1 / 51

Geomorphology Chapter 4: Mass Wasting

Geomorphology Chapter 4: Mass Wasting. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting Geomorphic context Types Mechanics Causes Effects on Landscape. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting Geomorphic context Most discussion of mass wasting in geology pertains to landslides, mud flows etc. as “geohazards” or

brendy
Download Presentation

Geomorphology Chapter 4: Mass Wasting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Geomorphology Chapter 4: Mass Wasting

  2. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Geomorphic context • Types • Mechanics • Causes • Effects on Landscape

  3. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Geomorphic context • Most discussion of mass wasting in geology • pertains to landslides, mud flows etc. as “geohazards” or • engineering problems threatening humans or their structures. • We are more interested in the role mass • wasting has played in shaping the landscape over geologic • time scales.

  4. La Conchita landslide, Anaheim, California,1995

  5. Wasting a landscape

  6. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Geomorphic context • Most discussion of mass wasting in geology • pertains to landslides, mud flows etc. as “geohazards” or • engineering problems threatening humans or their structures. • We are more interested in the role mass • wasting has played in shaping the landscape over geologic • time scales. Relates to the issue of scale-age

  7. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Types

  8. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Examples of different types

  9. Lost River, WV

  10. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Mechanics

  11. Driving / Shearing Force W θ W cos θ W sin θ Driving Force (FD = FP) = Shear Force = W sin θ

  12. W θ W cos θ W sin θ Force providing Shearing Resistance Force Normal to slope (FN) = Wcos θ Resisting Force (FR) = Shear Strength * Area = [ c + σN tan Φ ] * A = [ c + σN tan Φ ] * A = [ c + ( Wcos θ / A) tan Φ ] * A = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ

  13. W θ W cos θ W sin θ Force providing Shearing Resistance Resisting Force (FR) = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ c= cohesion Φ = angle of internal friction

  14. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ Block will slide when FR <=FD FR /FD = factor of safety = F F < 1 means failure likely F > 1 means slope is stable

  15. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Causes • Given knowledge of mechanics, what are causes • or triggers of mass wasting? F = FR / FD F = [c A + Wcos θ tan Φ] / W sin θ

  16. F = FR / FD F = [c A + Wcos θ tan Φ] / W sin θ • Effects of weight? • Effect of slope? • Effects of cohesion? • Effects of angle of internal friction? • How do different types of geologic materials affect the above? • How do environmental conditions affect the above?

  17. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ Numerical Example 1: Rock slope of massive granite Area = 10,000 square feet Slope = 40 degrees Weight = 1,000 tons = 2,000,000 lbs Cohesion = 725,000 lbs/square foot Φ = 40 degrees

  18. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ Numerical Example 1: Rock slope of massive granite Area = 10,000 square feet Height = 100 ft, Unit weight = 150 lbs/ft3 Slope (θ) = 40 degrees Weight = 75,000 tons = 150,000,000 lbs Cohesion = 8,500 lbs/square foot* Φ = 35 degrees* FD = (150 x 106 lbs) sin (40 deg) = 9.6 x 107 lbs FR = (8.5 x 103 psf)(1 x 104 ft2) + (150 x 106 lbs) cos (40 deg) tan (35 deg) = (8.5 x 107 + 8.1 x 107 ) lbs = 16.6 x 107 lbs *Hoek and Bray, 1981)

  19. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ FR /FD = factor of safety = F FR /FD = (16.6 x 107 lbs) / (9.6 x 107 lbs) F = 1.7 F > 1 means slope is stable

  20. Consider the effects of water • Not a lubrication effect • A pressure effect F = [c A + (Wcos θ – pA) tan Φ] / W sin θ

  21. W θ W cos θ W sin θ Pore pressure, p, acts against normal component of weight, does not change downslope component FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ pA Block will slide when FR <=FD FR /FD = factor of safety = F F < 1 means failure likely F > 1 means slope is stable

  22. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ Numerical Example 1 with water: Average height of water table above potential slide plane = 50 ft p = 50 ft x 64.3 lbs/ft3 = 3215 lbs/ft2 pA = 3215 lbs/ft2 x 10,000 ft2 = 3.2 x 107 lbs

  23. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ pA Numerical Example 1: Rock slope of massive granite Area = 10,000 square feet Height = 100 ft, Unit weight = 150 lbs/ft3 Slope (θ) = 40 degrees Weight = 75,000 tons = 150,000,000 lbs Cohesion = 8,500 lbs/square foot* Φ = 35 degrees* FD = (150 x 106 lbs) sin (40 deg) = 9.6 x 107 lbs FR = (8.5 x 103 psf)(1 x 104 ft2) + [ (150 x 106 lbs) cos (40 deg) – - 3.2 x 107] tan (35 deg) FR = 14.4 x 107 *Hoek and Bray, 1981)

  24. W θ W cos θ W sin θ FD = W sin θ FR = c A + Wcos θ tan Φ pA FR /FD = factor of safety = F FR /FD = (14.4 x 107 lbs) / (9.6 x 107 lbs) F = 1.5 (12% decrease compared to dry slope) F > 1 means slope is stable

  25. Chapter 4: Mass Wasting • Effects on Landscape

  26. Appalachian highlands are mantled by colluvial deposits that • preserve late Pleistocene and Holocene history (USGS, 2002). • Debris flows may be responsible for as much as 50% of total • physical denudation within some of the drainage basins in the • Appalachians (USGS, 2002). • For example, in the Blue Ridge study of these deposits is helping • understand some of the following: • soil development • extreme climate variation over last 35,000 years • periglacial processes • rates of landscape denudation • potential modern debris flows and their triggers

  27. Style of mass wasting/sediment movement in Blue Ridge differs from that in Ridge & Valley. In Blue Ridge foothills, thick fans and flows of coarse alluvium/colluvium accumulate over weak and soluble materials of Valley and Ridge (Clark, 1989). Foothills composed of Quaternary fans, flows Blue Ridge Catoctin Fm. (basalts) Valley & Ridge Sediments / meta- sediments, esp. quartzites of Erwin Fm. weak / soluble rocks esp. carbonates , form sediment trap for colluvium

  28. Style of mass wasting/sediment movement in Blue Ridge differs from that in Ridge & Valley.

  29. In Valley and Ridge, accumulations of coarse material at base of ridges are thin or lacking because Massanuten Fm, a hard quartz arenite, is not a source for large clasts and limestones of valley don’t form sediment traps here (Clark, 1989).

  30. Differences in geology between Ohio and Mississippi Valleys?

More Related