Entrainment of debris in rock avalanches:
An analysis of a long run-out mechanism
Oldrich Hungr†
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4,
Canada
S.G. Evans
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
ABSTRACT
Many rock avalanches entrain and liquefy
saturated soil from their paths. Evidence for
this includes mud displaced from the mar-
gins of rock avalanche deposits, substrate
material smeared along the base of deposits,
extrusion of liquefied soil upward through
the deposits, and increases of volume. A
hypothesis first suggested in 1881 and since
reinforced by several authors suggests that
entrainment of substrate material increases
mobility. Although the process has been
discussed in the literature for more than
100 years, few detailed and quantitative
descriptions exist. The main purpose of this
paper is to describe two recent cases from
British Columbia, Canada, where rockslides
entrained substrate on a very large scale,
influencing the character of the events.
Estimated volume balance curves, based
on detailed field mapping, are provided for
both cases. Dynamic analyses are carried
out using a numerical model and using the
same set of rheological parameters. The
mechanism of material entrainment and
displacement is discussed. The data suggest
that rapid rock failures entraining very large
quantities of saturated substrate material
represent a special type of landslide, tran-
sitional between rock avalanche and debris
avalanche. Many rock avalanches can thus
be seen as end members of a continuum of
phenomena involving rock failure followed
by interaction with saturated substrate.
Keywords: rock avalanche, debris avalanche,
dynamic analysis, runout, entrainment, Brit-
ish Columbia.
†
E-mail: ohungr@eos.ubc.ca.
GSA Bulletin; September/October 2004; v. 116; no. 9/10; p. 1240–1252; doi: 10.1130/B25362.1; 12 figures; Data Repository item 2004126.
1240
INTRODUCTION
The 1903 Frank Slide of southern Alberta,
a rock avalanche of 36 × 106 m3, was the most
lethal landslide in the history of both Canada
and the United States, destroying a part of
the town of Frank, with 73 fatalities. Most of
the damage in Frank was not, however, due to
impact or burial by rock debris. Instead, homes
and other buildings were impacted by a lateral
outflow of mud, the liquefied alluvium from the
floodplain of the Old Man River, expelled from
the western margin of the landslide (McConnell
and Brock, 1904).
Liquefied substrate can play a dominant
role in rock avalanche motion. Its entrainment
serves to increase the volume of the landslide,
but may also lead to a change in the character
of material in the basal part of the moving mass,
enhancing mobility. This is the oldest among
numerous hypotheses that attempt to explain the
high mobility of rock avalanches, having been
first proposed by Buss and Heim in 1881 (see
below). Abele (1974, 1997), Sassa (1988) and
Voight and Sousa (1994) are among its later pro-
ponents. The underlying process of liquefaction
by rapid undrained loading was documented by
Hutchinson and Bhandari (1971) for earth flows
and Sassa (1985) for debris flows. However, few
quantitative descriptions of relevant case his-
tories exist to substantiate this theory for rock
avalanches. In general, it is difficult to assess the
role of basal liquefaction in field studies, as the
surface of rock avalanche deposits typically dis-
plays dry, coarse rock fragments. However, mud
is often observed around the deposit margins
(e.g., Buss and Heim, 1881; Cruden and Hungr,
1986), and a lubricating layer of such material
may well remain concealed beneath the coarse
debris. The situation is more transparent where
the amount of debris entrained along the path is
very large, relative to the volume of rock in the
For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org
© 2004 Geological Society of America
initial failure. In such cases, the flow of lique-
fied soil unquestionably adds to the mobility
of the event as a whole. Such landslides have a
transitional character and deserve special iden-
tity both in name and in terms of descriptive
and analytical treatment. Their characteristics
also shed light on the behavior of other rock
avalanches, in which debris entrainment is less
prominent, but nevertheless present.
CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
When a rockslide mass disintegrates and
fragments in the process of becoming a rock
avalanche, an initial volume increase occurs.
A few estimates of the volume increase exist in
the literature, ranging from 7% to 26% (Hungr,
1981, p. 306). However, such field estimates are
not reliable, as they require accurate measure-
ment of both source and deposit volumes. In all
the examples used in this paper, it is assumed
that fragmentation produces a volume increase
of ~25%. This is at the center of the typical
range of measured porosities of loosely placed
well-graded crushed rock, which is 18%–35%
(Sherard et al., 1963, p. 657).
It is of interest to note that such a volume
increase negates nearly all possibility of a fluid
pore pressure existing in the fragmented rock
itself, at least in the initial stages of motion.
In-place water content of most rock masses is
negligible. The large pore space newly created
by fragmentation must thus be essentially dry,
until sufficient time passes to allow water from
some source to flow into it. On a typical rock
avalanche path, however, significant water can
come only in association with saturated soil
entrained from the path downslope of the toe of
the rupture surface.
During or following fragmentation, further
volume increase occurs by entrainment of sub-
strate material, partly or completely liquefied by
 ENTRAINMENT OF DEBRIS IN ROCK AVALANCHES
rapid undrained loading (Hutchinson and Bhan-
dari, 1971). Rock avalanche substrate is gener-
ally saturated in temperate climates, as proven
by the often-observed presence of liquid mud in
or near the debris (see below). Given the rapid
motion and large volume of rock avalanches,
one can speculate that even incompletely satu-
rated and moderately coarse-grained soil can
liquefy under the intense undrained loading
imparted by masses of fragmented rock (cf.
Sassa, 1985; Dawson et al., 1998).
To quantify the entrainment process, an
Entrainment Ratio (ER) can be defined as the
ratio between the volume of debris entrained
from the path and the expanded volume of rock
fragments produced by the initial rock failure:
VEntrained VE
ER = = , (1)
VFragmented VR (1 + FF )
where VE is the volume of the entrained material,
VR is the volume of the initial rockslide and FF is
the fractional amount of volume expansion due
to fragmentation (0.25). The total volume of the
landslide deposits equals VR(1+FF) + VE. Scott
(1988) used a similar index, which he referred to
as the Bulking Factor, for volcanic lahars.
Hungr et al. (2001) proposed that the term
“rock slide–debris avalanche” be used to
describe landslides that begin by the failure of
a rock slope and proceed to entrain large quan-
tities of debris (talus, colluvium, residual soil,
glacial drift, alluvium, peat, or other materials)
from their path. Since the presence of small
quantities of entrainment is often difficult to
detect, it is suggested that the composite term be
applied only to those events where ER exceeds
0.25. This definition contrasts with earlier uses
of the term “rock slide–debris avalanche” (e.g.,
Varnes, 1978). However, it is advantageous, as
it clearly points out the important role of mate-
rial entrainment. Landslides involving flow-like
motion of fragmented rock with only modest
entrainment can be described by the well-
established term “rock avalanches,” defined by
Hungr et al. (2001).
A numerical model for simulating the
dynamic behavior of landslides entraining
mass was presented by Hungr (1995). Use of
the model requires that the initial rock failure
volume and the rate of debris entrainment be
known. The latter can be expressed as a yield
rate (Yi), the volume entrained from the path
and incorporated into the moving avalanche per
unit length of the path, in units of m3/m (Hungr
et al., 1984). Obviously, the yield rate depends
on many factors, especially density, gradation
and degree of saturation of the path substrate,
the slope angle, and the current mass of the
avalanche. A specific yield rate value may be
Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
observed in each segment of the path of a par-
ticular description. There are at present no theo-
retical or even empirical means of predicting
yield rates a priori. Records of yield rates from
known events are useful to establish precedent
for empirical predictions.
DEBRIS ENTRAINMENT IN ROCK
AVALANCHES
Impact Loading of Colluvium
The 1939 landslide at Fidaz, Switzerland,
began as a 1 × 105 m3 rock failure from the head
scarp of the prehistoric Flims landslide, but
grew to a total volume of 4 × 105 m3 (ER = 2.2)
by expanding during fragmentation and entrain-
ing a part of the colluvial apron surrounding
the source cliff (Niederer, 1941). In 1953, a 1
× 104 m3 block of rock detached from a cliff at
Modalen, Norway, as described by Kolderup
(1955) and entrained talus, producing a flow of
1.15 × 105 m3 (ER = 8.2). In Brazil, a rock slab
with a volume of 6000 m3 fell from a granite
rock slope, bounced off a lower rock slope, and
impacted on talus. This mobilized a large debris
avalanche that destroyed a clinic, causing the
death of ~30 people (Barros et al., 1988). (The
final volume was not reported in this case.)
Mobilization of Glacial and Residual Soils
Devastating rock avalanches occurred on
the west side of the north peak of Nevados
Huascarán, Peru, in 1962 and 1970. In January
1962, ~2.5–3 × 106 m3 of glacier ice and grano-
diorite broke from Huascarán’s ice cap–covered
northern summit. After falling 1000 m down an
almost vertical slope, this mass struck Glacier
511 and incorporated more glacier ice and
large volumes of lateral moraine. In its passage
through a series of steep-sided ravines, more
material was added to the debris avalanche
until it spread out on a fan where the town of
Ranrahirca lay. The total deposited volume was
estimated to be 13 × 106 m3 (Morales, 1966),
over four times the original detached volume
(ER = 2.8).
In May 1970, another landslide was trig-
gered by an earthquake from the same source
on Huascarán. Considerable uncertainty sur-
rounds the volume of the initial detachment.
Plafker and Ericksen (1978) estimated that 50
× 106 m3 of material was involved in the initial
fall (5 × 106 m3 of ice), but did not mention any
entrainment of morainal soil. Lliboutry (1975)
estimated an initial volume of 9 × 106 m3. Ghig-
lino Antúnez (1970) estimated a total of 14 ×
106 m3 (5 × 106 m3 rock and 9 × 106 m3 ice).
According to his data, the total deposit volume
of the 1970 event increased to 53 × 106 m3 as a
result of the incorporation of ice, glacial till, and
colluvium from the path of the debris avalanche,
suggesting an ER of 2.0. The extreme discrep-
ancy between these various accounts illustrates
the difficulty of making volume estimates in the
field.
A 1987 rockslide of 6 × 106 m3 from Cerro
Rabicano in Región Metropolitana, Chile,
disintegrated and produced a debris avalanche
of a total volume of 15 × 106 m3, by entraining
snow, ice, and valley infill deposits (ER = 1.0).
The rockslide-debris avalanche traveled 17 km
along the Estero Parraguire River on an average
slope of 4.5°. It formed a short-lived natural dam
at the confluence with Río Colorado. Breach of
the dam produced a debris flood along the larger
stream, which continued to a total travel dis-
tance of 57 km, descending a vertical distance
of ~3400 m (Hauser, 2002).
Another case for which data exist is the earth-
quake-triggered 1984 Mount Ontake debris
avalanche. The volume of the initial failure is
known to be 34 × 106 m3 (Oyagi, 1987). Oyagi
also noted that the rock avalanche entrained
quantities of residual, colluvial, and alluvial
soil from the valleys through which it passed.
Detailed mapping of the deposits (Endo et al.,
1989) showed that the volume of the deposits is
56 × 106 m3, an ER of ~0.3 after a 25% increase
of the initial failure volume due to fragmenta-
tion is taken into account.
Interaction with Alluvium
Abele (1974; 1997) was one of the first
workers to suggest a link between long travel
distance of rock avalanches and interaction with
valley fills, on the basis of detailed field map-
ping of prehistoric rock avalanche deposits in
the Alps. He proposed a mechanism whereby
a combined movement of a rockslide mass rid-
ing on water-saturated silt, sand, and gravel can
increase both run-out distance and the spreading
of the debris.
Field observers of historical rock avalanches
have often remarked on the presence of a splash
zone around the margins of the debris. Heim
(1932) noted a spritzzone of fine, liquid soil
surrounding the distal and lateral margins of
the Elm Slide debris, contrasting with the steep,
well-defined edge of the rock debris sheet from
beneath which it had evidently been expelled.
Similar “splash” margins were described in
detail by Cruden and Hungr (1986) surrounding
the Frank Slide debris. The surface of the Frank
Slide debris deposit at the foot of the proximal
slope is several meters below the original bed of
the Old Man River, showing deep erosion of the
valley deposits (McConnell and Brock, 1904).
1241

Evans et al. (1994) found alluvial gravels and
wood debris which had been entrained from
a river floodplain and transported onto a rock
shelf more than 600 m above the original valley
floor by the runup of the prehistoric Avalanche
Lake rock avalanche in the Northwest Territo-
ries, Canada. The 1964 Hope Slide in southern
British Columbia, the 1987 Val Pola Slide in
northern Italy, and the 1985 North Nahanni
Slide in Canada sent flow slides, composed
largely of liquefied valley fills, away from their
lateral margins (Mathews and McTaggart, 1978,
Govi, 1989, Evans et al., 1987).
TWO RECENT CASE HISTORIES
Field Estimation of Volumes
An important aspect of the fieldwork
described here was the estimation of volumetric
balance of the landslides, which is required to
derive yield rates. Areal extent of the source,
path, and deposit was well constrained, as the
authors are in possession of post-event maps
at 1:2000 (Eagle Pass) and 1:2500 (Nomash
River) scale. Thus, area estimates contain errors
of no more than a few percent. A major potential
source of error, however, derives from the diffi-
culty of determining depths of material removal
and deposition. Successive photogrammetric
mapping before and after the event would
have improved the situation, but only partially.
Such mapping would not determine the depth
of disturbance in areas where deposits replaced
previously eroded material. More important,
both landslides were characterized by surface
elevation changes of <5 m, within the resolution
margin of photogrammetry in forested regions.
Field observations were conducted by tra-
versing the entire extent of the path of both
landslides on foot. The Eagle Pass ground
investigation was supported by a helicopter.
Measurements of the dimensions of various fea-
tures were made with the help of standard field
equipment, including measuring tape, compass,
clinometer, and a laser range finder. The depths
of depletion and deposition were estimated in
the field by observing freshly eroded scarps,
damaged trees, changes in drainage patterns
(particularly ponding of water at the deposit
margin), and apparent modification of recogniz-
able landforms. Considerable subjective judg-
ment had to be exercised in order to estimate
the average depths of deposition or erosion in
various reaches of the landslide path. In some
cases, direct estimates of erosion depth or
deposit thickness at singular points were possi-
ble, thanks to exposed side scarps, buried trees,
ponded water, and similar evidence. Elsewhere,
this was not possible, especially where eroded
1242 Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
HUNGR and EVANS
space was infilled by deposits. We attempted to
extrapolate the shape of the original ground sur-
face as observed at the path margins. The esti-
mated spot thicknesses were used to estimate
the average thickness, with the use of subjective
judgment. The volumes of the rockslide source
areas were estimated by reconstructing smooth
contours across the scars.
Corrections were applied to the estimated
thicknesses in order to maintain overall volume
balance between erosion and deposition. This
procedure amounts to averaging two indepen-
dent estimates (deposition and erosion), thus
improving the accuracy. The overall accuracy of
the volume estimates reported below is probably
in the range of ±25%. This error estimate is itself
subjective, but it is based on a consideration of
the possible limits of variation. For example,
while the deposit thickness of the central part of
the Nomash deposit was estimated as 5 m, it is
unlikely to have been more than 6 m (otherwise
more substantial damming of the river would
occur) or less than 4 m (large boulders could
not be transported, original topography would
be better preserved). Similar arguments can be
advanced concerning the eroded slope in the
distal part of the Eagle Pass Slide. Admittedly,
the low accuracy of the field estimates of thick-
ness casts some doubt on the quantitative results
reported below. In the authors’ opinion, it is not
sufficient to invalidate the qualitative conclu-
sions regarding the important effects of material
entrainment on landslide motion. In any case,
there is presently no practicable method of
improving such estimates.
Eagle Pass Slide
Eagle Pass is the deepest gap penetrating
the Monashee Mountains 12 km west of Rev-
elstoke, central British Columbia (Fig. 1). Both
the Canadian Pacific mainline track and the
Trans-Canada Highway traverse the 550-m-
high pass, between mountain ridges reaching
to more than 2000 m in elevation. A landslide
occurred in May 1999 during the snowmelt
season on the northern slope of the pass directly
above the western end of Clanwilliam Lake
(118°22′30″W, 50°58′00″N).
The Monashee Mountains are composed of
gneiss belonging to the Lower Paleozoic Mona-
shee Complex, forming a part of the Omineca
Belt (Johnson, 1990). The source of the 1999
slide is a 100-m-high cliff, originally over 60°
steep at the face, standing at elevation 1020 m
a.s.l., 470 m above the lake and the valley floor.
The foliation of the cliff dips at ~35° to the
southwest, oblique to the south-trending fall line
of the slope. It appears that the rupture surface
of the initial failure resulted from a combination
of a foliation-parallel joint and a stress-relief
joint sub-parallel to the original cliff face. A
wedge-shaped block of rock, having an esti-
mated volume of ~7.5 × 104 m3 detached along
the two discontinuities and collapsed toward
the valley. Assuming a fragmentation volume
increase of 25%, the initial rockslide produced
~9.4 × 104 m3 of broken rock.
Below the source area, as shown in the lower
part of Figure 2, is a broad, sloping bench,
300 m wide, at an average slope of 26°, most
of which was originally covered by forested
coarse talus and glacial drift consisting of silty
sand. Rockslide blocks covered this bench over
a width of 210 m and at an estimated average
thickness of 2.5 m in the proximal part and 1 m
in the distal part of the bench. It is estimated
that ~87000 m3 of rock debris deposited on
the bench, corresponding to 92% of the total
volume of the rockslide. As it came to a stop,
the mass of fragments mobilized some of the
sandy substrate near the crest of the bench. This
is apparent from the total removal of trees on the
slide path, from evident mixing of the substrate
material with the rock blocks, and from eroded
small side scarps bordering parts of the path
in this area. The volume of soil removed from
the bench area was estimated by assuming an
average erosion thickness of 0.25 m over the
area of the path. It must be stressed that this is
an average value; the erosion thickness varied
between 0 and ~2 m over the area, as estimated
by inspection of exposures at the slide margins.
The averaging of such spot estimates was made
subjectively.
The estimated remaining 6000 m3 of rock
debris, together with a larger quantity of mobi-
lized drift, flowed over the crest of the bench
and down the main valley slope, 37° steep and
500 m long (Fig. 3). This slope is bedrock-con-
trolled, but was originally covered by a thin,
forested veneer of colluvium derived from the
glacial drift existing farther up the slope. The
landslide stripped the veneer from a path 100 m
wide, removing practically all of the tree cover.
In calculating the volume of debris generated
from this part of the path, an average thickness
of the veneer of 0.3 m was estimated. The soil
material is nonplastic and consists of 5%–15%
silt, 30%–50% sand and 35%–60% gravel (per-
centages by weight, based on two samples). The
mass of debris, rock, and timber flowed over a
cliff at the toe of the slope and landed in Clan-
william Lake, where a deposit with an area of
~1.6 × 104 m2 built up over the surface of spring
ice. The total volume of deposits on the bench
and in the lake was ~1.2 × 105 m3. Within sev-
eral weeks, the nonorganic part of the debris dis-
appeared below the lake surface. The Canadian
Pacific rail line escaped serious damage only
 ENTRAINMENT OF DEBRIS IN ROCK AVALANCHES
Figure 1. Location plan.
because a short rock tunnel extends precisely
across the width of the slide path.
The approximate volume balance of the event
is reconstructed in Figure 4. Figure 4A is the
slope profile, showing the rockslide source, the
bench with the coarse deposits, and the main
slope segment of the path. Figure 4B is a plot
of the estimated yield rate, Yi, in units of m3/m.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
The yield rate estimates have been derived from
field estimates of the depth and area of the
various entrainment and deposition segments,
as described in the preceding paragraphs. Error
bars indicate the probable range of depth esti-
mation errors (±25%).
Integrating the yield rate along the length
of the path produces the mass balance curves
shown in Figure 4C. The maximum volume in
motion was 9.4 × 104 m3 of fragmented rock,
passing the toe of the source cliff. Deposition
of rock fragments on the bench, partly offset by
erosion, reduced the volume in motion to ~2 ×
104 m3. Entrainment of glacial and colluvial
material on the slope produced a second peak of
some 3.5 × 104 m3, which was deposited in the
lake at an estimated average deposit thickness of
2.2 m. The volume estimate of material passing
the crest of the bench could be quite inaccurate,
as it is within the error margin of the initial failure
volume. Nevertheless, the qualitative description
of the sequence of events given above serves to
substantiate the basic shape of the mass balance
curve. The fahrböschung (“travel angle,” being
the vertical angle between the crown of the initial
failure and the toe of the deposits) of the land-
slide is ~31° and the ER is 0.3.
Velocity of the landslide was roughly esti-
mated at one location near the crest of the bench
at the left margin of the path, where slight super-
elevation of the debris occurred along a curv-
ing trajectory controlled by topography. The
velocity of the slide was estimated applying the
forced vortex equation for flow through bends
(e.g., Chow, 1957):
u = Rg tan β , (2)
Here, u is the estimated mean flow velocity,
R is the radius of the central streamline of the
flow, derived from a map or from field observa-
tions, g is the gravity acceleration and β is the
transverse angle between trim lines defining
the boundary of the flow path. The conditions
at a distance of 500 m from the crown of the
rockslide suggested a speed of ~8 m/s. Higher
velocities undoubtedly occurred on the steep
slope of the lower path, although no direct esti-
mate is possible.
Nomash River Slide
The Nomash River is a small stream in the
western part of the Insular Mountains, some
20 km inland from the outer coast of Vancouver
Island (Fig. 1). The geographic coordinates of
the site are 126°42′00″W and 49°59′00″N. The
bedrock of the area consists of crystalline lime-
stone with basaltic intrusions, belonging to the
Upper Triassic Karmutsen Formation. A land-
slide occurred in the headwaters of the Nomash
River on April 25 or 26, 1999, during spring
snow melt. The slide originated at the crest of
a 430-m-high southwest wall of a U-shaped
glacial valley. It moved across the valley floor,
changed direction by 90° and moved northwest
for 1.2 km, following the channel of the river
and covering its floodplain.
1243
 HUNGR and EVANS

The source of the initiating rockslide is a

mountain slope angled at 50° to the northeast
and composed of a sequence of white marble
interbedded with basaltic sills (Fig. 5). The sill
contacts dip at shallow angles to the southeast,
perpendicular to the slide motion. The concave
rupture surface consisted of a series of intersect-
ing joints, including some stress-relief joints
sub-parallel with the slope face and several ran-
domly oriented joints and shears. The detached
mass was roughly tabular in shape, tapering to
the base and ~3 × 105 m3 in volume. Applying
a fragmentation volume increase factor of 25%,
the slide produced 3.75 × 105 m3 of fragments,
which collapsed into the valley, perpendicular to
the Nomash River.
The valley bottom is mantled by a ground
moraine consisting of silty sand. Glacial till
underlies the narrow floodplain of the Nomash
River and extends up the sides of the valley
to a height of ~100 m above the valley floor.
Fine-grained colluvial aprons rise another 80 m
higher in certain parts of the valley slopes. Figure 2. Eagle Pass rockslide–debris avalanche: frontal view of the source area. The rock-
The floodplain is typically 50–100 m wide, slide scar is ~50 m wide. (Photo, D. Ayotte).
composed of shallow sand and gravel deposits
and organic matter. The depth of these alluvial
deposits is not known, but it is probably limited
to several meters.
The rockslide descended from an upper bed-
rock slope, overriding a colluvial apron and till-
covered slope, angled at 30° (Fig. 6). The col-
luvium and glacial till at location A in Figure 6
were scoured 100–150 m wide to a maximum
depth of 8 m, leaving prominent side-scarps
along the sides of the slide path, visible in Fig-
ure 7. A field survey of the area indicated that
~360,000 m3 of material were eroded from the
slope and incorporated into the moving mass.
Based on two samples, the eroded material con-
tained <2% clay, 14%–35% silt, 25%–44% sand
and 39%–41% gravel. The mass then crossed
the floodplain of Nomash River and deflected
from the right bank in a wide curve (Location B,
Fig. 6; Fig. 7). As a result of rebound from the
first curve, the flow elevated to a lesser height
on the left bank (Location C, Fig. 6), before
continuing to move down the Nomash River
valley. The width of debris deposits gradually
decreased along the valley. The flow terminated
at Location D, 2270 m in plan distance and
560 m below the crown of the initial slide. The
fahrböschung of the landslide was 13.8°.
The debris appears to be spread as a thin
veneer throughout the deposition area. Evidence
for this is the lack of damming of the Nomash
River at the upstream margin of the debris
(Location E, Fig. 6) and the general smooth-
ness of the debris surface, which mimics the
U-shaped profile of the valley as observed both Figure 3. Eagle Pass, vertical aerial view of the main path of the debris avalanche, below the
downstream and upstream of the slide site. The bench. (Aerial photo, D. Ayotte).

1244 Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004

 ENTRAINMENT OF DEBRIS IN ROCK AVALANCHES
Figure 4. Eagle Pass rockslide–debris avalanche. (A) Path profile. (B) Estimated yield rate
distribution. (C) Volume balance curve.
bulk of the bouldery rockslide debris was found
upstream of the second bend (Location C).
Beyond this point, the debris consists primarily
of silty sand similar to the colluvium entrained
on the slope below the source, although consid-
erable alluvial gravel and organic debris are also
evident. Rock debris occurs in this distal part of
the slide deposit mainly in the form of several
large boulders, up to 6 m in diameter.
Debris yield rates were estimated as shown
in Figure 8B. Error bars show the estimated
maximum error of erosion and/or deposition
depth estimates (±25%). Figure 8C shows the
volume balance curve resulting from these esti-
mates. The shape of the mass balance curve is
very different from that for the Eagle Pass Slide.
Only one peak occurs, near a distance of 700 m
from the crown of the rockslide, where the frag-
mented rock was still in motion while the total
volume of entrained debris approached its peak.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
The total volume of moving material passing
through this point is more than 7 × 105 m3. The
ER is 0.9.
Using the forced vortex equation (Equation
2) for flow in the second curve, at Location C,
Figure 6, yielded a velocity estimate of 12 m/s.
The superelevation of the flow was barely
measurable in the final two bends upstream of
Location D, indicating that the velocity there
had decayed to <2 m/s.
The vortex formula could not be applied in
the first bend, at Location B, Figure 6, because
the left margin of the flow through the bend
could not be determined, having been overrid-
1
GSA Data Repository item 2004126, supple-
mentary figures, is available on the Web at http:
//www.geosociety.org/pubs/ft2004.htm. Requests
may also be sent to editing@geosociety.org.
den by return flow. Instead, a runup formula
derived by Hungr et al. (1984) was applied to a
projection of the center of the flow path toward
the highest point of the right-hand flow margin
at Location B. The runup formula, derived from
the conservation of momentum, gives the verti-
cal runup height, H:
−V 2
H= tan θ , (3)
G
where:
gh cos θ 
V = u cos(θ 0 − θ)1 + (4)
 2u 2 
and
G = g( tan φ cos θ − sin θ). (5)
The slope angle of the approach path is θ0
(0° in this case), and the runup slope angle is θ
(−14° at Location B; note slopes are measured
down form the horizontal). The flow depth (h) is
assumed as 10 m and g is the acceleration of grav-
ity. Because the formula is rheology-dependent,
both h, the flow depth (10 m) and φ, the friction
slope angle (6.6°), had to be determined based
on the dynamic model, described below. With
these input parameters, the velocity, u, was esti-
mated iteratively from Equation (4) as 22.5 m/s
at the approach to Location B. Additional photos
of the Eagle Pass and Nomash River landslides
can be found in the Data Repository.1
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
HISTORIES
The dynamics of a rockslide–debris ava-
lanche involves momentum exchange between
the failing rock mass and the material entrained
along the path. The numerical model “DAN”,
described by Hungr (1995) can be used to
simulate this scenario. Although based on a one-
dimensional integrated form of the equations of
motion, the model is capable of producing rea-
sonably good approximations of three-dimen-
sional flow problems, as shown by comparisons
carried out by Chen and Lee (2000) and more
recent unpublished comparisons with the
authors’ own three-dimensional model and with
laboratory flow experiments.
The model permits entrainment of material
along the slide path. The volume of entrainment
is controlled by the debris yield rate, which must
be specified for each path segment as an input
variable and is based on Figures 4B and 8B.
The entrainment volume is scaled in proportion
to the fractional volume passing. Thus, the full
specified yield rate is reached a given point only
1245
 HUNGR and EVANS

once the entire volume of the moving mass has

passed. It is also possible to change the rheology
of the moving mass to include the change from
dry frictional to velocity-dependent, at the point
where saturated material is entrained.
Both case histories have been analyzed, with
topography based on detailed site maps. The
same set of rheological properties was used for
both cases. In each case, the initial rockslide was
represented by a frictional material with no pore
pressure and a constant dynamic friction angle
of 30°. At the point where entrainment of debris
began, the rheology of the moving mass was
changed to the Voellmy model (Hungr, 1995).
The two-parameter model of Voellmy (1955)
combines a frictional coefficient (f) and a veloc-
ity-dependent turbulence parameter (ξ). The
frictional coefficient (tangent of the “bulk fric-
tion angle” as defined by Hungr [1995]) is the
result of dry friction of the material, modified by
pore pressure assuming a constant ratio between
pore pressure and total normal stress on the base
of the flow. Thus, the friction coefficient may be
a small fraction of the dry friction coefficient of
the substrate soil (cf. Hungr, 1995). The resist-
ing shear stress (τ) at the base of the flow, is then
represented (in a simplified formulation) as:
u2
τ = γhf cos α + γ , (6)
ξ
where h is the flow depth, α the slope angle, γ
the unit weight of the material, and u the mean Figure 5. Nomash River rockslide–debris avalanche: view of the source area. The rockslide
velocity. Voellmy (1955) developed this model scar is ~150 m wide.
empirically for snow avalanches by combining
Coulomb frictional and Chézy formulas. The
turbulence term ξ (which is similar, although
not exactly equivalent, to the Manning “n”) dynamically with each other and with the provides good results in terms of velocity and
was intended to cover all velocity-dependent fluid to produce dispersive effective normal distribution of deposits. Details of the calibration
factors in snow avalanche motion, including stress. This would tend to expand the layer. If, process have been discussed by Hungr and Evans
turbulence of the air-snow dispersion and however, pore pressure diffusion is too slow to (1996) and Ayotte and Hungr (2000). The present
air drag on the top surface of the avalanche. permit expansion, a decrease in pore pressure back analyses differ from previous work in that
Körner (1976) showed that, perhaps by coin- will occur. According to Bagnold’s results, the two rheologies are used, dry frictional for the ini-
cidence, the model offers a good simulation of pore pressure decrease should be proportional to tial rockslide and Voellmy for the flow lubricated
velocities for rock avalanches. the square of velocity. The frictional resistance by entrained liquefied soil. It must be stressed
Successful application of the Voellmy model will increase as represented by Equation (6). A that the only adjustable parameters in the analy-
to debris flows and debris avalanches may recent evaluation of Bagnold’s (1954) experi- sis are the two Voellmy coefficients. The friction
possibly benefit from a similar coincidence ments has placed the value of the exponent 2.0 angle of the initial sliding movement (30°) is a
(e.g., Rickenmann and Koch, 1997; Ayotte and in Equation (6) in question (Hunt et al., 2002). reasonable estimate for dry dynamic shearing of
Hungr, 2000). However, the model may have While this development may eventually result in a granular material or moderately rough joint sur-
a more fundamental physical basis. Bagnold a need to modify Equation (6), good empirical faces. The locations where the rheology changes
(1954) showed that both the shear stress and the results as reported by Körner (1976), Rick- from frictional to Voellmy are also not arbitrary,
effective normal stress in a dense dispersion of enmann and Koch (1997), Hungr and Evans but correspond to the points where entrainment of
grains in fluid, rapidly sheared at constant vol- (1996), this paper, and others justify the use of saturated soil is known to occur.
ume, depend on the square of the shear strain the simple Voellmy model at least until further The Voellmy parameters for both of the pres-
rate. We may visualize a plug flow moving on experiments and back analyses are completed. ent cases have been selected by trial-and-error
a saturated basal layer of constant thickness hm. As described by Hungr (1995), the DAN as f = 0.05 and ξ = 400 m/sec2. These parameters
Initially, while the movement is slow, the resis- model uses empirical calibration to constrain both are in the range of properties used earlier in the
tance will depend on friction and pore pressure the rheological relationship and the specific resis- simulation of long-runout flow slides involv-
in the basal zone. As velocity increases, grains tance parameters used. Previous experience with ing coal mine waste (Hungr et al., 2002). The
in the shearing layer will begin interacting rock avalanches shows that the Voellmy equation low magnitude of the f coefficient implies the

1246 Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004

 ENTRAINMENT OF DEBRIS IN ROCK AVALANCHES

Figure 6. Plan of the Nomash River landslide path and deposit, showing locations mentioned in the text. The square grid spacing is 200 m
in both directions. The contour interval is 10 m.

profiles of the moving mass at 10 s intervals up

Figure 7. The middle part of the Nomash River slide path. The rockslide originated above
the upper left corner of the photo. Eroded side scarp in the colluvial apron beneath the
source area can be seen left of center, intersecting a twinned logging road. The lighter-col-
ored areas are covered by rockslide blocks.
presence of high pore pressure in the basal layer
of the landslide.
The results of an analysis of the Eagle Pass
Slide are summarized in Figure 9. In Figure 9A,
the profile of the slide path with a width profile
determined from the map are shown. Because
of the length of the profile, all depths (measured
normal to the path) have been exaggerated 10×
in the diagram. The initial slide profile is shown
by a thick dashed line. Thin lines show the
to 70 s. The thick line shows the final deposit.
The slide started as a flow of frictional mate-
rial. A yield rate of 54 m3/m was introduced on
the bench, at a distance of 420 m. It was then
reduced to 36 m3/m at 480 m in accordance with
Figure 4B. The frictional rheology was retained
on the proximal part of the bench, due to the
presence of coarse talus as the surficial material
in this area. The transition to Voellmy material
was made at a distance of 480 m, where the
surface material was finer-grained glacial and
colluvial soil. The separation of the landslide
deposit into an upper part (on the bench) and
lower part (in the lake) is well represented by
the model.
The model showed a substantial decrease in
front velocity at a distance of 500 m, near the
crest of the bench (Fig. 9B). The single field
velocity estimate at this location supports a sub-
stantial slow-down, although this estimate was
made near the margin of the path and is there-
fore probably not representative of the speed of
the center of the flow front.
A corresponding analysis of the Nomash
Slide is shown in Figure 10. The amount of
erosion was specified according to Figure 8B.
The yield rate was taken as 1000 m3/m at a hori-
zontal distance of 360 m from the crown. The
material was changed from frictional to Voellmy
at the same location to account for the presence
of saturated, fine-grained material susceptible

Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004 1247

 HUNGR and EVANS

to rapid undrained loading. The yield rate was

reduced to 180 m3/m at 630 m. The flow veloc-
ity of the front is shown on Figure 10B, and
compared with the field velocity estimates
reported in the previous section. Depth profiles
at 10 s intervals and the final distribution of
debris are shown in Figure 10C.
In summary, the model is seen to simulate
very satisfactorily all main aspects of both cases
with the same set of input parameters. The key
to a successful simulation, however, is to change
the material rheology at that point of the path
where entrainment of saturated material occurs.
To illustrate the effect of entrainment, the
analysis of the Nomash case was repeated with
no entrainment and constant frictional rheol-
ogy (Fig. 11). This model shows a small rock
avalanche with limited displacement, building
a steep apron at the toe of the slope. The fahrbö-
schung is 33°, slightly larger than the assumed
friction angle of 30° and much larger than the
14° calculated by the alternative model. Thus, in
comparing Figures 10 and 11, the entrainment
of saturated material is seen to have a strong
effect on the runout in this example.

THE MECHANISM OF MATERIAL

ENTRAINMENT

The observations described in the previous

sections suggest a sequence of events form-
ing a rockslide–debris avalanche: In the early
stage, a rockslide of moderate volume occurs.
Such a slide would ordinarily produce a steep
talus cone at the foot of the slope. However,
the moving mass of rock fragments reaches a
deposit of loose saturated material lying in the
path (colluvium, glacial till and alluvium in the
present cases). It appears that the rockslide front
does not immediately displace the loose soil in
its path, but overrides it partially, causing rapid
loading and liquefaction of the saturated sub-
strate as suggested by Sassa (1985). This notion
was tested by a small-scale model. A mass
of rock fragments was released from a steep
slope, so as to reach a thin deposit of clayey silt
saturated to just below its liquid limit. The frag-
ments displaced the silt layer only slightly, but
overrode it. In the final stage of the experiment,
the rock mass was moving on top of a sheet of
mud formed from the silt substrate. The shear
strength and viscosity of the material was too
great at this small scale to effect much total dis-
placement; however, the mechanism of overrid-
ing and rapid loading was demonstrated.
It is probable that much more displacement
of the substrate material occurs at full scale,
where the ratio between the applied stresses and
the liquefied shear strength is several orders of
magnitude larger than in the laboratory model.
Figure 8. Nomash River rockslide–debris avalanche. (A) Path profile. (B) Estimated yield
rate distribution. (C) Mass balance curve.
A hypothetical mechanism of a full-scale
flow is shown schematically in Figure 12. In
Figure 12A, the potentially liquefiable layer
of relatively loose, saturated soil on the valley
floor and apron is being approached by a rapidly
moving mass of rock fragments from the upper
slope. On collision, the soil partly or completely
liquefies under impact loading, and its strength
is reduced to a fraction of its dry frictional
value. Part of it is pushed forward by the leading
front of the rock mass, while part is overridden
(Fig. 12B). A wave of liquid debris is projected
forward, overriding and entraining new sub-
strate and carrying some of the rock fragments
with it. The rock mass follows behind, sliding
on a thin cushion of liquefied soil (Fig. 12C).
Finally, the slide stops, the mud wave having
swept itself far forward into the deposition area,
forming a forward-tapering tongue speckled
with transported boulders. All of these features
correspond closely to field observations made at
the Nomash River site.
Apparently, very little drainage or consolida-
tion of the fine-grained mud occurs during the
event, as demonstrated by the fluidity of the
distal debris. This is not surprising, given the
high velocity of the landslide motion and the
low permeability of the poorly sorted and rela-
tively fine grained soils at the site. Considering
the dominant material of the slide substrate to
be a poorly sorted silty sand, the coefficient of
consolidation can be estimated as of the order
of 10−2 cm2/sec. Using consolidation theory
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967, p. 181), a pore pres-
sure reduction of only 10% in a saturated layer
50 cm thick would require ~40 min, much
longer than the 2 min duration of the entire
landslide event, as estimated by the model.
Mixing during rapid flow would likely further
hinder the consolidation process, making pore
pressure dissipation slower. Thus, no significant
dissipation of the pore pressures generated by
rapid loading should be expected.
Once liquefaction occurs, the flow front con-
tinues riding on top of a sheet of liquid mud in
a configuration justifying the assumptions of the
Voellmy rheological model. This allows most
of the rock debris to be carried out consider-
ably beyond the deposition point that would
be predicted by a dry frictional model. In the

1248 Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004

 ENTRAINMENT OF DEBRIS IN ROCK AVALANCHES

Clastic dykes issue from this basal layer upward

into the overlying marble fragments. Wide-
spread clastic dykes and other intrusions or
pockets of valley deposits have been described
in major rock avalanches in the Bavarian Alps
by von Poschinger (2002). Upward extrusion of
liquid organic sand through coarse debris was
observed in the distal reaches of long-runout
flow slides from coal mine waste dumps (Hungr
et al., 2002).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

THEORIES EXPLAINING THE
MOBILITY OF ROCK AVALANCHES

It has long been noted that many rock ava-

lanches are excessively mobile, if considered
as shearing masses of dry broken rock (Heim,
1932). Furthermore, the degree of mobility
appears to increase approximately in propor-
tion to the logarithm of the volume of the event
(e.g., Abele, 1974; Scheidegger, 1973; Hsü,
1975). For many years, researchers have been
looking for an explanation of this phenomenon.
The main hypotheses advanced for this purpose
include the following:
1. Mobilization by an air cushion, overridden
and trapped beneath the mass of the rock ava-
lanche (Shreve, 1968).
2. Fluidization by similarly trapped air or by
steam generated by vaporization of groundwater
Figure 9. Eagle Pass, results of the dynamic analysis. (A) Flow profiles at 10 s intervals (all (Goguel and Pachoud, 1972; and others).
depths exaggerated 10×). (B) Velocity profiles, with a field velocity estimate indicated by 3. Fluidization by dust dispersions (Hsü, 1975).
a cross. The model used frictional rheology with a bulk friction angle of 30° at a distance 4. Rock melting or dissociation by the heat of
of 0–484 m and a Voellmy model with an f (frictional coefficient) of 0.05 and a ξ (velocity- friction (Erismann, 1979).
dependent turbulence parameter) of 400 m/s2 beyond 484 m. Entrainment yield rates were 5. “Mechanical fluidization,” understood as
approximately as shown in Figure 4B. a process of spontaneous reduction of friction
angle at high rates of shearing (e.g., Schei-
degger, 1975; Campbell, 1989; and others).
final stages, the flow front resembles a saturated low degree of mobility, as measured by its steep 6. Acoustic fluidization—reduction of the
debris avalanche. fahrböschung. The event had two discharge friction angle resulting from acoustic-fre-
The above scenario is probably universal in peaks, one corresponding to the rockslide and quency vibrations at the base of the flowing
a qualitative sense, but will have different char- the other to the debris avalanche phase. mass (Melosh, 1979).
acteristics depending on the relative quantities It is easy to visualize cases similar to the 7. Increase in areal dispersion of debris as a
of rock and liquefiable soil and the shape of the Nomash Slide, but where the quantity of the result of fragmentation (Davies and McSavenney,
path profile. Thus, in the Nomash case, nearly liquefiable material relative to the rock debris 1999).
all of the rock debris reached the liquefaction is less. Thus, the rock debris is still mobilized 8. Lubrication by liquefied saturated soil
region and moved a considerable distance. The by a cushion of mud, but the leading tongue of entrained from the slide path (Buss and Heim,
peak discharge was formed by the joint flow of debris may be small or missing altogether. In 1881; Abele, 1974, 1997; Sassa, 1985).
rock and mud near the center of the path. There some cases, the mud may be expelled sideways Many critical reviews and discussions of
was sufficient excess of liquefied material to instead of forward (e.g., the Frank Slide, men- these various mechanisms have appeared in
project a long tongue of mud ahead of the rock tioned in the Introduction). the literature (e.g., Hsü, 1975; Hungr and Mor-
deposits. In the Eagle Pass case, the proximal Part of the liquid material may be smeared genstern, 1984; Hungr, 1990; Legros, 2002).
part of the rock mass deposited on the bench, along the path while supporting coarser debris. Some of the critical arguments that have been
having been slowed down by non-liquefiable This hypothesis was suggested by Johnson advanced are reviewed as follows.
talus deposits. Only the leading edge of the (1978), who found that the Blackhawk Slide Hypotheses 1 and 2 postulate high gas pres-
rock debris reached saturated colluvium and set debris is underlain by a possibly continuous sures. If substantial average gas pressure existed
off a debris avalanche on the steep, colluvium- 1-m-thick contorted layer of sandstone debris, beneath a sheet of debris, those parts of the sheet
mantled slopes below the bench. As a result of derived from a rock unit originally located far that are thinner than average would become
this, the Eagle Pass landslide displays a rather upstream, below the toe of the rupture surface. fully fluidized and exhibit features characteristic

Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004 1249


of upward escape of gas such as normal grading,
elutriation of finer particles, craters, and graded
fallout fans or cones. No description of such
phenomena can be found in the literature. Many
rock avalanche deposits exhibit reverse grading,
which is opposite to what would result from gas
fluidization (e.g., Cruden and Hungr, 1986).
Rock melting (Hypothesis 4) may occur in
some cases, where a rockslide is unusually thick.
However, it almost certainly is not a widespread
phenomenon, as very few examples of melted
rock have been reported in the literature.
With regard to the mechanical fluidization
theory (Hypotheses 3 and 5), it is yet to be
shown experimentally that high rates of shearing
lead to a reduction in the overall friction angle of
dry granular material. High rates of shearing can
cause dispersion of the material and reduction in
bulk density, but offer no mechanical advantage
to the shearing movement. For example, Hungr
1250 Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
HUNGR and EVANS
and Morgenstern (1984) observed flows of dry
sand in a laboratory flume at speeds of up to
6 m/sec. These flows were <100 mm thick and
moved in a plug-flow manner. Thus, shearing
was concentrated in a basal zone only a few mm
thick, producing shear strain rates of more than
1000 rad/s. As a result, the flows were highly dis-
persed, showing a bulk density reduction of as
much as 12%–22% relative to loose static piling
density (Hungr, 1981, p. 421). Yet, no decrease
in basal friction angle was measured in these
experiments. Thus, contrary to the key hypoth-
esis of the mechanical fluidization concept, a
high degree of mechanical dispersion does not
appear to provide a decrease in friction.
Acoustic fluidization (Hypothesis 6) is possi-
ble and can be demonstrated experimentally by
conducting direct shear tests on a vibrating table
(e.g., Barkan, 1962). It differs from mechanical
fluidization in that energy input associated with
Figure 10. Nomash River,
results of the dynamic analysis.
(A) Flow profiles at 10 s inter-
vals (all depths exaggerated
10×). (B) Velocity profiles, with
field velocity estimates indicated
by crosses. (C) Depth and ero-
sion profiles at 10 s intervals.
The model used frictional rheol-
ogy with a bulk friction angle of
30° at a distance of 0–358 m and
a Voellmy model with an f (fric-
tional coefficient) of 0.05 and
a ξ (velocity-dependent turbu-
lence parameter) of 400 m/sec2
beyond 358 m. Entrainment
yield rates were approximately
as shown in Figure 8B.
harmonic vibrations produced by the bound-
ary conditions of the landslide movement is
required. However, it is unclear why such a
mechanism would favor large rockslides as
opposed to the smaller ones.
Areal dispersion of debris due to fragmen-
tation and expansion of the source rock mass
demonstrably occurs in all rock avalanches
(Hypothesis 7). However, this hypothesis does
not explain increased mobility of a frictional
material, which manifests itself not only by
wider spreading, but also by longer horizontal
displacement of the center of mass of the depos-
its. Such increased mobility has been shown for
many large rock avalanches and some small
ones as well. For example, in the case of the
Frank Slide, the vertical displacement angle
of the center of gravity has been estimated as
~21° (Cruden, 1980), much less than one would
expect for shearing of dry fragmented rock.
 ENTRAINMENT OF DEBRIS IN ROCK AVALANCHES
Figure 11. Dynamic analysis of the Nomash River landslide, neglecting entrainment of satu-
rated debris and the consequent change in rheology. Only frictional rheology is used, with a
bulk friction angle of 30° (same as in the proximal region of the model in Fig. 10). (No depth
exaggeration in this case).
Figure 12. A hypothetical mechanism of
momentum transfer between a moving rock
mass and liquefiable substrate at full scale.
(A) Rock mass approaching the substrate
layer. (B) Impact liquefaction, partial dis-
placement and overriding of the substrate.
(C) A mud wave is projected forward. (D)
Rock mass and mud wave deposit.
Reasonable simulation of the distribution of
debris for 23 rock avalanches has been obtained
with a frictional model, using a bulk friction
angle of 10–20° (Hungr and Evans, 1996).
An exhaustive critique of the above theories
would be a daunting task and one that is prob-
ably not feasible at present. The purpose of the
few arguments presented here is merely to sug-
gest that the problem of rock avalanche mobility
has not yet been conclusively solved.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
Hypothesis 8, lubrication by liquefied soil,
is in many cases supported by direct field evi-
dence, as reviewed in the preceding sections. In
a paper written shortly after his inspection of the
Elm Slide, Albert Heim expressed the opinion
that the base of the flowing debris was lubri-
cated by mud (Buss and Heim, 1881). Heim
appears to have abandoned this hypothesis in
later publications (cf. Hsü, 1978). Several other
authors, however, support the hypothesis of
lubrication by saturated soil (e.g., Abele, 1974,
1997; Sassa, 1985, 1988; Hungr, 1990; Voight
and Sousa, 1994; Legros, 2002).
The role of liquefied saturated substrate
in mobilizing rockslide–debris avalanches,
such as the Eagle Pass and Nomash examples
described in this article, is unambiguous, as the
process can be plainly observed in the distribu-
tion of the deposits and can be quantified by
dynamic analysis as shown in the preceding
section. It is reasonable to assume that a similar
process takes place in many large terrestrial
rock avalanches. In many cases, there is direct
evidence of the presence of liquefied debris.
In other cases, however, the liquefied material
may have remained covered by the rock debris,
thus giving no clue to its presence. The vis-
ibility of the liquefied material depends on the
relative proportion of source rock relative to the
entrained debris and on the circumstances of the
entrainment and transport process. In any event,
substrate liquefaction is a ubiquitous process
that can provide a very plausible explanation of
the high mobility of not only rockslide–debris
avalanches, but rock avalanches as well.
The apparent increase of mobility with vol-
ume can also be explained. Larger events cover
a larger area and thus have a greater chance to
reach thicker, more highly saturated deposits at
lower elevations (cf. Sassa, 1988; Abele, 1997).
Small events, on the other hand, often run out on
the relatively coarse grained and dry soil mantles
forming upper slopes. Of course, this depends
on the local surficial geology and, consequently,
the observed trend is erratic. Both the Eagle
Pass and Nomash events can be considered as
exceptional cases that, although relatively small,
reached saturated material early in their paths.
Mobility of rockslide–debris avalanches and
many rock avalanches is thus related weakly to
volume, but its main control is the availability,
character, and distribution of liquefiable satu-
rated soil along the slide path.
Field estimation of the volumes of entrainment
and deposition is a very difficult task, which
will not likely become easier in the foreseeable
future. Nevertheless, this difficulty is not a reason
to abandon the consideration of the important
process of debris entrainment. Even approximate
estimates of material balance in landslides are
valuable and should be collected whenever pos-
sible, using the best available means.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
R. Guthrie and C. Bunce brought the two landslide
cases to the authors’ attention and provided valuable
information. D. Ayotte assisted with the research of
the case histories and S. Riussec with the laboratory
model. J. Major, E. Wohl, R. Iverson, C. Campbell,
and S. Kite provided constructive criticisms of two
earlier versions of the paper, which led to numerous
improvements.
REFERENCES CITED
Abele, G., 1974, Bergstürze in den Alpen: Munich, Wissen-
schaftliche Alpenvereinshefte, v. 25, p. 230.
Abele, G., 1997, Rockslide movement supported by the
mobilization of groundwater-saturated valley floor
sediments: Zeischrift für Geomorphologie, v. 41,
p. 1–20.
Ayotte, D., and Hungr, O., 2000, Calibration of a runout
prediction model for debris flows and avalanches, in
Wieczorek, G.F., and Naeser, N.D., eds., Proceedings,
2nd International Conference on Debris Flows, Taipei:
Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 505–514.
Bagnold, R.A., 1954, Experiments on a gravity-free disper-
sion of large solid spheres in a Newtonian fluid under
shear: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
Ser. A, v. 225, p. 49–63.
Barkan, D.D., 1962, Dynamics of bases and foundations:
New York, McGraw Hill, 400 p.
Barros, W.T., Amaral, C.P., Sobreira, F.G., D’Orsi, R.N.,
Maia, H.S., and Cunha, R.P., 1988, Catastrophic ava-
lanche at St. Genoveva clinic slope: Solos e Rochas,
v. 11, p. 17–25.
Buss, E., and Heim, A., 1881, Der Bergsturz von Elm: Zur-
ich, Worster, 133 p.
Campbell, C.S., 1989, Self-lubrication for long runout land-
slides: Journal of Geology, v. 97, p. 653–665.
Chen, H., and Lee, C.F., 2000, Numerical simulation of
debris flows: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 37,
p. 146–160, doi: 10.1139/CGJ-37-1-146.
Chow, V.T., 1957, Open Channel Hydraulics: New York,
McGraw-Hill, 400 p.
Cruden, D.M., 1980, Anatomy of landslides: Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, v. 17, p. 295–299.
Cruden, D.M., and Hungr, O., 1986, The debris of the Frank
Slide and theories of rockslide-avalanche mobility:
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 23, p. 425–432.
1251

Davies, T.R.H., and McSavenney, M.J., 1999, Runout of dry
granular avalanches: Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
v. 36, p. 313–320, doi: 10.1139/CGJ-36-2-313.
Dawson, R.F., Morgenstern, N.R., and Stokes, A., 1998,
Liquefaction flow-slides in Rocky Mountain coal mine
waste dumps: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 35,
p. 328–343, doi: 10.1139/CGJ-35-2-328.
Endo, K., Sumita, M., Machida, M., and Furuichi, M., 1989,
The 1984 collapse and debris avalanche deposits on
Ontake Volcano, Central Japan, in Latter, J.H., ed.,
Volcanic Hazards; Assessment and Monitoring: Berlin,
Springer-Verlag, p. 211–229.
Erismann, T.H., 1979, Mechanism of large landslides: Rock
Mechanics, v. 12, p. 15–46.
Evans, S.G., Aitken, J.D., Wetmiller, R.J., and Horner, R.B.,
1987, A rock avalanche triggered by the October 1985
North Nahanni earthquake, District of Mackenzie,
N.W.T: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 24,
p. 176–184.
Evans, S.G., Hungr, O., and Enegren, E.G., 1994, The
Avalanche Lake rock avalanche, Northwest Territories,
Canada: Description, dating and dynamics: Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, v. 31, p. 749–768.
Ghiglino Antúnez, L., 1970, Alud deYungay y Ranra-
hirca del 31 de Mayo de 1970: Revista Peruana de
Andinismo y Glaciología, v. 9, p. 4–88.
Goguel, J., and Pachoud, A., 1972, Geology and dynamics
of the rockfall of the Granier Range which occurred
in November 1248: Lyon, Bulletin, Bureau de Récher-
ches Géologiques et Miniéres, Hydrogeologie, v. 1,
p. 29–38.
Govi, M., 1989, The 1987 landslide on Mount Zandilla in
the Valtellina, Northern Italy: Landslide News, Japan
Landslide Society, Tokyo, v. 3, p. 1–3.
Hauser, A., 2002, Rock avalanche and resulting debris flow
in Estero Parraguirre and Río Colorado, Región Metro-
politana, Chile, in Evans, S.G., and DeGraff, J.V., eds.,
Catastrophic landslides: Effects, occurrence and mecha-
nisms: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America
Reviews in Engineering Geology XV, p. 135–148.
Heim, A., 1932, Landslides and human lives (Bergsturz und
Menschenleben): Vancouver, British Columbia, Bi-
Tech Publishers, 195 p.
Hsü, K.J., 1975, Catastrophic debris streams (sturzstroms)
generated by rock falls: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 86, p. 129–140.
Hsü, K.J., 1978, Albert Heim, observations on landslides
and relevance to modern interpretations, in Voight, B.,
ed., Rockslides and avalanches: Amsterdam, Elsevier,
v. 1, p. 71–92.
Hungr, O., 1981, Dynamics of rock avalanches and other
types of mass movements [Ph.D. thesis]: Edmonton,
University of Alberta, 500 p.
Hungr, O., 1990, Mobility of rock avalanches: Tsukuba,
Japan, Reports of the National Research Institute
for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, v. 46,
p. 11–20.
Hungr, O., 1995, A model for the runout analysis of rapid
flow slides, debris flows and avalanches: Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, v. 32, p. 610–623.
Hungr, O., and Evans, S.G., 1996, Rock avalanche run-
out prediction using a dynamic model: Trondheim,
1252 Geological Society of America Bulletin, September/October 2004
HUNGR and EVANS
Norway, Proceedings, 7th International Symposium on
Landslides, v. 1, p. 233–238.
Hungr, O., and Morgenstern, N.R., 1984, Experiments in
high velocity open channel flow of granular materials:
Géotechnique, v. 34, p. 405–413.
Hungr, O., Morgan, G.C., and Kellerhals, R., l984, Quanti-
tative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of
remedial measures: Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
v. 2l, p. 663–667.
Hungr, O., Evans, S.G., Bovis, M., and Hutchinson, J.N.,
2001, Review of the classification of landslides of the
flow type: Environmental and Engineering Geoscience,
v. VII, p. 221–238.
Hungr, O., Dawson, R., Kent, A., Campbell, D., and Mor-
genstern, N.R., 2002, Rapid flow slides of coal mine
waste in British Columbia, Canada, in Evans, S.G., and
DeGraff, J.V., eds., Catastrophic landslides: Effects,
occurrence and mechanisms: Boulder, Colorado, Geo-
logical Society of America Reviews in Engineering
Geology XV, p. 191–208.
Hunt, M.L., Zenit, R., Campbell, C.S., and Brennen, C.E.,
2002, Revisiting the 1954 suspension experiments of
R.A. Bagnold: Journal of Fluid Mechanics, v. 452,
p. 1–24, doi: 10.1017/S0022112001006577.
Hutchinson, J.N., and Bhandari, R.K., 1971, Undrained load-
ing, a fundamental mechanism of mudflow and other
mass movements: Géotechnique, v. 21, p. 353–358.
Johnson, B., 1978, Blackhawk Landslide, California, in
Voight, B., ed., Rockslides and avalanches: Amster-
dam, Elsevier, v. 1, p. 481–504.
Johnson, B.J., 1990, Geology adjacent to the western margin
of the Shuswap Metamorphic Complex: Victoria, Brit-
ish Columbia: Mineral Resources Division, Ministry
of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Open-File
Report, v. 1990-30, p. 16.
Kolderup, N.-H., 1955, Raset I Modalen, 14 August 1953:
Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, v. 34, p. 211–217.
Körner, H.J., 1976, Reichweite und Geschwindigkeit von
Bergsturzen und fleisschnee-lawinen: Rock Mechanics,
v. 8, p. 225–256.
Legros, F., 2002, The mobility of long runout landslides:
Engineering Geology, v. 63, p. 301–331.
Lliboutry, L., 1975, La catastrophe de Yungay, Peru: Snow
and Ice: Gentbrugge, Proceedings of the Moscow
symposium, International Association of the Science
of Hydrology Publication 104, p. 353–363.
McConnell, R.G., and Brock, R.W., 1904, The great land-
slide at Frank, Alberta, in Annual Report for the year
1902–1903: Department of the Interior, Government of
Canada Sessional Paper 25, p. 1–17.
Mathews, W.H., and McTaggart, K.C., 1978, The Hope
rock slides, British Columbia, Canada, in Voight, B.,
ed., Rockslides and avalanches: Amsterdam, Elsevier,
v. 1, p. 259–275.
Melosh, H.J., 1979, Acoustic fluidization: A new geologic
process?: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 84,
p. 7513–7520.
Morales, B., 1966, The Huascarán avalanche in the Santa
Valley, Peru: Gentbrugge, International Symposium on
Scientific Aspects of Snow and Ice Avalanches, Davos,
Switzerland, International Association of the Science
of Hydrology, Publication 69, p. 304–315.
Niederer, J., 1941, Der Felssturz am Flimserstein: Jahres-
bericht der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Graubün-
dens: Chur, v. 77, p. 3–27 (in German).
Oyagi, N., 1987, The 1984 Ontake-san landslide and its
movement: Trans, Japanese Geomorphological Union,
v. 8, p. 127–144.
Plafker, G., and Ericksen, G.E., 1978, Nevados Huascarán
avalanches, Peru, in Voight, B., ed., Rockslides and
avalanches: Amsterdam, Elsevier, v. 1, p. 277–314.
von Poschinger, A., 2002, Large rockslides in the Alps: A
commentary on the contribution of G. Abele (1937–
1994)) and a review of some recent developments, in
Evans, S.G., and DeGraff, J.V., eds., Catastrophic land-
slides: Effects, occurrence and mechanisms: Boulder,
Colorado, Geological Society of America Reviews in
Engineering Geology XV, p. 237–255.
Rickenmann, D., and Koch, T., 1997, Comparison of debris
flow modelling approaches: San Francisco, California,
Proceedings, First International Conference on Debris-
Flow Hazards Mitigation, A.S.C.E., p. 576–585.
Sassa, K., 1985, The mechanism of debris flows: San
Francisco, California, Proceedings, XI International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, v. 1, p. 1173–1176.
Sassa, K., 1988, Geotechnical model for the motion of
landslides (Special lecture), Landslides, in Bonnard,
C., ed.: Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on
Landslides, v. 1, p. 37–56.
Scott, K.M., 1988, Origins, behavior and sedimentology of
lahars and lahar-runout flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz
River system: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1447-A, 76 p.
Scheidegger, A.E., 1973, On the prediction of the reach and
velocity of catastrophic landslides: Rock Mechanics,
v. 5, p. 231–236.
Scheidegger, A.E., 1975, Physical aspects of natural catastro-
phes: New York, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 289 p.
Sherard, J.L., Woodward, R.J., Gizienski, S.F., and Clev-
enger, W.A., 1963, Earth and earth-rock dams: New
York, John Wiley and Sons, 722 p.
Shreve, R.L., 1968, The Blackhawk Landslide: Geological
Society of America Special Paper 108, 47 p.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engi-
neering practice, 2nd Edition: New York, John Wiley
& Sons, 750 p.
Varnes, D., and Varnes, D.J., 1978, Slope movement types
and processes, in Schuster, R.J., and Krizek, R.J., eds.,
Landslides, analysis and control: Washington, D.C.,
Transportation Research Board, National Academy of
Sciences Special Report 176, p. 11–33.
Voellmy, A., 1955, Über die Zerstorungskraft von Lawinen,
Schweiz: Bauzeitung, v. 73, p. 212–285.
Voight, B., and Sousa, J., 1994, Lessons from Ontake-san:
A comparative analysis of debris avalanche dynamics:
Engineering Geology, v. 38, p. 261–297, doi: 10.1016/
0013-7952(94)90042-6.
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY 24 MARCH 2003
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 29 AUGUST 2003
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED 9 SEPTEMBER 2003
Printed in the USA