See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326827376

Research of Mudflow Behaviour

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 108

1 author:

Budijanto Widjaja
Universitas Katolik Parahyangan
106 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pile foundation View project

Behavior of mudflow View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Budijanto Widjaja on 04 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings ~rSlope JO 15. Septemher J 7-Jdh JO 15

RESEARCH ON MUDFLOW BEHAVIOR

B. Widjaja 1

ABSTRACT: Research on mud flow, a type of mass movement, is very interesting. Mudflow is fine-grained soil
that flows on the soil surface with water content that is equal to or higher than the liquid limit. This research
investigates the process of determining appropriate rheological parameters through a new laboratory test (flow
box test) and verifying these parameters based on other previous research results. A simulation with these
parameters (yield stress and viscosity) is then conducted, and several actual mudflow cases in Indonesia and
Taiwan are compared. This research helps clarify the behavior ofmudflow, especially during transportation.

Keywords: :vlass movement, mudflow, rheology, liquid limit, yield stress. viscosity

INTRODUCTION strength/cohesion, c.) that is similar to r, (O'Brien

Mass movement is of many types, such as
debris flow. rock fall, earth flow, and mudflow. In
this research, we attempt to understand mudflow
behavior, especially from a rheological perspective.
Several criteria are established to distinguish the
difference from other types.
DEFfNITION
Several researchers have recommended mass
movement classifications (Cruden and Varnes
1996; Hungr at al. 2001: Abbot 2004; USGS 2010).
The mass movement terminology utilized in this
paper defines mudflow as a rapid fine-grained soil
movement with water content that is equal to or
higher than the liquid limit (LL). Hungr et al.
(200 I) mentioned that the velocity of mud flow
could be higher than 0.05 mis.
Rheology is applied in mudflow research
because soil flows on the soil surface (USGS 20 I 0).
Rheology is a science dealing with how materials
flow. Materials can be classified into two main
types based on the number of parameters; these two
types arc Newtonian and non-Newtonian. The
Newtonian type (e.g., water) involves one
parameter, namely. viscosity ( 17), and yield stress
( r,) is zero. This condition means that the material
cannot resist shear stress. The non-Newtonian type
involves both viscosity and yield stress.
Mudflow can be classified as a non-Newtonian
type because fine-grained soils (e.g., silt and clay)
have shear strength (i.e., undrained shear
et al. 1993). Once shear stress ( r) exceeds r., soil
flows and is governed by 17. Viscosity refers 10 how
soil resists flow.
This research deals with soil in a viscous liquid
condition (function of water content. w) and flow
behavior (function of rheological parameters). The
following steps are implemented to understand
mudflow behavior.
I. A new laboratory tool called flow box test is
developed to derive rheology parameters for
mudflow, especially viscosity.
2. A method of yield stress measurement is
developed and compared with other methods
through several laboratory tests (vane shear test,
fall cone penctrometer. moving ball test. etc.).
3. Site visitation, soil sample collection for actual
landslides and mudflows. and a laboratory test
on rheological parameters are conducted.
4. A numerical simulation with Flo2d software is
conducted; and the transportation time in an
actual landslide mudflow event and that in the
simulation arc compared.
5. Comparison and verification of rheological
parameters are conducted.
Ne11· laboratorr tools for mud/low rheological
parameters
Given the difficulty of identifying rheological
parameters wi1h a com·enlional rheometer, a novel
tool called flow box test (FBT) was developed. This
test was developed based on Terzaghi's trap door
theory and the Bingham model (Widjaja and Lee
2013, Lee and Widjaja 2013).

1
Lecrurer, Parahyangan Catholic University, email: geotekra gmail.com, JI. Ciumbuleuit 94. Bandung. fNDONESIA

El-I
 The Bingham model is a simplified rheology
model that is useful for soil with a very high shear
strain rate (i.e.. first derivation of shear strain). This
condition implies that soil has two constant
rheological parameters. For real soi l, increasing the
shear strain rate could cause a change in , iscosity.
The laborato1y test consists of a door below a
soil sample (Figure 1). Springs are attached below
the door, and displacement is measured during
ob,ervation time. From the FBT governing
equation. one can calculate viscosity through the
graphical matching curve procedure.
l~rn-·-=. . m
;-~. .
Tr_,ono, _._.,.
! ... _ ;;-
T VOT
. J
fmol.:ab:
(•I
CrPMHCJieoA-t,
Figure I. (a) Schematic of the flow box sen,p and
(b) general view at the end of the test
(Widjaja and Lee 20 13)
The typical FBT result and its veri Iication with
other previous research results are shown in Figure
2. If the liquidity index (LI) is equal to one, then the
range of viscosity for mudflow from FBT is in the
range of0.l Pa•s to 2 Pa•s (circle number 5 and 12
in Figure 2). This result reveals how mudflow
changes its water content from plastic state to
viscous liquid state.
2 3 4 &
Liquidity Index (LI)
Figure 2. Verification with other previous results
Measurement to determine yield stress
In this research, yield stress is assumed to be
similar to undrained shear strength ( c,,). The c,,
value was obtained through a vane shear test (VST)
and with a fall cone penetrometer (FCT), as shown
in Figure 3. A fall cone penetrometer is a tool for
E l-2
detern1ining the liquid limit through the use of a
penetration cone. Cohesion was obtained from an
empirical equation (Houlsby 1982). The c,, values
from VST and FCT differed slightly (Figure 3).
This di ffcrencc implies that the value from FCT can
be employed as yield stress. It also shows that when
soil is within the liquid limit (LL = 68), the
undrained shear strength is approximately 2 kPa.
Another measurement method called moving
ball test was developed ( Figure 4 ). This test
involves the use of a viscometer and can be applied
in viscous liquid state. The governing equation was
derived from ball equilibrium into viscous liquid
state of soil using Stoke's formula. The result is
shown in Figure 2 (circle number 7 and 8).
£
g'
GI
100
~
(bl
.,
:,
J
., 10
1
,,
C
:}•er 11ST
\
\
\
::>
01 30 +--------~----
50 100
Water content (%)
Figure 3. Comparison of cohesion in VST and FCT
for kaolin (Widjaja ct al. 2015: after Widjaja and
Setiabudi 2014)
Figure 4 .. Moving ball test (left) and stress
rheometer SR-5 (right) (Lee ct al. 2008)
As shown m Table I. silty soil (MH and Ml) is
more likely to become mudflow than CH. The
result of the flume channel test (Figure 5) shows
that the mode of failure for silt is in flow type (i.e.,
mudflow) and that for clay is in discontinuity (i.e..
landslide) (Widjaja and Prata ma 2015).
Table I. Basic soil parameters in this research We found that basic soil parameters from the
Soil source and deposition area are relatively similar.
No. Sample LL Pl G,
type For instance, liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (Pl)
I Kaolin 68 38 2.61 MH are 95 and 69, respectively, for the source area for
2 Bentonite 208 115 2.67 CH Pangalengan in 20 I 5. For the deposition area, LL
and PL are 95 and 72, respectively. These values
3 Karanganyar (2007) 53 34 2.71 MH
are very close.
4 Maokong (2008) 33 26 2.66 ML

5 Ciwidey (20 I 0) 45 32 2.63 ML Numerical simulation to derermine rransportarion

time and comparison of acwal landslidelmudjlow
6 Sukaresmi. Cianjur (2013) 66 48 2.55 MH
and simulation results
7 Cililin (2013) 58 30 2.74 MH
One of the reasons FBT was developed is to
8 Parakan Muncang (2014) 67 29 2.60 CH
determine rheological parameters and input their
9 Karang Mukti (2014)• 88 29 2.67 CH values in a numerical software. The computer
10 Banjarnegara (2014) 65 40 2.73 MH program employed was Flo2d. Another important
input besides rheological parameters (yield stress
II Parung Ponteng (2014) 63 51 2.64 MH
and viscosity) was the topography map. The
12 Pangalengan (2015) 95 68 2.76 MH outputs were predicted deposition area,
transportation time (including soil velocity). and
Note: LL is liquid limit: PL is plastic limit: G, is specific gravity height of the deposition area. Then, the actual
deposition area, transportation time, and soil
deposition height were compared with those in the
simulation result. Generally, the comparison
showed that simulation with rheological parameters
d' from FBT is relatively close to the actual mudflow
event.
An example of this simulation is shown in
Figure 6. This simulation is for Banjarnegara
landslide and mudflow in 2014.

Figure 5. Type of failure of kaolin (left) and

parakan muncang (right) obtained through a flume
channel test (top view)
(Widjaja and Pratama, 2015)

Site visitation and soil sample collection for Figure 6. Example ofFlo2d result for soil
landslide and mudjlow deposition deposition for Banjarnegara mudflow (landslide is
not included in this case)
At least I I locations from Java Island
(Indonesia) and 3 locations from Taiwan were PROPOSED CRJTERIA FOR MUDFLOW
selected in 2013 (Table I). Disturbed soil samples
After evaluating landslide and mudflow, several
were obtained from the source and deposition area.
criteria for mudflow were established as follows.
Affected individuals were interviewed. The main
a. Soil type: Fine-grained soil has a water content
question is about the transportation time from the
that is equal to or higher than the liquid limit
source area to the deposition area. A topography
b. Transportation velocity (v): v?: 5 cm/s (Cruden
map of the impact area was created and compared
and Varnes. 1996; Hun gr et al., 200 I)
with the map before the mass movement occurred.

El -3
c. Ratio of width to transportation length is 0.05
to 0.3 (Liu and Mason, 2009)
d. Solid concentration volume (C.) is in the range
of 0.45 to 0.55 55 (O'Brien and Julien. I 988).
C, is defined as
C= - 1-
, l+G,.w
(I)
where G, is specific gravity and "' is water
content.
CONCLUSION
This research expounded the behavior of
mudflow and landslide by developing a new
laboratory test, creating a mass movement database,
conducting a numerical simulation. and comparing
an actual mudflow event and a simulated one. Soil
viscosity was compared to that in other studies. The
simulation result obtained with viscosity derived
from FBT is relatively close to the actual deposition
value
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support provided
by Professor Shannon-Hsien Heng Lee from
National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology. Gratitude is also extended to the
Japanese government for its research funding
through the World Bank.
REFERENCES
Abbot, P.L. (2004). Naniral disasters. 4th ed. Mc-
Graw Hill. New York, USA.
Cruden, D.M. and Varnes. D.J. (1996). Landslide
types and processes, Landslides: investigation
and mitigation. Transp. Res. Board., 36-75.
Houlsby, G.T. ( 1982). Theoretical analysis of the
fall cone test. Geotechnique Vol. 38(3). pp. 433-
438, 1982.
Hungr, 0., Evans, S.G., Bovis, M.J. and
Hutchinson, J.N. (2001 ). A review of the
classification of landslides of the flow type.
Environ. and Eng. Geoscience, Vll(3), 221-238.
Jeong, S.W. (2010). Grain Size Dependent
Rheology on the Mobility of Debris Flow.
Geoscience J., 14(4), pp. 359-369.
Lee, S.H.H. and Widjaja, B. (2013). Phase concept
for mud flow based on the influence of viscosity.
Soils and Foundations 53 (I), pp. 77-90.
Lee, S. H.H., Widjaja, B., Yao, J.H., and Du, Y.
(2008). A proposed method determining liquid
limit based on shear strength. Annual Scientific
E l-4
Meeting. Indonesia Society of Geotechnical
Eng.. pp. 111-1 - 111-5.
Liu. J.G. and Mason. P.J. (2009). Essential image
processing and G IS for remotes sensing. Wiley-
Blackwell, West Sussex. UK.
Local. J. ( 1997). Normalized rheological behavior
of fine muds and their flow properties in a
pseudoplastic regime. Proc. I st Int. Conf. on
Debris Flow Hazards Mitigation. San Fransisco,
USA, pp. 260-269.
Local, J. and Demers. D. ( 1988). Viscosity. yield
stress, remolded Strength, and liquidity index
relationships for sensitive clays. Canadian
Geotech. J .. 25(4). pp. 799-806.
Mahajan, S.P. and Budhu. M. (2006). Viscous
effects on penetrating shafts in clays. Acta
Geotechnica, I, 157-165.
Mahajan, S.P. and Budhu, M. (2008). Shear
viscosity of clays to compute viscous resistance.
Proc. I 2'h Int. Conf. of Int. Ass. for Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Goa,
India, 1516-1523.
O"Brien, J.S., Julien. P.Y. and Fullerton, W.T.
( 1993). Two-dimensional water flood and
mudflow simulation. J. Hydraul. Eng., 119(2),
pp. 244-259.
USGS (20 I0). Difference berween slide and .flow.
<http: www.profimcdia.si 'picturc/landslides-
and-mud-flows 0088784198/> (Feb. 22. 20 I I).
Vallejo, LE. and Scovazzo, V.A. (2003).
Determination of the shear strength parameters
associated with rnudflows. Soils and
Foundations, 43(2). 129-133.
Widjaja, B., Andriani, D., Sutisna. R.A., and Fitri.
A.O. (20 I 5) Alternative way for determination
of yield stress as rheology parameter for
mudflow. Int. Conf. on Adv. in Civil and
Structural Eng. Malaysia. Institute of Research
Engineers and Doctors, pp. 1-4.
Widjaja. B., and Setiabudi, D.W. (2014),
Determination of rheology parameter using
vane shear test for elucidating mudflow
transportation (in Indonesia). Proc. Seminar
Nasional Gcoteknik, Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Yogyakarta. pp. 31-38.
Widjaja, B. and Lee. S.H.H. (2013). Flow Box Test
for Viscosity of Soil in Plastic and Viscous
Liquid States. Soils and Foundations 53 (I). pp.
35-46.
Widjaja, B. and Pratama, I.T. (2015).
Detennination of the viscosity value based on
the influence of the sliding plane by using flume
channel. Proc. Quality in Research, University
of Indonesia.
LANDSLIDE RISK EVALUATION BY COMBfNATION OF MORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND
SIMULATION APPROACH fN TROPICAL HUMID REGION
le Hong Luong, Toyohiko Miyagi, Shinro Abe, Eisaku Hamasaki and Pham Van Tien CS-I

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATJON FOR SLOPE STABILITY

REMEDIATION - LESSON LEARNT
Henrico Winata and Achmad Muzni Chasanudin C6-I

D. CO UNTRY REPORTS AND LANDSLIDE CONTROL

ENGINEERfNG CONTROLS FOR HILL-SITE DEVELOPMENTS IN MALAYSIA

Yee Thien Seng DI-I

WIDESPREAD SLOPE MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE AUSTRIAN ALPS

G. Moser 02-1

LANDSLI DE DISTRIBUTION AND LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILTY IN THE Rio LA CARBONERA

WATERSHEAD, PICO DE ORIZABA VOLCANO, MEXICO
Gabriel Legorreta Paulin, Marcus I. Bursik and Trevor Contreras 03-1

FEATURES OF FORMATION AND ACTIVIZATION OF LANDSLIDE PROCESSES IN

KYRGYZSTAN
Kamchibek Kozhogulov Chonmunmovic/1 and Olga Nikolskaya Victorovna 04-1

E. ANALYS IS Of DEBRIS FLOW AND M UD FLOWS

RESEARCH ON MUDFLOW BEHAVIOR

H. Widjaja El-I

LARGE DEFORMATION ANALYSIS OF DEBRIS FLOW ON MT. UMYEONSAN CONSIDERJNG

ENTRAINMENT OF BED SEDIMENT
Sangseom Jeong, Kwangwoo lee and Hyunsung Lim E2-l

LANDSLIDE AND DEBRIS FLOW AT KHAO PANOM BENJA, KRABI, SOUTHERN THAILAND
N. Phienwej and A. lyaruk E3-1

SIMULATION OF WHOLE LANDSLIDE PROCESS USING MOBILIZATION CRITERION FOR

UMYEON MOUNTAIN IN KOREA
Kang, Sinhang, lee, Seung-Rae and Vasu, N. N. E4-1

SPATIAL STUDY ON SHALLOW LANDSLIDE WITH IMPLEM ENTATION OF INFINITE SLOPE

ANALYSIS METHOD ON GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM PLATFORM FOR
KARANGKOBAR, BANJARNEGARA. CENTRAL JAVA
Andriansyah and Tommy nrns ES-I

f. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT AND RAIN INDUCED LANDSLIDES

ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON LANDSLIDE HAZARD IN WEST JAVA

A. Tohori and H. Santoso Fl-I

INCORPORATING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND DISASTER RJSK REDUCTION ON

LANDSLIDE fNTO SPATIAL PLANNfNG, CASE STUDY: TARAKAN ISLAND
Setiawan B. and Fad Z. G. F2-1

V
 PREFACE

Landslides have become a major threat and disasters at large scale residence area in urban as well as
suburban area or villages. Our profession has important roles in public safety against landslides and man
made slope failures and the potential of shaping the future of landslides risk management. The theme of the
conference '·ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH. PRACTICE, AND INTEGRATED SOLUTION ON
LANDSLIDE" reflect the effort to synergize the academic research and findings and practical experience in
facing climate change and human interference on the nature.

Engineering Geologists. Civil Engineers and Environmental Engineers and other professionals arc concerned
with the problems of debris flow, landslides and rockslides which may be caused by natural disasters. river
erosion, climate change, human errors and gco-cnvirontmental problems. Eventhough we have gained
experience. knowledge and advanced technology. there arc still numbers of deadly events that recently
occurcd at many places in Indonesia such as in Padang Pariaman in Sumatcra 2009 (more than 600 fatalities),
South Cianjur 2009 (54 fatalities) and recently at one particular district area of Banjarncgara, Central Ja, a
with 35 I fatalities (Legetang Kepakisan. I 6 April I 955). 90 fatalities (Sijeruk, 4 January 2006) and I 08
fatalities (Jcmblung. 12 December 2014) and also in many other countries as well.

Landslides Risk Reduction is hence very important steps in every country. They require multi hazard
approach including institutional capacities such as policy. legislation, education and training, community
awareness etc as an essential condition for its effectiveness. Many universities, research institutions.
landslides centers and geological or geotechnical consultants ha,e gained experience and knowledge which
are of valuable importance. Case histories of landslides contribute to the state of the art for research and
practice on landslides and rock slides. It is with the objectives of sharing knowledge. the conference has been
aimed for the goals. Hence the conference is very important event for exchange of ideas and experience and
for contribution among many countries all over the world.

We would like to extend my appreciation to all of you who ha, e been travell ing from far distance and
specially to the Keynote Speakers and authors who made their efforts to share their knowledge and
experience to the audience. This conference cannot be successful without the support of the clepartment. the
faculty of engineering, specially the dean Dr. Adhijoso Tjondro. Rector of Parahyangan Catholic University
Dr. Mangadar Situmorang. and Director of UPI Geoteknologi Dr. Haryadi Pcnnana for their encouragement.
Last but not least. to all members f the committee for their endless hard work and dedication, I have to
acknowledge that they arc the people behind the scene, for without them. this event will not come to reality.

Finally to all participants. I wish you find this conference useful and beneficial to you. and your institution.

Organizing Committee
International Conference on Landslides and Slope Stability
(SLOPE 2015)

Prof. Paulus P. Rahardjo, Ph.D.

Chainnan

Dr. Adrin Tohari

Co-Chairman

View publication stats