Engineering Geology, 7(1973) 99-114

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

A NUMERICAL

CLASSIFICATION

OF SELECTED TYPE

LANDSLIDES

OF

THE DEBRIS SLIDE-AVALANCHE-FLOW

R. J. BLONG

School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, N.S. 14I.[Australia)

(Accepted for publication April 5, 1973)

ABSTRACT Blong, R. J., 1973. A numerical classification of selected landslides of the d~bris slide-avalanche flow type. Eng. Geol., 7: 99-114. Numerous classifications of landslides have been proposed based on a variety of classificatory criteria. Several writers have mentioned the difficulties of distinguishing accurately between landslides classed by Sharpe (1938) and Varnes (1958) as d~bris slides, d~bris avalanches, and d~bris flows. A sample of 92 such landslides from the greywacke hill country of the North Island of New Zealand is classified on the basis of as many as 19 numerical and 43 disordered multistate attributes. The results of the agglomerative polythetic classifications do not help to distinguish these landslide phenomena clearly. Until some distinctive criteria characterizing landslides of this type are identified the use of unsatisfactory simple classifications is recommended.

INTRODUCTION Landslides have been classified in a number of ways by workers in a variety of disciplines. In the present study, 92 landslides, mainly of the d6bris slide-d6bris avalanched6bris flow type, are grouped according to a number of simple classifications. Subsequently, a large number of quantitative and qualitative morphometric attributes are defined and the techniques of numerical taxonomy are employed in an attempt to identify the most suitable morphological parameters for classification purposes. All 92 landslides examined were located in the upper Mangawhara catchment, an area of deeply dissected, red-weathered, and ash-mantled greywacke hill country in the North Island of New Zealand. Nearly all of the landslides occurred during two high-intensity rainstorms on February 28th 1966, and February 2nd 1967. LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION A survey of the literature reveals that a variety of criteria has been used to classify landslides.

100

R.J. BLONG

Bases of classification include: the lithology of the shear plane (Ladd, 1935; Zairuba and Mencl, 1969), the mechanics of slope failure (Terzaghi, 1950; Yatsu, 1967), the form in particular the geometry of the failure relative to the thickness of the moving mass - (Ward, 1945; Skempton, 1953), and the type of material involved, together with the shape of the surface of rupture, and the arrangement of the d6bris (Sharpe, 1938: Varnes, 1958). Classification of landslides according to the parent material in which failure occurs may not be very successful. Ladd's (1935) classification, using this criterion, indicates that similar types of failure occur in a wide variety of lithologies. Similarly, without the prolonged investigations usually only conducted by soil engineering laboratories, classifications of landslides according to causes of failure are not successful. Without such investigations, the cause can frequently only be established by elimination of some possibilities. Furthermore, many landslides are attributed to several causes, although perhaps only to one trigger mechanism (Sowers and Sowers, 1961, p.228). Skempton and Hutchinson (1969) and Hutchinson (1968) suggest that mass movements exhibit such great variety that rigorous classification is hardly possible. The general classifications, such as those of Sharpe and Varnes, have received the most attention in geomorphic literature. However, many fieldworkers have experienced difficulty in fitting particular movements into the individual categories of these classifications. Ward (1945, p.172), Irwin-Hunt (1960, p.36), Bailey and Rice (1969, p.172), and Rice et al. (1969, p.647) report lack of agreement on terminology and problems with classification. Cumberland (1944, p.83) found difficulty in relating the many combinations of slippage and flowage forms found in inland Taranaki, New Zealand, to the categories elaborated by Sharpe. Yatsu (1966) is highly critical of Sharpe's classification, considering Varnes's grouping to be superior. TABLE I The 92 landslides grouped according to Varnes (1958) Classification Slump D6bris slide D~bris avalanche Complex Number 1 11 2 78

Using Varnes's classification, 78 of the 92 landslides investigated in the present study are grouped as complex slope failures (Table I). Most of these 78 landslides involve combinations of two of the three types of slope failure defined by Varnes as d~bris slide, d~bris flow, d~bris avalanche. However, five of the 78 landslides do not clearly fit into the complex category, as they do not involve combinations of materials or combinations of

NUMERICALCLASSIFICATIONOF SELECTEDLANDSLIDES TABLE II The 92 landslides grouped accordingto a modified Varnes's classification Classification Slump D~bris slide D~bris avalanche D~bris slide-d~bris avalanche D~bris avalanche-d~bris flow Underthrust slide Incipient underthrust slide Number 1 11 2 24 49 3 2

101

types of movement. Three of these five landslides have been called underthrust slides (Blong, 1971). Two other movements exhibit only incipient underthrusting. The name "underthrust slide" is given to a type of mass movement characterized by a series of underthrust shear surfaces in coeval buried soils, subparallel transverse ridges, a marked bulging toe, and overlapping erosional and depositional zones (Blong, 1971). In Table II, the transitional types of failure have been removed from the complex landslide category. This modified Varnes's classification was used in the field identification of landslide type. The transitional types d~bris slide-d6bris avalanche and d~bris avalanche-d6bris flow were recognized in the field mainly on the basis of the degree of cohesion retained in the moving mass. Where rafted blocks occur on the shear plane, but where much of the moving mass has lost cohesion, a d~bris slide-avalanche is defined. Where the landslide has characteristics of a d~bris avalanche, but where incoherent flow deposits reach the base of the hillslope or beyond, the transitional type d~bris avalanched~bris flow was recognized. Categorization of individual occurrences proved somewhat subjective; continual reference was made to type examples. With Varnes's original classification, the major flaw is that most landslides fall into the complex category, a grouping that provides little information about the characteristics of an individual slope failure. With the modified classification, the problem becomes one of accurately placing a landslide in the correct category when so many categories are closely related and transitional with one another. Both classificationsseem to be unsatisfactory. Landslides can also be grouped according to the dominant mode of movement. Sowers and Sowers (1961) recognized three types: rotational slides, linear shear slides, and flow slides. For the sample of 92 landslides, 55 were classed as predominantly flowage phenomena, 15 as translational movements, 2 exhibited rotation, 1 was classed as flow-fall, and the remaining 20 slope failures were considered to be transitional between flowage and translational phenomena.

102

R~J. BLONG

In a further attempt at grouping the landslides according to their field characteristics, 50 of the 92 slope failures were considered to be simple, in that only one failure had occurred and only one type of movement was involved (although that one type could be flow-translation). Compound landslides exhibit more than one slope failure, tile hater failure probably resulting from loss of support when tire first failure occurred, and closely following the first in time. Compound failures also exhibit only one movement mode (i.e.. rotation, translation, flow, flow-translation). Twenty-four landslides were distinguished in the sample of 92. Complex landslides exhibit more than one slope failure and more than one movement mode. Eighteen landslides of this type were identified in the upper Mangawhara catchment following careful examination of shear-plane configuration and deposition morphology. Landslides can also be grouped according to the number of phases of movement. The distribution and nature of deposits on the shear plane and the shape of the shear plane itself frequently provide evidence of more than one phase of failure. On the basis of such evidence, 51 of the 92 landslides suffered only one phase of movement, 34 had failed twice in rapid succession, and 7 landslides were considered to exhibit 3 phases o1 failure. However, these last-described groupings of landslides are no less subjective than the decision to place a landslide in one of the three categories d6bris slide, d6bris avalanche, d6bris slide--d6bris avalanche. They may also be less informative. The landslide depth/length ratio defined by Skempton (1953) has been used successfully by several authors to characterize landslide form. A single criterion can be used to separate various types of slope failure which are related to conditions broadly classed as rotation, translation, or flow. However, as the length measurement is made from the landslide crown to the depositional toe, where the moving mass is truncated by a stream, accurate ratios cannot be established. For the present sample of 92 landslides, depth/ length ratios could be accurately measured in only 47 cases. It is evident that the simple methods, used to differentiate between the closely related landslide types investigated here, are inadequate. Very simple classifications, with only three or four divisions, fail to distinguish among landslides that have different morphological features. As noted by previous authors, more detailed classifications can only be applied subjectively; while individual landslides share some features in common, morphological diversity is still either apparent or subsumed under 'complex' groupings. The present study investigates, therefore, numerous aspects of landslide morphology in an attempt to identify criteria that usefully distinguish between d6bris flows, d6bris slides, and d6bris avalanches. DEFINITION OF LANDSLIDEFORM ATTRIBUTES All types of landslide observed in the upper Mangawhara catchment are included in the sample. Within small catchments, selected non-randomly, all landslides unaffected by farm roads and/or other obvious human activity were included in the sample. Eighteen out of 110 landslides sampled were subsequently rejected for the above reasons or because

NUMERICALCLASSIFICATIONOF SELECTEDLANDSLIDES

103

data were incomplete. Field measurements were made using a simple slope surveying device (Blong, 1972), with a 26-inch (66-cm) diameter bicycle wheel calibrated to record distances, or with percentage visual estimation charts (Folk, 1951, p.33). In the absence of prior information concerning the value of individual morphological properties, a wide range of attributes was estimated. A total of 19 numerical attributes, concerned mainly with size, shape, gradient, and locational properties of the erosional zone and 43 disordered multistate attributes assessing general morphological characteristics 1 of erosional, transportational, and depositional zones of the 92 landslides were measured. Although several computational procedures were tested (as detailed below), only the results of one classification (Class II) are reported here in detail. Consequently, only the seven numerical and the nine multistate attributes used are defined here. (Details of the attributes used in Class I are available from the author.) ELEN erosional slope length, the groundsurface length from the landslide headwall to the foot of the shear plane measured in the direction of maximum slope. HEAD - the height of the landslide headwall (mean of 3 measurements). WID - erosional zone width measured at the foot of the shear plane. EROS - the slope of the straight line joining the landslide crown (top of the headwall) to the foot of the shear plane. DO - a visual estimate of the degree of overlap between erosional and depositional
zones.

PECO - the groundsurface distance from the hillslope crest to the base of the shear plane expressed as a percentage of total hillslope groundsurface length. CR - the ratio of landslide erosional zone area to the area of a circle having the same perimeter as the landslide (cf. Miller, 1953, p.8). The nine multistate attributes are listed in Table III.

COMPUTATIONALPROCEDURES The numerical attributes were first subjected to simple and multiple correlation and regression analyses. These analyses enabled the interrelationships among attributes to be identified (see Blong, 1973). In order to isolate those morphological attributes most valuable for landslide classification purposes, an agglomerative polythetic grouping was performed using all 62 attributes. The general principles of numerical taxonomy have been outlined by Sokal and Sneath (1963). More specific information concerning the selection of proven methods for specific problems is contained in Lance and Williams (1967a, b). Following the advice of Mr. P. W. Milne, Division of Computing Research, CSIRO, Canberra, an agglomerative polythetic grouping procedure using the CSIRO proThese attributes express characteristics such as relationship of the landslide to topography, surface roughness, parent material, cross-sectional shape, symmetry, type and location of depositional material, and the number of phases of movement.

104 TABLE Ii1 Disordered multistate landslide attributes Qualitative attribute number State description*

R . J . BLONG

Number of landslides in state 46 t3 18 1

l I

M9

Shear-plane shape

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

rectilinear convex concave sigmoid multiconcave multirectilinear convex-rectilinear concave--rectilinear concave slightly concave rectilinear slightly convex convex rectilinear-convex sigmoid ill situ red weathered greywacke colluvial greywacke Hamilton ash beds colluvial mixture yellow weathered and shattered greywacke in situ semicircular lobate elongated lobate regular (other than 1, 2, 3 above) irregular very irregular obliterated rafted blocks flow material veneer deposition combination 1 and 2 combination 2 and 3 no evidence one large block absent 0 - 2 0 cm 2 0 - 5 0 cm 5 0 - 1 0 0 cm 1 0 0 - 2 0 0 cm 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 cm > 300 cm

8 4 41 25 22 l 1 1
1

M10

Cross-section shape of shear plane

M16

Shear-plane shape is formed on

38 3 5 5 41 10 23 35 11 1 2 10 6 36 2 35 2 7 4 56 1 12 11 9 2 1

M26

Depositional outline

M28

Depositional material consists of

M33

Depositional area has a toe which is

NUMERICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED LANDSLIDES TABLE III (continued) Disordered multistate landslide attributes Qualitative attribute number M34 Majority of deposition occurs State description*

105

Number of landslides in state 52 31 9 50 24 18 1 15 55 20 1

1. on hillslope 2. on valley floor 3. beyond valley floor at foot of hillslope 1. simple 2. compound 3. complex 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. rotation translation flow flow-translation flow-fall

M38 Failure

M40 Dominant movement

*Where no landslides exist in a particular state, the state is not listed but the original numbering is retained.

grams MULTBET, GROUPER, MAXGOWER, and GOWECOR were selected for use in the present study. A centroid sorting strategy was employed together with a Shannontype information statistic (Lance and Williams, 1967a). The four programs provide: an hierarchical structuring o f the individual landlides, an analysis o f the significance o f each attribute in forcing each major group formation, a principle co-ordinate axes analysis (Gower, 1966), and a summary of the correlation between each latent root and each attribute (Lance and Williams, 1967a, b; Lance et al., 1968). These results allow decisions to be made about the value o f each attribute in the classification.

RESULTS The first classification (Class I) employed all 19 numerical and 43 disordered multistate attributes. Fig. 1 illustrates the hierarchical structure of the classification. Only the last ten fusions are shown. The high value of the Euclidean metric (452.82) for the final fusion indicates the essential dissimilarity between the two major groups, A and B. The first classification is too lengthy and complex to be summarized in table form. Perusal of the results indicates that there is no criterion mutual to all groups in an hierarchical level. No single landslide form attribute considered here can be used as a classificatory criterion for the sample of 92 landslides. Furthermore, from the results, it seems doubtful that the use of several attributes together provides a more decisive classification. In view of the difficulties expressed by various authors in categorizing individual landslides, these conclusions are not surprising.

106
SO00

R.J. BLONG

A 38 4000

C 20

300"0

E G 23 I M
8 15

lS
200.0

K 11

L 11

Nurnders refer to number of landslides in eacll group

Fig.1. Landslide classification structure for the last 10 fusions using 19 numerical attributes and 43 disordered multistate attributes.

However, the agglomerative polythetic classification illustrated in Fig.1 can also be used to examine the validity of the classifications presented earlier. The simple classifications, such as the modified Varnes's classification and the Sowers and Sowers division of landslide phenomena, are based on the general appearance of slope failures. A wide variety of individual aspects of landslides is considered and assumptions are made regarding the genesis of the landslides. Similarly, the grouping of landslides according to the number of phases of movement or by the recognition of the landslide as simple, compound, or complex, concentrates on shear-plane phenomena; a variety of criteria is examined and judgements (albeit subjective) are made concerning the nature of the failure. The computer classification considers a wide variety of landslide features, some requiring a general impression of the landslide, some relating to specific morphological aspects of the failure zone, the depositional zone, and the landslide environment. The classification procedure subsequently selects those landslide attributes that promote the distinctiveness of groups. Within these limitations, it seems reasonable to expect some correspondence between the computer-produced groupings and those intuitively divined in other classifications. Table IV illustrates the relationships between the agglomerative grouping achieved here and four of the classifications discussed earlier. The computer classification can also be

NUMERICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED LANDSLIDES TABLE IV Comparison of various classifications Group name: Number ingroup: Total 92 A B C 20 D 34 E 24 F G H I J K 6 11 L 13 M 8

107

N 15

38 54

10 23 15 14

M37 Modified Varnes's classification: 1. Slump 1 2. D6bris slide 11 5. D6bris avalanche 2 11. D~bris slide-avalanche 24 9. D~bris avalanche-flow 49 3. Underthrust slide 3 12. Incipient underthrust slide 2 M40 Dominant movement is: 1. Rotation 2. Translation 3. Flow 6. Flow-translation 7. Flow-fall M38 Failure 1. 2. 3.

1 3 1 1

8
1 23

6
1 8

2
15

2
5

10

2
1

1
1 -

5
1 8

1 3 2 . . 3

2
2

2
-

32
-

17
3 2

3 2

17

19

19 13

9
. .

14

1 15

55 20 1

2 13 10 3 3 33 22 1 21 19 1 19 9 10 2 1

1 1 2 20 13 8 1 1

4 1 9

6 - 10 1

3 9 1

1 6 -

I4 1

is: Simple Compound Complex

50 24 18

25 25 12 12 1 17

16 4

9 9 12 11 13 4

- 17 12 10 1 5 3
9 1 4

6
-

8 2
1

1 9
3

7 1
-

6 8
1

M39 No. of phases of movement: 1. 2. 3.

51 34 7

25 26 16 11 23 4 2 5 -

10 10 19 12 5 2

- 17 12 10 7 4 3 4 3 2

8 3

2 9 2

7 1 -

6 7 2

c o m p a r e d w i t h an u n m o d i f i e d V a r n e s ' s classification o f the 92 landslides by r e g r o u p i n g d6bris s l i d e - a v a l a n c h e , d6bris a v a l a n c h e - f l o w , u n d e r t h r u s t slide, a n d incipient undert h r u s t slides as ' c o m p l e x ' landslides. It is evident t h a t at n o level in t h e h i e r a r c h y is t h e r e a close c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n the classifications listed and the c o m p u t e r grouping p r e s e n t e d . The lack o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e does less to invalidate the c o m p u t e r classification t h a n it does t o e m p h a s i z e the failings o f m o r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d groupings, even where t h e s e classifications have b e e n m o d i f i e d by e x p e r i e n c e relevant to the p r e s e n t sample. To t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e is n o superior way o f distinguishing u n e q u i v o c a l l y b e t w e e n landslides b r o a d l y classed as d6bris s l i d e s - d 6 b r i s f l o w s - d 6 b r i s avalanches, a s e c o n d c o m p u t e r classification was p e r f o r m e d (Class II). In Class I t o o m a n y a t t r i b u t e s are e m p l o y e d , m a n y o f w h i c h do little e x c e p t c o n f u s e . S o m e o f the numerical a t t r i b u t e s

108
160,0-

R..I. BLONG

P el

R /,0

_o 120,0
X

41

d ,.=,
U V

11

12

Numbers rlfer to number of landslides In each group.

I 1

Fig.2. Landslide classification structure for the last ten fusions using seven numerical and nine disordered multistate attributes. are logically and mathematically correlated, thus reinforcing the agglomeration of particular groups within the classification. Furthermore, some of the disordered multistate attributes are extremely subjective. Following examination of the relationships among the numerical attributes (Blong, 1973), the seven attributes defined above were selected as satisfactorily representing quantitative aspects of landslide morphology. The other twelve numerical attributes are either moderately highly correlated with those listed above or contributed little to the preceding analysis. In an attempt to reduce the complexities of the earlier classification, 34 of the 43 disordered multistate attributes have been eliminated. The remaining nine attributes (Table Ill) were selected as covering the major characteristics of the sample landslides. The classification structure for the last ten fusions is shown in Fig.2. Three major groups of landslides are evident from the classification structure. A group of eleven landslides, labelled O in Fig.2, is quite distinctive, being formed at a low level of fusion and remaining distinctive until all landslides are joined together in the one group. Ten of the eleven movements are translational; most of the deposited material consists of rafted blocks or has remained as a single block. Depositional outlines are semicircular or lobate. The depositional overlap (DO) for the group of eleven averages 74%. All the landslides in this group have a depositional toe and all are simple failures in that only one phase of movement has been identified. Erosional slopes are relatively gentle with a mean gradient of 24 . The failure zones have an average width of 17 m. On the other hand, Group P with 81 landslides is characterized by flow (68%) and flow-translation (25%) movements. The depositional zones are elongated lobate or lobate,

tl

80-0

NUMERICALCLASSIFICATIONOF SELECTEDLANDSLIDES

109

and the average depositional overlap is only 22%. Of these failures 69% have no obvious depositional toe, and the mean erosional gradient is 34 . Shear planes average only 11 m in width. More than half of these landslides are either compound or complex slope failures. In terms of the modified Varnes's classification (Table II), the group with eleven landslides includes all the underthrust and incipient underthrust slides, the single slump, and five of the twelve d~bris slides. The taxonomic classification, then, confirms the subjective grouping to some extent, but does not accurately duplicate the field classification. As indicated in Fig.2, Group P is composed of two sub-groups of nearly equal size. Group Q, with 41 members, is compared with Group R (40 members) in Table V in order of increasing similarity of attributes between groups. The biggest difference between these groups is in terms of location on the slope. Where landslides occur very low on the hillslope (Group R), nearly one quarter of the depositional outlines have been obliterated. Otherwise, the differences between the two groups are not large, and do not form the basis of a rational classification of landslides. TABLE V Comparison of two major landslide groups Group Q (41 members) PECO (mean) ELEN (mean) DO (mean) M26 depositional outline 55% 17.0 m 26% 24% elongated lobate 39% lobate 0 obliterated 15% regular 0 lobate 61% no toe 22% 20-50 cm 0 100-200 cm 10% 50-100 cm Group R (40 members) 80% 16.7 m 18% 40% elongated lobate 12.5% lobate 23% obliterated 12.5% regular 12.5% obate 78% no toe 0 0-50 cm 12.5% 100-200 cm 0 50-100 cm

M33 height of depositional toe

Group R is itself composed of two distinct groups (Fig.2). Group T, with fifteen members, has a mean value of PECO of 95%. Consequently, all of the landslides in this group have had the majority of tile depositional material removed from the hillslope. Group S, with 25 members, has a mean value of PECO of 70%. Group Q is also composed of two smaller groups, although these are less distinct than in the case of Group R (Fig.2). The sub-group with eighteen members (Group U) is dominated by both flow and translational movements, while Group V is dominated by flow-translational and flow movements. Other differences are relatively minor. In general, at the higher levels of classification, no actual landslide characteristics seem capable of distinguishing adequately between the types of landslides recognized in the field. However, it should be remembered that the computer classification was undertaken

110

R.J. BLONG

because o f the difficulties o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g objectively b e t w e e n closely related slopefailure t y p e s . PECO, a landslide l o c a t i o n a t t r i b u t e , is the m o s t effective m e a s u r e used h e r e in g r o u p i n g landslides. Shear planes l o c a t e d near the base o f hillslopes, w i t h h i g h values o f PECO, t e n d to have t h e d e p o s i t i o n a l phase o f t h e m o v e m e n t o b l i t e r a t e d , d e p o s i t i o n pred o m i n a n t l y b e y o n d the f o o t o f the hillslope, and shear planes f o r m e d in colluvial material or in-situ y e l l o w - b r o w n w e a t h e r e d g r e y w a c k e . All these latter characteristics are, m fact, the result o f shear-plane l o c a t i o n near the base o f the hillslope. Table VI indicates t h e p o o r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n the s e c o n d c o m p u t e r classification and t h e f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l groupings o f the 92 landslides. A l t h o u g h t h e u n d e r t h r u s t slides r e m a i n t o g e t h e r as a g r o u p w i t h s o m e o f the d6bris slides, as t h e y did in the first comp u t e r classification (Table IV), it is evident t h a t the c o m p u t e r groupings cut across the o t h e r classifications. H o w e v e r , the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e achieved b e t w e e n the classifications is

TABLE VI Comparison of classifications with computer Classification 2 Group Name: Number in group: M37 Modified Varnes's classification: 1. Slump 2. D~bris slide 5. Dgbris avalanche 11. D~bris slide-avalanche 9. Ddbris avalanche-flow 3. Underthrust slide 12. Incipient underthrust slide M40 Dominant movement is: 1. Rotation 2. Translation 3. Flow 6. Flow-translation 7. Flow-fall M38 Failure 1. 2. 3. Total 92 O 11 P 81 Q 41 R 40 S 25 T 15 U 25 V 15

1 11 2 24 49 3 2

1 5 3 2

. 6 2 24 49 . .

. . . . . . . . 5 1 1 1 1 1 18 6 3 3 17 32 21 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 3 1 1 13 . 2 17 4

1 15 55 20 1

1 10

. . . . 5 4 55 21 20 16 1 -

. 1 34 4 1

. 1 23 1 -

. 11 3 1

. 2 16 2 5 16 -

is: Simple Compound Complex

50 24 18

11 -

39 24 18

17 12 12

22 12 6

12 10 3

10 2 3

11 7 --

6 5 12

M39 Number ofphases of movement: 1. 2. 3.

51 34 7

11 -

40 34 7

18 20 3

22 14 4

12 11 2

10 3 2

12 4 2

6 16 1

NUMERICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF SELECTED LANDSLIDES

111

greater than that resulting from the first computer grouping. Nevertheless, the poorest correspondence occurs in the case of those landslides broadly classed as d~bris slidesd6bris avalanches-d6bris flows. A comparison of the two computer classifications is difficult because the major landslide characteristics responsible for the agglomeration of each group are different in each case. In Classification 1 six groups lettered E, F, G, H, I, and J occur at the second major hierarchical level. Similarly, in the second computer classification, groups O, S, T, U, and V form the second hierarchical level. Table VII indicates the group into which each landslide falls for each of the computer classifications as well as for the four simple classifications based on disordered multistate variables 37, 38, 39, and 40, and as presented i n Tables III, IV, and V1. It is apparent from Table VII that the removal of a large number of variables from Classification 1 has produced many changes in the groupings achieved in Classification 2. The classifications cannot, therefore, be regarded as stable. The data presented in Table VII also show that landslides grouped together in even four out of six of the classifications can be widely separated in the other two classifications. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Neither of the two computer classifications of landslides presented here reveals any single landslide form attribute or group of attributes that can be used to distinguish, clearly, between such closely related types of slope failures as d6bris slides, d6bris flows, and d6bris avalanches. Furthermore, the formation of individual groups within the computer classifications is dependent upon a wide variety of landslide characteristics. The groups, once formed, frequently bear no resemblance to landslide categories defined in more traditional classifications; this is not an indictment of the computer groupings. The lack of agreement between the computer classifications tested indicates that stability has not been achieved, and that other characteristics will have to be investigated if a rational descriptive classification of landslide types is to be constructed. No clear basis can be identified for differentiating among the landslides grouped by Varnes (1958) as complex, but to group so many landslides of possibly diverse forms as complex remains unsatisfactory. The removal of deposits by stream action prevents the use of Skempton's (1953) depth/length ratio in a large number of cases in the upper Mangawhara catchment. Although landslide location on the hillslope proved a useful criterion in the second computer classification, because some other local landslide characteristics are partly controlled by distance from the base of the hill, this attribute is hardly likely to provide the basis of a universally applicable classification. As no one of the classifications of landslides attempted here provides any rational basis for comparison of slope failures from area to area, until a realistic scheme is forthcoming it seems sensible to rely on a simple division of landslides according to the nature of the dominant movement. However, it seems that the three basic types of failure - rotation, translation, and flowage - must be supplemented by a transitional fourth type, that

Landlisde Number M37 M38 M39 M40 Class I Class II

<

Landslide Number M37 M38 M39 M40 Class I Class II

g~

g~
Landslide Number M37 M38 M39 M40 Class 1 Class II
Z

~'~.

g
g

NUMERICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED LANDSLIDES dominated both by flow and by translational failure. Where possible, this four-fold division should be supplemented by Skempton's depth/length ratio. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

113

The author is indebted to Mr. C. F. Pain (Australian National University) for his considerable help and critical comment during field work. Mr. P. W. Milne (Division of Computing Research, CSIRO, Canberra) provided invaluable advice and assistance with computing procedures. Professor G. H. Dury (The University of Wisconsin), R. J. Wasson, M. F. Clarke and M. A. J. Williams (Macquarie University) all made valuable criticisms of a draft of the manuscript. Financial assistance during field work and for computing was provided by The University of Sydney and Macquarie University. REFERENCES Bailey, R. G. and Rice, R. M., 1969. Soil slippage, an indicator of slope instability on chaparral watersheds of southern California.Prof. Geogr., 21(3): 172-177. Blong, R. J., 1971. The underthrust slide - an unusual type of mass movement. Geogr. Ann., 53A: 52-58. Blong, R. J., 1972. Methods of slope profile measurement in the field. Aust. Geogr. Stud., 10: 182192. Blong, R. J., 1973. Relationships between morphometric attributes of landslides. Z. GeomorphoL, in press. Cumberland, K. B., 1944. Contrasting regional morphology of soil erosion in New Zealand. Geogr. Rev., 34: 77-95. Folk, R. L., 1951. A comparison chart for visual percentage estimation. J. Sediment. Petrol., 21 : 3233. Gower, J. C., 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53: 325-338. Hutchinson, J. N., 1968. Mass movement. In: R. W. Fairbridge (Editor),Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. Reinhold, New York, N.Y., pp.688-695. Irwin-Hunt, J. R., 1960. Some Quantitative Aspects of Mass Movement. Thesis, Kings College, University of London, London, 76 pp. Ladd, G. E., 1935. Landslides, subsidences and rock-falls.Am. Railw. Eng. Assoc. BulL, 6 : 1 0 9 2 1162. Lance, G. N., Milne, P. W. and Williams,W. T., 1968. Mixed data classificatory programs. III. Diagnostic systems.Aust. Comput. J., 1(3): 178-181. Lance, G. N. and Williams,W. T., 1967a. Mixed-data classificatory programs. I. Agglomerative systems. Aust. Comput. J., 1(1): 15-20. Lance, G. N. and Williams,W. T., 1967b. A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies. I. Hierarchical systems. Comput. J., 9(4): 373-380. Miller, V. C., 1953. A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountains areas, Virginia and Tennessee. Dept. Geol., Columbia Univ., ONR Proj. NR 389-420 Tech. Rep., 3: 30pp. Rice, R. M., Corbett, E. S. and Bailey, R. G., 1969. Soil slips related to vegetation, topography, and soil in southern California. WaterResour. Res., 5(3): 647-59. Sharpe, C. F. S., 1938. Landslides and Related Phenomena. Pageant, N.J., 125 pp. Skempton, A. W., 1953. Soil mechanics in relation to geology. Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc., 28: 33-62. Skempton, A. W. and Hutchinson, J. N., 1969. Stability of natural slopes and embankment foundations, lnt. Soil Mech. Conf.. Mexico, State-of-the-Art Rep., 291-340.

114

R.J. BLONG

Sokal, R. R. and Sneath, P. H. A., 1963. Principles ojNumerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San [:rancisco, Calif., 359 pp. Sowers, G. B. and Sowers, G. F., 1961. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Macmillan, New York, N.Y., 386 pp. Terzaghi, K., 1950. Mechanism of landslides. Geol. Soc. Am., Geol. (Berkeley) Vol. : 83 - 123. Varnes, D. J., 1958. Landslide types and processes. Highw. Res. Board. Spec. Rep., 29: 20-47. Ward, W. H., 1945. The stability of natural slopes. Geogr. J., 105: 170-197. Yatsu, E., 1966. Rock Control in Geomorphology. Sozosha, Tokyo, 135 pp. Yatsu, E., 1967. Some problems on mass movements. Geogr. Ann., 49A: 396-401. Zaruba, Q. and Mencl, V., 1969. Landslides and their Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 202 pp.