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

net/publication/258497129

Analytical and observational relations between landslide volume and surface

area

Article  in  Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · June 2011

DOI: 10.1029/2009JF001604

CITATIONS READS
92 1,317

4 authors:

Assaf Klar E. Aharonov

125 PUBLICATIONS   3,099 CITATIONS   

Hebrew University of Jerusalem
136 PUBLICATIONS   4,076 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Boriana Kalderon-Asael Oded Katz

Yale University Geological Survey of Israel
16 PUBLICATIONS   368 CITATIONS    106 PUBLICATIONS   1,776 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Past stress in the shallow crust View project

sinking during liquefaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by E. Aharonov on 12 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, F02001, doi:10.1029/2009JF001604, 2011

Analytical and observational relations between landslide volume

and surface area
A. Klar,1 E. Aharonov,2 B. Kalderon‐Asael,3 and O. Katz4
Received 18 November 2009; revised 19 December 2010; accepted 30 December 2010; published 2 April 2011.
[1] A remarkable field observation is that landslides of different sizes, from different
locations around the globe and triggered by different mechanisms, all seem to follow
a single relation, with their volume to surface area ratio following a power law of
∼1.4. This paper presents an analytical examination of the shape of landslides on the
basis of limit equilibrium principles involving the exact mathematical solution of the
failure mode. The obtained analytical relation between the volume and the surface area
of a landslide agrees well with the function obtained from the field observations, and
hence a mechanical basis is given to the previously poorly understood field observations.
In addition, this paper presents a new graphical interpretation of the factor of safety
associated with slope stability analysis and its relation to the probability of failure.
Citation: Klar, A., E. Aharonov, B. Kalderon‐Asael, and O. Katz (2011), Analytical and observational relations between
landslide volume and surface area, J. Geophys. Res., 116, F02001, doi:10.1029/2009JF001604.

1. Introduction dictated by the heterogeneity (see section 4 for an in‐depth

discussion of this issue).
[2] A remarkable field observation is that landslides of
[4] The first part of this paper makes use of the theoretically
different sizes, from different locations, triggered by different
derived result that marginally stable slopes must possess a
mechanisms, all seem to follow a single relation, with their
unique functional dependence between mechanical proper-
volume (V) to surface area (As) relation following a power
ties and slope geometry. This functional can be determined by
law: V / Ads . Guzzetti et al. [2009, and references therein]
either “limit equilibrium” evaluation or by “upper bound”
recently compiled data from 677 worldwide subaerial land-
calculations [Chen, 1975]. In all such limit state analyses a
slides and found d = 1.45. Other reported observations, each
search for the most critical failure surface is conducted, either
complied from up to a few tens of field measurements
by numerical minimization or analytically using variational
[Whitehouse, 1983; Hewitt, 2002; Hovius et al., 1997; Korup,
calculus. For any given slope geometry there are different
2006; ten Brink et al., 2006], reveal d = 1.4 ± 0.2. This data combinations of mechanical properties that bring the slope to
comes from widely diverse locations (both subaerial and
its point of failure (i.e., to its limit stable state). The advantage
submarine) and slope failure processes (superficial slides,
of the limit state approach is that only the shear strength of the
rock slides and debris avalanches).
slope material affects the shape of failure, without any
[3] In order to understand this scaling one should
influence of the material stiffness. When representing the
understand the mechanics controlling scaling of landslide
shear strength of the material using the Mohr‐Coulomb yield
geometry in both homogeneous and heterogeneous en-
criterion the analysis is limited to only two strength para-
vironments. This paper presents a first step in this direction,
meters, namely the friction angle,
, and the slope material
via studying scaling of failure on two‐dimensional homo-
cohesion, c (i.e., t f = sf tan
+ c, where t f is the shear
geneous slopes. Experimental and modeling observations
strength and sf is the stress normal to the failure surface).
[Katz and Aharonov, 2006; Stark and Guzzetti, 2009] This approach allows us to find the relation between fric-
suggest that the volume to area relation of slides on slopes
tional angle at the point of instability and the cohesion. Once
with heterogeneous mechanical properties is expected to be
this is established, a new graphical interpretation of the
similar to that of slides on homogeneous slopes, though the “factor of safety” is offered and a suite of solutions is pre-
total volume of the slide on the heterogeneous slope will be
sented to study the geometry of slides formed under a variety
of conditions. This static approach may not fully represent
1
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion‐Israel dynamic rupture processes that are associated with strain
Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. softening behavior. Nonetheless, it is representative of slope
2
Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with either limited strain effect on the strength, or for slope
Jerusalem, Israel. materials that fully mobilized their residual strength prior to
3
Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Tel‐Aviv
University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
sliding. The latter situation may be the rule rather than the
4
Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel. exception (O. Katz et al., manuscript in preparation, 2010).
[5] The geometry of the resulting critical two‐dimensional
Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. (2‐D) slides is then investigated, demonstrating the existence
0148‐0227/11/2009JF001604

F02001 1 of 10
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS
Figure 1. Model hillslope geometry in 2‐D cross section
(homogenous material).
of a universal relation between the thickness (t) of each slide
and the horizontal cross section (length, l) of the slides, t /
l0.6. The analysis is then extended to the case of 3‐D failure,
where a power law relation between V and As is established,
and compared with field data.
[6] The power law obtained from our model, and its
agreement with field observations, suggests that the geom-
etry of slides is not simply “scale invariant” (self‐similar),
but instead is “self‐affine.” Scale invariance implies that an
object looks identical at all observed scales. Scale invariance
of slides would mean that a small slide in a small slope must
simply be stretched (in all directions) by the same amount to
reproduce a large slide in a large slope. A simple prediction
for the relation between As and V can be made for self‐
similar slides: assuming that slides are self‐similar, their
aspect ratio, the ratio between their vertical dimension
(thickness t), and their horizontal dimension (length l),
would remain constant, independent of slide size. Let us
name this aspect ratio " = t/l. In case of self‐similarity also
the ratio between the width of a slide, 2w, and its length
l should remain constant, independent of the slide size. For
simplicity take the area of a slide as As = 2l · w [Hovius et al.,
1997], and its volume V = 2t · l · w. Thus for self‐similar slides
V / A1.5
s . The exponent of 1.5 predicted for self‐similar slides
is close to the power law exponent found by both our model
and by field observations [Guzzetti et al., 2009], but the
deviation from self‐similarity is significant. The deviation
arises because the aspect ratio of slides, " = t/l, is not
constant with increasing slide size (i.e., t does not simply
increase linearly with l), but instead decreases in a signifi-
cant way with slide size (i.e., large slides are relatively
thinner compared with smaller slides). This situation may
be described as “self‐affine” slide geometry where each axis
of the slide must be stretched by a different amount in order
to superimpose a small slide onto a larger one.
2. Characteristic Failure Modes, Factor of Safety,
and Probability of Failure
[7] In order to determine the shape of a landslide at the
time of failure, we consider the slope geometry shown in
Figure 1, and search for the most probable failure surface
that will form in the slope, if the slope is at the brink of
failure. The slope is characterized by two parameters: H,
the height of the slope, and b, the slope angle. It has
been proven, by calculus of variations [e.g., Baker and
Garber, 1978], that for a homogeneous slope, satisfying
the Mohr‐Coulomb yield criterion, the exact failure sur-
2 of 10
F02001
face has a log‐spiral shape. Figure 2 shows a log‐spiral
failure curve and the associated parameters used in the
current characterization. The functions Ys(x) and Yf (x)
describe the slope surface and the failure surface, respec-
tively. Yf (x) corresponds to a log spiral, which is described by
r = r0 e tan
in polar coordinates, where r is the spiral radius
(i.e., distance from the pole to the failure surface), and is a
function of the angle of rotation  (positive clockwise from
the horizontal). r0 is the radius value for  = 0°, and
is
the friction angle of the material. The coordinates (xc,yc)
are the pole of the log spiral in a Cartesian system with its
origin at the toe of the slope. (xs, ys) and (xe, ye) are the
coordinates at which the failure surface intersects the slope
surface, associated with angles s and e of the afore-
mentioned polar coordinates.
[8] This log spiral (first suggested by Rendulic [1935])
has the special characteristic that the resultant vector of
normal stress (s) to the slip surface passes through the pole
of the spiral, leading to the moment equilibrium being
independent of the normal stresses to the slip surface. We
use a log‐spiral failure surface to predict the critical failure
surface for different 2‐D slope geometries, using an opti-
mization process discussed below.
[9] In civil engineering, the focus of slope analysis is on a
measure of stability named the factor of safety (FS). The
factor of safety is defined as the ratio between the true
strength of the material and a (fictional) mobilized strength
required for a limit equilibrium state, under the condition of
equal mobilization of cohesion and friction; that is,
f c þ  tan
tan
c
FS ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
m cm þ  tan
m tan
m cm
where
and c are the true strength properties of the slope,

m and cm are the mobilized strength properties required for
the limit (equilibrium) state, t f is the strength and t m is the
mobilized strength with a factor of safety FS.
[10] A factor of safety larger than 1 (FS > 1) implies a
stable condition (i.e., the system has more strength than
needed for limit equilibrium). A factor of safety smaller
than 1 (FS < 1) is not physical (i.e., the system cannot
Figure 2. Illustration of log spiral failure surface: resultant
vector of normal and frictional forces passes through the
pole of the spiral.
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS
Figure 3. Illustration of the g line, the curve that specifies
the combinations of
and c that lead to failure in the limit
equilibrium analysis.
mobilize more than its capacity), although such a value
may be obtained in a slope stability analysis in design
stages, and implies an inadequate design; that is, the slope
will fail in construction.
[11] Each potential slope failure surface, Yf(x), possesses a
different factor of safety, which can be evaluated by a safety
functional F[Yf(x)]. In civil engineering [e.g., Malkawi et al.,
2001; Sun et al., 2008; Cheng et al., 2008], the factor of
safety of the slope is found by searching for the critical slope
failure surface, Yc(x), which is associated with the lowest
factor of safety,


FS ¼ min F Yf ¼ F ½Yc  ð2Þ
Yf ð xÞ
For a while, it was believed (following the works of De
Joesselin De Jong [1981] and Castillo and Luceno [1982])
that the use of variational formulation for obtaining the
minimal factor of safety of a slope is invalid, but Baker
[2003] dismissed these concerns by establishing the suffi-
cient conditions for physically significant solutions in
limit‐equilibrium slope stability analysis. The current work
obeys these conditions. However, as the purpose of the work
is to obtain and characterize the critical failure surfaces, rather
than the minimal factor of safety, a different approach is
adopted following the concept presented below.
[12] If the slope’s material properties are deterministic, we
may answer the question “what are the combinations of
cohesion, c, and friction,
, which would lead to failure of a
given slope geometry?” That is, what are the material
properties at which the slope will exist in limit equilibrium
(at the verge of collapse). The answer to this question can be
graphically presented using a single line in (c,
) space,
named herein the g line. Figure 3 shows such a line for a
specific slope of H = 100 m, b = 30° and g = 20 kN/m3
(where g is the unit weight of the slope material). The g line
represents the combinations (c,
) which lead to failure.
These combinations were obtained by solving numerically
the equilibrium equations of the slope material, and included
an optimization process (using the differential evolution of
Storn and Price [1997]) to locate the most critical log‐spiral
slip surface. Essentially, the g line was obtained by maximi-
3 of 10
F02001
zation of the cohesion required for limit stability under vari-
ation of all possible log‐spiral shapes’ parameters for a given

value; recall that the exact solution of homogenous slope
failure is a log spiral, and hence a search involving only that
shape is sufficient to obtain the representative solution. The
search excluded overhanging cliffs, as these involve tension
in the material. This optimization process can be written as:


gð
Þ ¼ max G Yf ;
¼ G½Yc ;
 ð3Þ
Yf ð xÞ
where G[Yf,
] is the functional that gives the required
cohesion for equilibrium for a given slope (i.e., constant
height, unit weight and b angle) under an examined failure
curve, Yf, and friction angle,
.
[13] A homogenous slope with a (c,
) combination
positioned above the g line is stable, with a factor of safety
greater than 1, as the true strength parameters are greater
than any combination which may be associated with failure.
Essentially, the g line characterizes slopes with factor of
safety of 1. This line can therefore be used for evaluating the
factor of safety in case of deterministic slope material
properties, or for calculating the probability of failure for
nondeterministic slope material properties, both in an exact
manner. Note that slopes with (c,
) combinations below the
g line are impossible (not physical) as the factor of safety is
smaller than 1. The manner in which the g line may be used
to calculate the factor of safety is demonstrated in Figure 4a,
and can be explained as follows (Figure 4a shows the g line
plotted but with a horizontal axis of tan
, rather than
).
[14] Since the g line defines the combination of
and c
associated with the limit state (i.e.,
m and cm), the factor of
safety can simply be calculated as:
FS ¼ a=b ð4Þ
where a is the length of the vector (from the origin) to
the coordinates representing the true strength properties
(
and c), and b is the length (from the origin) of a section
along this vector to its intersection with the g line. The
definition of the FS given in equation (4) is mathematically
identical to that given in equation (1).
[15] This newly proposed graphical interpretation of the
factor of safety also clarifies the relation between the factor
of safety and the probability of slope failure, for nondeter-
ministic slope material strength properties. Let us assume
that f(c,
) is the probability density function for the slope
material strength properties c and
. Figure 4b shows the
relation of the g line to the integrated probability of failure,
as it defines the integration boundaries of the probability
density function of c and
. The other integration limit arises
from the fact that b cannot physically exceed
when the
cohesion is zero. The probability of slope failure, P[f] is
obtained by integrating the probability density function of c
and
over the unstable zone:
Z Zgð
Þ
P½ f  ¼ 1  P½ FS > 1 ¼ f ðc;
Þdcd
ð5Þ
0 0
The above approach leads to an accurate evaluation of the
probability of failure, and does not involve the approximation
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS F02001

Figure 5. The three distinct failure modes.

Figure 4. (a) Method of calculating the factor of safety
using g line. (b) Method of calculating probability of failure
using the g line.
involved in other methods such as the point estimate method
(PEM) or Monte Carlo [e.g., Harr, 1987].
[16] Figure 4 illustrates this link between the factor of safety
and probability of failure, and that for a given material, with
given standard deviations in strength properties, the probability
of failure P(f) decreases with increasing factor of safety.
[17] A link between the probability of failure and the
slope material properties is needed when relating statisti-
cal field observations to probability models of slope
failure. The above approach can be used for this purpose,
given enough information about topography and soil or
rock properties. Clearly, other approaches can be used for
statistical slope failure modeling, such as that suggested
by Stark and Guzzetti [2009]. The current work focuses
on the geometrical consideration of slopes at failure,
rather than on the probability density of observed failures.

of the slope lies: (1) a deep failure mode which does not
end at the toe of the slope (i.e., xe < 0); (2) an intermediate
failure mode where xe = 0, but Yf(x) (the value of the height
of the failure surface) has values smaller than 0; and (3) a
shallow failure mode where xe = 0 and Yf(x) > 0 everywhere.
These three failure modes are illustrated along the g line of
the example slope in Figure 5.
[20] It can be shown that the g line is unique also for a
normalized cohesion, defined as c/gH, for a given slope
angle b. Thus it is shown that the failure type changes as

and c are changed, resulting in the known characteristic
that as c tends to zero, shallow failure is expected, and as

is reduced (or as H increases, which is the same thing on
the g line) the failure plane becomes deeper.
[21] Figure 6 shows a family of g lines for different slope
angles from 15 to 60 degrees. The dashed lines distinguish
between the three different failure modes (first defined by
Taylor [1937] in his seminal work on slope stability using
the friction circle method). Figure 6 illustrates that, regard-
less of the material properties and the slope height, if the
slope is steep (e.g., b ≥ 60°) a shallow failure mode is
to be observed; while if the slope is gentle (e.g., b ≤

3. Geometry of Landslides
3.1. Two‐Dimensional Landslides
[18] Since observed failures are, by definition, associated
with FS = 1, they lie on the g line. Each point on the g line is
associated with distinct geometrical characteristics.
[19] Slope failures occur in three different failure modes Figure 6. Normalized g lines for different slope angles b. The
depending on where on the g line the combination of c and dashed lines distinguish between the different failure modes.

4 of 10
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS F02001

Normalized curves for the nondimensional geometrical

numbers l/H, t/H, " = t/l can be generated as a function of

and b, as shown in Figure 7. When slope angles are low,
deep failure surfaces develop, leading to an increase in t/H
and l/H. When
= 0° the depth of the critical slip surface
tends to infinity, but only when b < 53.6° (as shown by
Fellenious [1936]). This is a well‐known feature of slope
stability analysis in homogenous slope material. Clearly this
behavior is not expected to develop in the real world, as
deep rock layers will prevent such deep failure surfaces.
Consequently, in further examination only finite‐thickness
failure slopes are considered.
[23] Let us define the curve predicting normalized slide
thickness as a function of
and b as t/H = f1(
, b). Since
c/gH = g(
, b) then t/(c/g) = ft(
, b) = f1(
, b)/g(
, b)
for any slope in failure state. In a similar way H/(c/g) =
fH(
, b) = 1/g(
, b). One can then plot the normalized
thickness, t/(c/g), against normalized slope height, H/(c/g),
for all possible values of
for a given b. This is shown
in Figure 8. As can be seen, an almost perfect power law
appears to exist between those normalized numbers (where
the worst agreement is still very good, as it was associated
with an R2 of 0.995); that is, for a given c/g, t / Ha, where
the exponent a values obtained from the best fit are 0.5, 0.5,
0.56, and 0.63 for slopes with b = 60°, 45°, 30°, and 15°,
respectively.
[24] An important relation obtained from our calculations
is (as illustrated in Figure 9):

t / l ð7Þ

The exponent values are l = 0.54 for slopes with b =

60°,45°, 30°, and 0.64 for b = 15°. This means that for a
constant ratio of c/g,

" ¼ t=l / H  ð8Þ

where u = a − a/l, and is equal to roughly −0.45 for slopes

with b = 60°, 45°, 30° and −0.35 for b = 15°. Equation (8)
means that the aspect ratio, ", between the landslide thick-
ness, t, and the surface length, l, will thus decrease with

Figure 7. (a) Normalized failure length. (b) Normalized

failure thickness. (c) Thickness to length ratio.

15°) mostly deep failure mode landslides are to be ex-

pected. Although this prediction regarding the conditions
for the different failure modes was noticed as early as 1937
[Taylor, 1937], it was never used for establishing relations
between the volume and surface area.
[22] In order to characterize the geometry of the obtained
failure surfaces, let us define the maximum failure thickness,
t, and the failure length, l, as:


t ¼ max Ys ð xÞ  Yf ð xÞ
x
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
l ¼ ðxs  xe Þ2 þ ðys  ye Þ2 Figure 8. Relation between normalized height and normal-
ized failure thickness.

5 of 10
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS F02001

geometry. On the basis of this physical argument the lower

bound for volume of the slide, V, and the surface area of
the scar, As, can be calculated as follows:
Zxs
 2
V ¼ Ys ½ x  Yf ½ x dx
xe
Zxs ð9Þ
 
As ¼ 2 Ys ½ x  Yf ½ x dx
xe

Figure 12 shows the results of the calculated V and As.

For a given (c/g) there is a clear relationship of V / Ads ,
with d = 1.36 to 1.38 depending on the slope angle (1.36
for b = 15° and 1.38 for 60°). The best fit to the com-
Figure 9. Relation between normalized failure length and bination of all the lines (associated with R2 of 0.9993)
normalized failure thickness. presented in Figure 12 is:

0:28
c
V ¼ 0:45 A1:36 ð10Þ
increasing slope height, H. This result predicts that landslide
s

geometry is not self‐similar; rather, slides will tend to be

shallower (relative to their surface area) with increasing Although the width has a lower bound of w ≈ t, the case of a
dimensions of the slope, which means that they obey a self‐ homogeneous 2‐D slope provides no analytical upper
affine scaling. The mechanical properties and the slope bound, and the width will analytically tend to infinite when
angle affect both t and l, but do not significantly change the geometry is invariant in the third dimension (i.e., the
their overall scaling with H. field conditions correspond to plane strain). Nonetheless,
infinite width is never the case in reality, and the few field
3.2. Three‐Dimensional Landslides measurements of width to length ratio show a linear scaling
[25] Our model, as with most analytical models of between 2w and l [Hovius et al., 1997; Guzzetti et al.,
engineering slope stability, provides a two dimensional 2008]. A photo of such a slide is provided in Figure 11b.
prediction of a failure, but in order to compare to natural [28] Let us examine this possibility as well, assuming
field‐observed landslides, it is necessary to extrapolate the the surface area of our model slide, As, is approximated
model results to three dimensions. A lower‐bound estimate following the procedure used often in field data; that is,
of the slide half width, w, can be obtained using a physical 2w = l [Guzzetti et al., 2009]. In this case the volume is:
understanding of the failure process and where the failure
surface intersects the free surface. Zxs
 
[26] According to the Mohr‐Coulomb law of failure, the V ¼l Ys ½ x  Yf ½ x dx
angle between a failure surface and the direction of greatest ð11Þ
xe
principal stress (s1) is equal to 4 
2 [e.g., Craig, 1997],
As ¼ l 2
where
is the angle of internal friction (or reciprocally,
the angle between the fracture surface and the direction of
the minor principal stress is equal to 4 þ
2 , as shown in Figure 13 shows the obtained relation. The agreement
Figure 10). Figure 10 shows schematically the stress tra- between the different slope angles is not as good as for
jectories in a slope. As the slope surface is traction free, the w ≈ t scaling, but the range of exponents is still
one of the principal directions will always be normal to it, narrow, d ranging between 1.24 and 1.28. The best fit to
while the other parallel. Consequently, the rupture surface
will intersect the surface with an angle of 4 
2 .
[27] In three dimensions, the failure surface similarly
intersects the slope at an angle that is around 45°, and the
deviation is expected to be up to about + 15° (since in
soils and rocks, the friction angle (
) values usually vary
between ∼20 and 35 degrees; see Waltham [1994]). Using
a 45 degree approximation, we obtain an approximate
lower bound on the half width of the landslide, w, which
means that at each point along the length axis, the land-
slide width will be approximately equal to the landslide
thickness at this specific point, so that w ≈ t. This
assumption approximates the lower bound on the width,
since the side failure plane is limited by an angle close to
p/4 +
/2. Figure 11a shows an example of such landslide
Figure 10. Stress trajectories on a slope.

6 of 10
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS F02001

the combination of all the lines (with an R2 of 0.995)

presented in Figure 13 is:

0:36
c
V ¼ 0:53 A1:32 ð12Þ

s

A higher exponent (1.32) is obtained when combining all

the data sets, than for the individual slope angles, since
the lines do not overlap.

4. Comparison of Model Results With Field

Observations
[29] Guzzetti et al. [2009, Figure 3 and Table 1] presented
16 relations between landslide area and landslide volume.
These relations were obtained using various measurement
methods, some based on measurements of landslides de-
posits while others on measurements of landslide scars. It is
expected that the scar reflects the geometry of failure, while
the deposit is affected by additional dynamic parameters
such as the velocity, rheology of the material, the topogra-
phy, and the deposit angle of repose (i.e., the residual
strength). This work focuses on the initial failure, so com-
parison with the shape of the scar is of more relevance.
Therefore, measurements based on debris flow and sub-
aqueous landslides were removed, and Figure 14 presents
only the relevant data. The relation for ten Brink et al.
[2006] was used, even though it presents subaqueous
landslides, because it is associated with carbonate submarine
failures that hardly evacuate the scar, and not with long
runouts. There is a typographical mistake in the work of ten
Brink et al. [2006, Figure 3 legend] (which led to the quote in
the work of Guzzetti et al. [2009]). Here we use the correct
values presented in the body of the text of ten Brink et al.
[2006]. Although we concentrate on initial failure geome-
try, it was recently shown that scaling relations obtained from
coherent landslide deposits are remarkably similar to those
obtained from their scars [Larsen et al., 2010].
[30] Before we turn to compare our As‐V results with
field data, we wish to compare the scaling of slide thick-
ness, t, to slide area, As, obtained from our model calcu-
lations, with recent field observations reported by Larsen

Figure 11. (a) The La Conchita, California, landslide (mod-

ified from a USGS photo, http://landslides.usgs.gov/learning/
photos/california__u.s._/la_conchita__ca__1995/laconchita.
jpg). In three dimensions the dip angle of the failure surface is
mechanically constrained to be ≥45° (actually 45° +
/2).
Slides that follow the equality will have w(x) ∼ t(x) (as indi-
cated by the two triangles). (b) A recent slump in the Mediter-
ranean coastal cliff of Israel. The sliding mass consists of
Pleistocene weakly cemented sandstone (eolianite); the slid-
ing plane is the contact between the eolianite and the under-
lying paleosol, which consists of clay.

Figure 12. Relation between landslides volume and pro-

jected surface area (based on w = t).

7 of 10
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS
Figure 13. Relation between landslides volume and pro-
jected surface area (based on model 2w = l).
et al. [2010, Figure 2b], which show that t‐As scaling may
be described by t / Am s , with m = 0.31 ± 0.19 (i.e., there is
scatter in the field data, yet on average, large slides are
relatively thinner). Predictions for t versus As scaling may
be obtained from our model assuming model derived t
versus l scaling (equation (7)) and As / w · l. However, as
explained in section 3.2, slide width, w, is not well con-
strained by mechanical considerations (in theory it could
be infinite for a laterally infinite slope). Two end‐members
act as proxies for slide widths: a lower bound arises from
failure angles, suggesting w / t, so that As / t · l, (this is
the better constrained end‐member) and an approximate
upper bound for width suggests w / l, so that As / l2.
Using equation (7), our model thus predicts scaling rang-
ing between t / A0.39
s (for w / t) and t / A0.27
s (for w / l),
suggesting that the scatter of t versus As observed by
Larsen et al. [2010] may be explained via the mechani-
cally permissible range in landslide widths, w, which
translates into a range in mechanically permissible areas
Figure 14. Analytical model (based on w = t) superimposed on the observational field data.
8 of 10
F02001
for each thickness. It is important to note that, although
our model predicts the variability in the t versus As scaling
which arises owing to poorly constrained widths, it still
predicts a narrow range in As‐V behavior (a measurement
in which the width variability “cancels out”), in agreement
with Larsen et al. [2010, Figure 2a].
[31] There are two parameters that determine the fit
between the theoretical results for V versus As (equation (10))
and the field data: the first is the slope of the volume to area
relation determined by the power law. The second is c/g, a
free parameter in the theory, which determines the intersec-
tion of the volume to area curve with the axis. The obser-
vational data reported by Guzzetti et al. [2009] may be
bounded by two lines derived from the analytical model,
each derived with a different value of c/g, as illustrated in
Figure 14. For d = 1.38, the obtained range of c/g that pro-
vides the best fit between theory and the field data is 0.00005
to 0.2 m, indicating cohesions within the range of 10−3 to
4 kPa (assuming g = 20 kN/m3). These cohesion values
seem somewhat low. When the observational data is
compared with the lower range of power exponents found
from the analysis (i.e., d = 1.36) the values of the scaled
cohesions c/g are an order of magnitude larger (between
0.005 and 1 m) leading to cohesion ranging between 10−1
and 20 kPa. When comparing with the model results using the
w / l scaling (Figure 15), and a power of 1.32, the cohesion is
found to be in the range of 0.6–200 kPa.
[32] The very large range of obtained permissible cohe-
sions (more than 5 orders of magnitude, 10−3 to 200 kPa)
versus the very narrow range of permissible power ex-
ponents (d ranging by a few percent between 1.32 and 1.38)
indicates that the value of the power exponent is not very
sensitive to the specific cohesion value of the slope material,
and also not very sensitive to the width of the slide, but is
instead mostly sensitive to the aspect ratio t/l which really
dictates the scaling between volume and surface area. This
clearly supports, and partially explains, the observations
that landslides from diverse conditions follow similar
power laws.
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS
Figure 15. Analytical model (based on 2w = l) superimposed on the observational field data.
[33] It might be useful to avoid fractional units such as
arise in the above expressions. For this purpose an alterna-
tive scaling, with a respect to a reference area Ar = (c/g)2,
can be suggested. Using this new scaling, the volume to
surface area relation becomes:
 see Katz and Aharonov [2006]), shallow natural slides often
V ¼ kAr3=2
As
ð13Þ
Ar
where k is a dimensionless constant (equal to 0.45 in the
first model, and 0.53 in the second model) and Ar is a
reference surface area. Such a nondimensional form is
useful when the scaling exponents are uncertain and are
functionally dependent on other model parameters. The
values of Ar associated with the comparison are given in
Figures 14 and 15.
[34] It should be noted that three‐dimensional slopes are
expected to possess somewhat higher factors of safety than
those calculated assuming a two‐dimensional failure mode.
This, however, should not hinder the validity of the pro-
posed relation, as the decrease in the required cohesion for
stability is only about 20% in the worst case [e.g.,
Leshchinsky and Baker, 1985].
[35] Finally, an important question that arises is the
applicability of our homogeneous model results to a natural
environment that is often highly heterogeneous in terms of
its mechanical properties. To explain why a homogeneous
model is able to predict and fit the scaling behavior of
natural slopes we summarize a conceptual suggestion made
by Katz and Aharonov [2006]: heterogeneity (e.g., a weak
layer) is expected to constrain one of the landslide dimen-
sions (e.g., the slide thickness), but instability and failure
will still follow the same log‐spiral curve. Because of this,
landslides in heterogeneous slopes are expected to still
retain the basic scaling of V versus As obtained here. Het-
erogeneity does play a crucial role in constraining the shape
of the probability distribution function of slide sizes
[Malamud et al., 2004], causing for example many shallow
slides that fail on the boundary between the unconsolidated
9 of 10
F02001
soil and the bedrock, and fewer large ones that fail on deep
weak layers [Stark and Guzzetti, 2009]. When we turn to
look at the geometry of deep versus shallow slides we find
that, while deep slides often fail the slope from head to toe
(as modeled here, and as is usual for homogenous slopes;
“bite off” only a portion of the slope. The small length l of
shallow slides (often smaller than the slope length) is a
result of the scaling between t and l (equation (7)), since
their thickness is dictated to be small by the shallow depth
of the unconsolidated soil [Katz and Aharonov, 2006].
Because both deep and shallow slides obey the same
mechanics, and the same scaling relations between t and l,
they also fall on the same trend in field measurements of
V‐As distributions. An accurate study of this question is
still needed, but since it requires analysis of failure in
heterogeneous environments, preferably in three dimen-
sions, it is left for future work.
5. Conclusions
[36] It has been established, on the basis of the analytical
solution of limit equilibrium slope stability formulation, that
a universal relation between volume and area of landslides
exists. This relation follows a power law (V / Ads ) with d
value (1.32–1.38) that is nearly independent of slope
geometry (slope height and angle), and is also not very
sensitive to the width to length ratio of the slides. The power
law has an exponent similar to that found for the distribu-
tions of natural landslides, despite differences in scale and
processes in nature. Comparison between the observational
relations and the analytical model indicated c/g ranging
between 5 × 10−5 and 10 m. These values may be roughly
associated with a cohesion range of 0.001 to 200 kPa. The
very large range (more than five orders of magnitude) of
admissible cohesions, viewed in conjunction with the
insensitivity of the power exponent (d confined between 1.32
and 1.38), indicates that landslide geometry is remarkably
insensitive to the specific mechanical properties of the slope
F02001 KLAR ET AL.: LANDSLIDES AND VOLUME‐TO‐AREA RELATIONS
material. This clearly supports and partially explains the
observations that landslides from diverse conditions follow
the same power law. The model presented in the work was
developed for a homogenous slope, even though natural
slopes are never homogenous. As discussed in the work of
Katz and Aharonov [2006], heterogeneity in the form of
weak planes (like faults or clay layers) might have the effect
of fixing one of the length scales (e.g., depth of slide deter-
mined by depth of clay layer). Once one dimension is pinned,
the other dimensions are expected to follow suit and correlate
with the pinned dimension following the power laws pre-
sented above. That is, if the depth is dictated, the length of
the slide is not randomly chosen but is constrained to a
specific relation with the depth. An important prediction that
arises from the fact that the power law d is smaller than 1.5 is
that landslide’s geometry is not self‐similar, instead slides
tend to be shallower (relative to their surface area) with
increasing dimensions of the slope and the slide. This
behavior is self‐affine, in that the length and the thickness
increase by a different factor as the slide size increases. In
addition to the above analysis, the paper suggests a new
graphical interpretation of the factor of safety and its relation
to the slope probability of failure.
References
Abele, G. (1974), Bergsturze in den Alpen—Ihre Verbreitung, Morphologie
und Folgeerscheinungen, Wiss. Alpenvereinshefte, vol. 25, 247 pp.,
Wiss. Alpenvereinshefte, Munich, Germany.
Baker, R. (2003), Sufficient conditions for existence of physically signifi-
cant solutions in limiting equilibrium slope stability analysis, Int. J.
Solids Struct., 40, 3717–3735, doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00075-1.
Baker, R., and M. Garber (1978), Theoretical analysis of stability of slopes,
Geotechnique, 28, 395–411, doi:10.1680/geot.1978.28.4.395.
Castillo, E., and A. Luceno (1982), A critical analysis of some variational
methods in slope stability analysis, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geo-
mech., 6, 195–209, doi:10.1002/nag.1610060206.
Chen, W. F. (1975), Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, Elsevier Sci.,
New York.
Cheng, Y. M., L. Liang, S. C. Chi, and W. B. Wei (2008), Determination of
the critical slip surface using artificial fish swarms algorithm, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 134, 244–251, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)
134:2(244).
Craig, R. F. (1997), Soil Mechanics, 6th ed., 104 pp., Spon Press, London.
De Joesselin De Jong, G. (1981), Variational fallacy, Geotechnique, 31,
289–290, doi:10.1680/geot.1981.31.2.289.
Fellenious, W. (1936), Calculations of the stability of earth dams, in Trans-
actions of the 2nd International Congress on Large Dams, vol. 4,
pp. 445–459, U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.
Guzzetti, F., F. Ardizzone, M. Cardinali, M. Galli, P. Reichenbach,
and M. Rossi (2008), Distribution of landslides in the upper Tiber
River basin, central Italy, Geomorphology, 96, 105–122, doi:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2007.07.015.
Guzzetti, F., F. Ardizzone, M. Cardinali, M. Rossi, and D. Valigi (2009),
Landslide volumes and landslide mobilization rates in Umbria, central
Italy, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 279, 222–229, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.
01.005.
Harr, M. E. (1987), Reliability‐Based Design in Civil Engineering, Dover,
Mineola, N. Y.
Hewitt, K. (2002), Styles of rock avalanche depositional complex in very
rugged terrain, Karakoram Himalaya, Pakistan, in Catastrophic Land-
slides: Effects, Occurrence and Mechanisms, Rev. Eng. Geol., vol. 15,
edited by S. G. Evans and J. V. DeGraff, pp. 345–378, Geol. Soc. of
Am., Boulder, Colo.
10 of 10
F02001
Hovius, N., C. P. Stark, and P. A. Allen (1997), Sediment flux from a
mountain belt derived by landslide mapping, Geology, 25, 231–234,
doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0231:SFFAMB>2.3.CO;2.
Imaizumi, F., and R. C. Sidle (2007), Linkage of sediment supply and
transport processes in Miyagawa Dam catchment, Japan, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, F03012, doi:10.1029/2006JF000495.
Katz, O., and E. Aharonov (2006), Landslides in vibrating sand box: What
controls types of slope failure and frequency magnitude relations?, Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett., 247, 280–294, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.05.009.
Korup, O. (2005), Geomorphic imprint of landslides on alpine river sys-
tems, southwest New Zealand, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 30,
783–800, doi:10.1002/esp.1171.
Korup, O. (2006), Effects of large deep‐seated landslides on hillslope mor-
phology, western Southern Alps, New Zealand, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
F01018, doi:10.1029/2004JF000242.
Larsen, I. J., D. R. Montgomery, and O. Korup (2010), Landslide ero-
sion controlled by hillslope material, Nat. Geosci., 3(4), 247–251,
doi:10.1038/ngeo776.
Leshchinsky, D., and R. Baker (1985), Three dimensional analysis of the
stability of slopes, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 9, 199–223,
doi:10.1002/nag.1610090302.
Malamud, B. D., D. L. Turcotte, F. Guzzetti, and P. Reichenbach (2004),
Landslide inventories and their statistical properties, Earth Surf. Processes
Landforms, 29, 687–711, doi:10.1002/esp.1064.
Malkawi, A. I. H., W. F. Hassan, and S. K. Sarma (2001), Global search
method for locating general slip surface using Monte Carlo techniques,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127, 688–698, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:8(688).
Rendulic, L. (1935), Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung der Gleitsicherheit,
Bauingenieur, 16, 230–233.
Rice, R. M., and G. T. Foggin III (1971), Effects of high‐intensity storms
on soil slippage on mountainous watersheds in Southern California,
Water Resour. Res., 7, 1485–1496, doi:10.1029/WR007i006p01485.
Rice, R. M., E. S. Corbett, and R. G. Bailey (1969), Soil slips related to
vegetation, topography, and soil in Southern California, Water Resour.
Res., 5, 647–659, doi:10.1029/WR005i003p00647.
Simonett, D. S. (1967), Landslide distribution and earthquakes in the
Bewani and Torricelli mountains, New Guinea, in Landform Studies
From Australia and New Guinea, edited by J. N. Jennings and J. A.
Mabbutt, pp. 64–84, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
Stark, C. P., and F. Guzzetti (2009), Landslide rupture and the probability
distribution of mobilized debris volumes, J. Geophys. Res., 114, F00A02,
doi:10.1029/2008JF001008.
Storn, R., and K. Price (1997), Differential evolution—A simple and effi-
cient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global
Optim., 11, 341–359, doi:10.1023/A:1008202821328.
Sun, J., J. Li, and Q. Liu (2008), Search for critical slip surface in slope
stability analysis by spline‐based GA method, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 134, 252–256, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:2(252).
Taylor, D. W. (1937), Stability of Earth slopes, J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng.,
24, 197–247.
ten Brink, U. S., E. L. Geist, and B. D. Andrews (2006), Size distribution of
submarine landslides and its implication to tsunami hazard in Puerto
Rico, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L11307, doi:10.1029/2006GL026125.
Waltham, A. C. (1994), Foundations of Engineering Geology, Blackie
Acad. and Prof., Glasgow, U. K.
Whitehouse, I. E. (1983), Distribution of large rock avalanche deposits in
central Southern Alps, New Zealand, N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys., 26,
272–279.
E. Aharonov, Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Givat Ram Campus, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. (einatah@cc.huji.ac.il)
B. Kalderon‐Asael, Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences,
Tel‐Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.
O. Katz, Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel St., Jerusalem
95501, Israel.
A. Klar, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion‐
Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel.