needed.
References
Baum, R.L. and Johnson, A.M., 1996, Overview of landslide problems, research, and
mitigation, Cincinnati, Ohio, area: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2059-A, U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 33 p.
Bernknopf, R.L., Campbell, R.H., Brookshire, D.S., and Shapiro, C.D., 1988, A
probabilistic approach to landslide hazard mapping in Cincinnati, Ohio, with applications
for economic evlauation: Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, v. 25, p.
39-56.
Bernknopf, R.L., Campbell, R.H., Brookshire, D.S., and Shapiro, C.D., 1990, Cincinnati
Landslide Database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 90-256 A and B: Disk and
3 p.
Fleming, R.W. and Taylor, F.A., 1980, Estimating the costs of landslide damage in the
United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 832, U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, DC, 21 p.
Ford, J.P., 1974, Bedrock geology of the Cincinnati West Quadrangle and part of the
Covington Quadrangle, Hamilton County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 93, 1:24000 scale.
Hammond, C., Hall, D., Miller, S., and Swetik, P., 1992, Level I stability analysis (LISA)
Documentation for Version 2.0: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-285, 190 p.
Hansen, M.C., 1995, Landslides in Ohio: GeoFacts No. 8, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (available at http://www.ohiodnr.com/geosurvey/geo_fact/geo_f08.htm), 5 p.
Osborne, R.H., 1974, Bedrock geology of the Cincinnati East Quadrangle, Hamilton
County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey,
Report of Investigations No. 94, 1:24000 scale.
Selby, M.J., 1982, Hillslope materials and processes: Oxford University Press, Oxford,
264 p.
Spiker, E.C. and Gori, P.L., 2000, National landslide hazards mitigation strategy A
framework for loss reduction: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-450, U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 49 p.
Spiker, E.C. and Gori, P.L., 2003, National landslide hazards mitigation strategy A
framework for loss reduction: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1244, U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, DC, 56 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Goals and tasks of the landslide part of a ground-failure
hazards reduction program: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 880, U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, DC, 48 p.
Varnes, D.J., 1958, Landslide types and processes: Highway Research Board Special
Report, Washington DC, p. 20-47.
Varnes, D.J., 1975, Slope movements in the western United States, in Mass Wasting:
Geoabstracts, Norwich, p. 1-17.
Supporting Information
Appendix A.
Table 1. Description of lithologic descriptions of formations on the Cincinnati West and
Cincinnati East Quadrangles (taken from the Cincinnati West Quadrangle,
Ford, 1974).
Formation1
Formation
Symbol2
Description1
Undifferentiated
alluvium and
outwash
Recent alluvial silt, sand, and gravel, generally less than 10 feet thick. Pleistocene
fluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay, comprising dissected terraces and abandoned
river channels; laminated silt and clay of probable fluviolacustrine origin along many
valleys: one or more intercalated till unites in places.
Bellevue
Limestone and
overlying Rocks
Ob
Limestone with minor interbedded mudstone. Limestone (75-85 percent), mediumlight- to medium-gray, mottled with light-olive-gray patches and streaks, very fine- to
very coarse-grained, very poorly sorted, argillaceous, biogenic; in lenticular or
irregular beds from 1 to as much as 8 inches thick; locally fine- to coarse-grained,
moderately sorted, in even beds. Mudstone, medium- to medium-dark-gray,
calcareous; present as thin partings and as sets up to 4 inches thick between
limestone beds. Formation fossiliferous throughout; Platystrophia ponderosa one of
the most conspicuous faunal elements; formation weathering to produce a
distinctive rubble or slabby float.
Miamitown
Shale
Om
Fairview
Formation
Of
Kope Formation
Ok
Notes
1 Names and formations are taken directly from the Bedrock Geology Map of the Cincinnati West
Quadrangle (Ford, 1974)
2 Symbol as it is used in the GIS relative to the information tool, attribute tables, and reclassifications in
Spatial Analyst.
Table 2. Values used in the reclassification of rasters used in the calculation of driving
and resisting forces in the GIS model for slope stability of the Cincinnati West
Quadrangle. These same values can be a starting point for creating a similar
model for the Cincinnati East Quadrangle.
Formation1
Formation
Symbol2
Dry Unit
Weight
Wet Unit
Weight
Cohesion
Internal
Angle of
Friction
Undifferentiated
alluvium and
outwash
17
21
33
Bellevue
Limestone and
overlying Rocks
Ob
16
20
38
Miamitown
Shale
Om
16
20
26
Fairview
Formation
Of
16
20
32
Kope Formation
Ok
16
20
16.5