Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Layered internal structure and breaching risk assessment of the

Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam in Niigata, Japan
Gonghui Wang a,⁎, Gen Furuya b, Fanyu Zhang c, Issei Doi a, Naoki Watanabe d, Akihiko Wakai e, Hideaki Marui d
a
Research Center on Landslides, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji 611-0011, Japan
b
Toyama Prefecture University, 5180 Kurokawa, Imizu, 939-0398, Toyama, Japan
c
Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, Ministry of Education, Department of Geological Engineering, Lanzhou University, Gansu 730000, Lanzhou, PR China
d
Research Institute for Natural Hazards & Disaster Recovery, Niigata University, Ikarashi 2, Nishi Ku, Niigata 950-2181, Japan
e
Department of Environmental Engineering Science, Gunma University, Kiryu, Gunma 376-8515, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The internal structure and geotechnical properties of landslide dams have rarely been examined in detail,
Received 10 June 2015 although they largely control the longevity and potential failure mechanisms of the dams. During the 2004
Received in revised form 22 May 2016 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake, thousands of landslides were triggered and many landslide dams were
Accepted 24 May 2016
formed in the Imo River basin. Among these landslides dams, the biggest one that occurred in the Higashi-
Available online 26 May 2016
Takezawa district threatened both the upstream and downstream areas. Emergency and eventual permanent
Keywords:
countermeasures were successfully performed to mitigate the hazards presented by the dam. The preserved
2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake landslide dam provides a good field study area for improving understanding of the formation and stability of sim-
Landslide dam ilar features. To characterize its internal structure and to provide more reliable information for stability analysis,
Stability we used a multiple-channel surface-wave technique and microtremor array measurements to survey the dam's
Internal structure S-wave velocity (Vs) profile. Our results show that the integrated use of these methods is an effective approach
for determining the S-wave velocity structure of landslide dams, irrespective of the mountainous environment in
which they typically occur. The Vs profile suggests that the displaced landslide materials had been little disturbed
during movement, although movement was rapid and over a long distance. We also discuss herein the landslid-
ing mechanism and assess the breaching risk of the landslide dam due to overtopping.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction kilometers, depending upon parameters such as the volume of water

Landslide dams form when hillslope-derived mass-wasting debris
blocks stream channels. Landslide dams are often weak in structure
and can suffer from failure by piping, internal erosion, or surface-
water overtopping. Landslide dam failures often cause fatalities and
substantial damage to properties downstream as they often occur sud-
denly, and subsequent outburst of water from impounded lakes may
be catastrophic. Common modes of failure include overtopping of the
dam with subsequent breaching, internal erosion by piping, and wave
overtopping induced by rapid mass movements entering the lake
(Costa and Schuster, 1988; Peng and Zhang, 2012). Resultant outburst
events may entrain substantial amounts of debris from the failing
dam, backwater sediments, and the downstream valley floor, thus
giving rise to fast-flowing mixtures with high sediment-water ratios
such as hyperconcentrated flows, and sometimes even debris flows.
The subsequent catastrophic flooding of valley floors may cause
substantial channel changes for up to several tens to hundreds of
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wanggh@landslide.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp (G. Wang).
released, peak discharge, sediment availability along the flow path,
and downstream wave attenuation by valley-floor topography (Korup,
2012; Korup and Wang, 2014).
In recent years, many dams formed from landslides triggered by
earthquakes and rainfall have been reported (Costa and Schuster,
1988; Casagli and Ermini, 1999; Korup, 2002, 2005; Tabata et al.,
2002; Dai et al., 2005; Korup and Tweed, 2007; Cui et al., 2011, 2013;
Fan et al., 2012; Konagai and Sattar, 2012; Peng and Zhang, 2012).
These dams often greatly hinder recovery operations in hazard areas
and also threaten the safety of people living downstream. To prevent
the occurrence of landslide dam failure or to minimize the damage
from such failure, assessment of dam stability is often performed within
a short time after the formation of a dam (Tabata et al., 2002). Topo-
graphical approaches (Costa and Schuster, 1988, 1991; Casagli and
Ermini, 1999; Korup, 2002, 2004; Ermini and Casagli, 2003; Dong
et al., 2009) and hydraulic approaches (Fread, 1977, 1988; Mizuyama
et al., 1987, 1989; Takahashi and Kuang, 1988; Takahashi and
Nakawaga, 1993; Singh, 1996; Cencetti et al., 2006; Davies et al., 2007;
Fujisawa et al., 2009) have been developed to analyze dam stability
and flood profiles after dam breaching. Some models of breaching

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.05.021
0169-555X/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
processes for embankment dams and landslide dams have been devel-
oped and applied (Fread, 1977, 1988; Takahashi and Kuang, 1988;
Takahashi and Nakawaga, 1993; Singh, 1996; Cencetti et al., 2006;
Davies et al., 2007; Satofuka et al., 2010). However, although the effec-
tiveness of these approaches in the after-event simulation of dam
breaching has been confirmed, successful predictions have rarely been
reported. This may be because most of the approaches are proposed
based on the studies of homogenous earth-fill dams, and potentially
crucial differences may exist between the internal sedimentology of
landslide dams and artificial earth-fill dams.
Conducting engineering countermeasures is another approach
adopted to lower the potential hazards following the catastrophic
failure of a landslide dam. While some countermeasures functioned
properly, some failed to work efficiently. For example, in July 2012, a
giant landslide dam (about 100 m high, 750 m long and 250 m wide)
was formed in Ambon Island of the Republic of Indonesia, and a con-
crete sluiceway was built as the emergency countermeasure to prevent
uncontrolled overtopping. Nevertheless, the dam collapsed in 2013 and
caused severe downstream flooding, killing three people and resulting
in 60% of the downstream population losing their homes (Japan Interna-
tional Cooperation Agency, 2013). In September 2011, many large land-
slide dams formed in the Kii Peninsula, Japan, due to heavy rainfall
during Typhoon Talas. According to the Sediment-related Disaster Pre-
vention Act of Japan, emergency countermeasures such as construction
of temporary drainage and other urgent measures were performed on
five of the larger dams. These countermeasures were repeatedly dam-
aged or destroyed by overtopping or localized landsliding during subse-
quent typhoons and heavy rainfall events (Sakurai, 2013). From these
examples, we can conclude that our understanding of the formation of
landslide dams is still poor such that many countermeasures for miti-
gating hazards from landslide dams are empirically based.
Recently, detailed case studies on landslide dams dealt with a variety
of dam types, their formation and failure histories, as well as geomor-
phological consequences (Tabata et al., 2002; Dai et al., 2005; Cui
et al., 2011; Dong et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2014; Delaney and Evans,
2015). However, the internal structure of landslide dams has rarely
been addressed, although it likely plays a key role in landslide-dam sta-
bility. The internal sedimentology of earth-fill dams is a critical factor in
engineering design related to dam stability. Depending on landslide
type, the stratigraphy of a dam may feature crudely stratified layers, sur-
face armoring, or largely unstratified deposits of poorly sorted clasts
(Casagli et al., 2003; Abdrakhmatov and Strom, 2006; Crosta et al.,
2011; Davies and McSaveney, 2011; Dunning and Armitage, 2011;
Wang et al., 2013).
During the 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake (M6.8), more
than 360 landslides with widths greater than 50 m and 12 large-scale
landslides with individual volumes of more than 1 × 106 m3 were
Fig. 1. Higashi-Takezawa landslide triggered by the 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake. (a) Location map; (b) oblique photo (taken by K. Sassa on 6 November 2004), where the scarp
of an old landside is visible.
49
triggered, and 45 landslide dams were formed (Sassa et al., 2007).
Among them, a landslide dam in the Higashi-Takezawa district was
the most catastrophic (hereinafter term the Higashi-Takezawa landslide
dam) (Fig. 1). It blocked the Imo River, caused flooding of many houses
due to backwater inundation, and threatened the safety of downstream
residential areas. To prevent the possible breaching failure of the dam,
emergency and then permanent countermeasures were performed
(Marui, 2005; Marui and Yoshimatsu, 2005; Nagai et al., 2008;
Yamabe et al., 2010). This is a rare case where the risk of breaching fail-
ure of a landslide dam was successfully mitigated by engineering solu-
tions. It also provides us an opportunity to understand the formation
and engineering properties of landslide dams in detail, and to examine
tools that have been proposed for reliably predicting the stability and
failure timing of dams. With these aims, we surveyed the internal struc-
ture of the dam site by means of a multiple-channel surface-wave tech-
nique combined with microtremor survey. Based on the survey results,
we discuss the formation and stability of the dam.
2. Outline of the earthquake hazard and geological setting
The 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake (M6.8 according to the
Japan Meteorological Agency; JMA), occurred on October 23, 2004 in
Niigata Prefecture, Japan, causing severe damage and isolating villages
in the epicentral region. The earthquake triggered more than 1600 land-
slides of various types and dimensions (Sassa et al., 2007). In many loca-
tions, the displaced landslide debris entered into and blocked rivers
forming barrier lakes. In total, 45 landslide dams were formed by this
earthquake, and among them, two that formed in the Higashi-
Takezawa and Terano areas along the Imo River posed the greatest threat.
The geological setting of the epicentral area was outlined by Chigira
and Yagi (2006) (Fig. 2). This area is within the Higashiyama Hills,
which trend NNE–SSW, subparallel to the axes of several anticlines
and synclines that define the region's geologic structure (Fig. 2). Plio-
cene and Pleistocene formations underlie the area and consist mainly
of volcanic rocks, mudstones (the Araya and the Ushigakubi Forma-
tions), sandstone (the Wanatsu Formation), and alternating beds of
sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. There are active faults and folds in
the Higashiyama Hills and the surrounding area, and one of them (the
Yukyuzan fault) is very close to the epicenter (Research Group for
Active Faults of Japan, 1991). Landslides occurred especially densely in
the watershed of the Imo River along the Kajigane Syncline and slipped
along the dip direction of the geologic formations.
3. Methods
To understand the hazards caused by the earthquake, we surveyed
the epicentral area by helicopter immediately after the earthquake,
50 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58

Fig. 2. Geologic outline (after Chigira and Yagi, 2006) and location of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide.

and then performed detailed field surveys of larger landslides. We ana- 4. Results
lyzed the topography of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide area using a
1:25,000 topographical map created before the earthquake, DEMs ob- 4.1. Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam
tained on 26 October 2004 (three days after the earthquake) by air-
borne laser scanning survey with a 1-m resolution, aerial and ground The Higashi-Takezawa landslide was triggered on the left slope of
photos. the Imo River, where the scarp of an old landslide can be identified
To investigate the internal structure of the landslide dam, we used a (Fig. 1b). Fig. 5 shows the plan of the landslide area, and Fig. 6 presents
surface-wave method known as multichannel analysis of surface waves the cross section along line I–I’ shown in Fig. 5. The landslide originated
(MASW) (Park et al., 1999; Hayashi and Suzuki, 2004; Hayashi et al., at an elevation of about 200 m, had a length of about 365 m, width of
2008) to measure the shear-wave velocity profile of the landslide-dam about 250 m, and had horizontal and vertical travel distances of about
site. The survey principle of MASW and the layout of equipment 100 and 60 m, respectively. The sliding surface averaged about 30 m
(Seismograph: Model McSEIS-SXW, OYO Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; deep and the volume of displaced materials was about 1.3 × 106 m3.
Geophones: Model GS-11D, OYO Geospace Corporation, Houston,
Texas, USA) are outlined in Fig. 3. In the survey, 24 geophones were
spaced at 2 m intervals along a line, and a wooden hammer (about
8 kg) was used as the seismic motion exciter. The hammer points
were outside of both ends of the survey line and also intermediate be-
tween the geophones. This kind of survey method normally enables us
to obtain the S-wave velocities of the ground 15–20 m deep. To survey
the S-wave velocities of deeper ground, we used microtremor array
measurement, in which the employed geophones have a natural fre-
quency of 2 Hz. With a layout of geophones in an equilateral triangle
as shown in Fig. 4, this measurement theoretically enables us to obtain
the S-wave velocity profile to a depth of 50 m beneath the central
point of the triangle. We carried out our first survey in December
2011 and second survey in August 2013, following the progress of per-
manent countermeasures on the dam site. Fig. 3. Measurement principle of multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW).
 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
Fig. 4. Geophone placement of microtremor array measurement (50-m aperture array).
The Higashi-Takezawa landslide was a dip-slope failure with a main
scarp about 50 m high and sloped 30–35°. Siltstone in blue-gray colour
outcrops on the main scarp (Fig. 7). The sliding surface had a strike of
N5°W–N10°E, and dip angle of 18–22°W. The distal toe part of the land-
slide traveled across the river and collided against the right bank, where
it was strongly compressed, resulting in formation of a 20 m high
uplifted hill.
Totally six boreholes (see Fig. 5) were drilled immediately after the
earthquake. These boreholes revealed that the displaced landslide ma-
terials consist of sandy silt-silty sand, silty sandstone (in semisolid
Fig. 5. Plan of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide area (after Yamabe et al., 2010).
squares and solid triangle: Locations of samples taken by Yamabe et al. (2010); S1 and S2: Locations of samples taken by Sassa et al. (2007). I–I' is the cross-section shown in Fig. 6.
51
state), and siltstone/sandy mudstone (Yamabe et al., 2010). The basal
layer of the landslide materials was remarkably softer and weaker
than the same rocks within the intact slope. The sliding surface in the
source area was about 8.5 m deep, above which were soft/extremely
loose sandy silt and silty sand, and below which were siltstone or
sandy mudstone. The sliding surface in the middle part of the landslide
deposits was 28.0 m deep and located in a loose, water-laden sandy
layer at the base of silty sandstone. The sliding surface in the toe part
was 31.6 m deep, which is located at the base of a 25-m thick rock stra-
tum of weak siltstone/sandy mudstone. Therefore, the thickness of the
displaced materials forming the landslide dam was about 25–26 m on
average and 30–32 m at maximum. The landslide dam was about
350 m wide (along-river direction) and approximately 300 m long
(across-river direction). The capacity of the barrier lake formed by this
landslide dam is estimated to be 3.3 × 106 m3 (Yamabe et al., 2010).
For the mitigation of a potential secondary disaster, emergency coun-
termeasures were implemented against overtopping and failure of the
landslide dams as a matter of great urgency. For the Higashi-Takezawa
landslide dam, as emergency countermeasures, sandbags were
transported by helicopters of the Japanese Self-Defense Force and piled
up on the lower part of the dam crest. Water was also pumped out
from the barrier lake to lower the water level and prevent the occurrence
of overtopping, while a sluiceway was rapidly constructed. Later, as per-
manent countermeasures, the dam crest was graded to be flat, a concrete
sluiceway was constructed on the former right bank of the Imo River, and
two check dams were constructed downstream of the landslide dam. The
slope of the landslide source area was further stabilized by means of
earth removal work, counterweight fill construction, and constructing
slope frame with greening construction. Fig. 8 presents the plan of the
landslide dam after all these countermeasures had been performed.
: Borehole number i (i = 1–6). The depths of B-1 to B-6 are 45, 50, 40, 40, 35, and 40 m, respectively. Solid
52 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
Fig. 6. Central longitudinal section of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide along line I–I’ shown in Fig. 5 (after Yamabe et al., 2010). SILT.S: Silty sandstone; P·S: Pebble sandstone.
4.2. Shear-wave velocity profile
Using the MASW, we surveyed three lines along the sliding direction
(perpendicular to the river) and two lines along the river flow direction
(L1–L5 in Fig. 8). The microtremor measurement was performed at four
locations (A–D in Fig. 8). Two points (A and B) were measured to obtain
the shear-wave velocity of the sediments where the landslide deposit is
greater than 20 m. The other two points (C and D) were measured to
survey both the landslide deposits and original ground. It is noted that
L1 crossed a road and many trucks were running during our survey pe-
riod, and we did not make the measurement crossing the road.
Fig. 9 shows the shear-wave velocity profile along survey lines L1, L3
and L4, and Fig. 10 along survey lines L2 and L5. As shown in Figs. 9 and
10, the S-wave velocities of the sediments are low in general, probably
because the landslide dam was formed from strongly weathered
sandstone/siltstone. From the S-wave profiles of L2, L5 and L1, three
layers may be distinguished from the surface to the bottom; the first
layer had a shear-wave velocity smaller than 160 m s−1, the second
layer had S-wave velocity ranging from 160 to 220 m s−1, while the
third layer had S-wave velocity greater than 220 m s−1. The boundary
between the 2nd and 3rd layers shown in Fig. 9c (along L1) dipped left-
ward (toward the river) with an inclination of 8°. This may result from
remnant bedding that was not destroyed during sliding. This structure
may also be identified in the S-wave velocity profiles along L3 and L4.
Although the inclination of the sliding surface on the source slope was
about 18–22°, which was consistent with the dip of the strata prior to
Fig. 7. Outcropped siltstone on the main scarp (taken on November 15, 2004).
the landslide, the dip of the displaced materials within the landslide
toe became gentler, probably due to: 1) the stress state of the landslide
materials was affected by the river bed; 2) the displaced landslide mate-
rials initially slid along a surface parallel to bedding before overriding
the more gently sloped lower part of the failure surface; and 3) the dis-
tal toe part climbed the opposite bank of the river.
From Fig. 9a it can be seen that the surficial layer of sediments in the
upper-left part of the profile had S-wave velocity of 220–240 m s−1 and
was almost horizontally distributed; the sediments below this surficial
layer had a lower velocity (b200 m s−1), and Vs then increased with
depth. This surficial layer with greater shear-wave velocity might result
from the countermeasure construction after the earthquake. It is also
seen that the sediments on the upper-right region (80–140 m from
the start point) with Vs b 180 m s−1 have a wedge shape. This might re-
sult from the construction of earth fill in low areas performed as part of
the countermeasures. From Fig. 5, it can be seen that this area had valley
topography.
The Vs profiles obtained along the longitudinal direction of the land-
slide dam (L2 and L5) (Fig. 10) show that the velocity increased with in-
creasing depth. L5 was close to the present sluiceway and on the toe
part of the displaced landslide materials. The soil on the upstream end
of the dam, close to the barrier lake, between the start point and 30 m
in horizontal distance, had relatively greater velocity than downstream.
This might also result from the construction of countermeasures. Here
Fig. 8. Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam after permanent countermeasures had been
performed. L1–L5: MASW survey lines, where the arrow in the line shows the heading
of survey. Open triangles: Microtremor array measurement points A, B, C, and D. :
strike angle (10°); : Dip angle (15°).
 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58 53

Fig. 9. S-wave profile of the dam body. (a), (b), (c): results for traverse lines L3, L4 and L1 shown in Fig. 8, respectively. L1 was crossing a road and many trucks were running during our
survey period, which disenabled us to make the measurements crossing the road.

the landslide body and the placed sediments had been densely
compacted.
The Vs profile of survey line L2, nearer to the landslide source area
than L5, shows that the sediments from the left end of the profile to
70 m in horizontal distance to the right were inclined in the down-
stream direction. This may reflect the fact that L2 aligned S25°W was
oblique to the sliding surface striking N5°E–N10°E. It is also apparent
that the area ranging from 45 to 55 m in horizontal distance and 0 to
3 m in depth had a low Vs value (b180 m s−1).
The Vs profiles at points A, B, C and D obtained by microtremor mea-
surement are shown in Fig. 11. Fig. 11a shows that the sediments
shallower than 17 m had relatively low Vs values, except some local
areas around 5 m depth (300 m s−1). The sediments deeper than
17 m had Vs greater than 300 m s− 1. It is noted that when we were
performing the survey, a hut existed near point A that served as the
construction management office, and several bulldozers were located
nearby. The ground surface was very hard due to the construction
equipment passage such that we had difficulty making holes to insert
the geophones. Therefore, we infer that the high Vs value of the sedi-
ments at about 5-m depth might have resulted from the construction
of earth fill. Point B was located on line L1 but was 30 m from point A.
At point B, the sediments shallower than 12 m had Vs values
b170 m s− 1. However, the sediments deeper than 12 m had
Vs N 250 m s−1. The depths below which the sediments had Vs greater
than 250 m s− 1 differed by 5 m between points A and B. Assuming
these sediments at points A and B with Vs N 250 m s−1 were the same
layer, we find that the line connecting the layers at A and B is inclined
about 9°. According to the cross-section of the landslide dam obtained
immediately after the earthquake from boreholes, the sliding surface
along survey line L1 (parallel to the line between points A and B) was

Fig. 10. S-wave profile of the dam body. (a), (b): results for traverse lines L2 and L5 shown in Fig. 8, respectively.
54 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58

Fig. 11. S-wave profile obtained by microtremor array measurement. (a)–(d): results obtained at locations A, B, C and D shown in Fig. 8, respectively. Note: the boundary between the dark
and light shaded areas is the depth below which the Vs velocities of the sediments had not been effectively obtained from the measured data, although the microtremor array
measurement adopted in this study can reach a depth of 50 m theoretically. These Vs values in the light shaded areas were inferred from the variation tendency of Vs in the overlaid
layers. The dotted lines indicate the sediment layers with approximately same Vs.

inclined about 8° between points A and B. Hence, the inclination of sed-
iments shown in Fig. 11a, b is consistent with the sliding surface re-
vealed by the detailed boring survey.
Fig. 11c and d present the Vs profiles of points C and D. At point C, the
sediments shallower than 5 m had Vs of about 150 m s−1, and those
deeper than 12 m had Vs of 300–350 m s−1. Further, the sediments
deeper than 21 m had Vs of 400–450 m s−1. At Point D, sediments
with Vs of 300–350 m s−1 were located 21–30 m deep, and the sedi-
ments deeper than 30 m had Vs of 400–450 m s− 1. Because points C
and D were at the same elevation and were approximately 50 m
apart, assuming Vs was consistent for the sediments in a given depth,
we infer that the layer of sediments was inclined 10° from at point C
to point D. The Vs profile of Fig. 10a shows that the sediments at the
left side of the figure had an inclination of about 10°. Hence, Figs. 10
and 11c, d demonstrate good consistency between the results obtained
by the MASW survey technique and microtremor measurements. These
results also validate the effectiveness of these two methods for survey-
ing the shear-wave velocities of sediments even in mountainous areas.
had been less disturbed and most of the trees still stood on the dam
crest (Fig. 1b). These kinds of movement characteristics could be in-
ferred from Fig. 9. Wang et al. (2014) surveyed the Vs profile of a land-
slide dam triggered by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China, and
found that a weak layer with a thickness of 2–3 m existed on the bottom
of the dam at the location of the former river bed. Nevertheless, the liq-
uefied layer (or zone), which should have a relatively low Vs value, can-
not be identified in Fig. 9. It may be due to the liquefied layer thinner
than 2–3 m, which could not be delineated by the MASW technique
and microtremor measurement.
6. Stability of the landslide dam
An approach utilizing the Dimensionless Blockage Index (DBI) has
been proposed by Ermini and Casagli (2003) for the stability analysis
of landslide dams:
DBI ¼ logðAb  H d =V d Þ ð1Þ

5. S-wave profile and landsliding mechanism

Several studies have been performed on the Higashi-Takezawa land-
slide (Sassa et al., 2007; Kinoshita et al., 2009; Yamabe et al., 2010). For
example, Sassa et al. (2007) concluded that the Higashi-Takezawa land-
slide was triggered within the debris of an old landslide, and the sliding
surface was developed within the sandy layers. Sassa et al. (2007) in-
ferred that high pore-water pressure was built up within the sliding sur-
face (zone), i.e., sliding surface liquefaction (Sassa, 1996), resulting in
rapid movement of the displaced landslide materials. This might be
the reason why the upper parts of the displaced landslide materials
where Ab is area of the catchment (km2); Hd is height of the landslide
dam (m); and Vd is volume of the landslide dam (×106 m3). Based on
the analysis of many recorded landslide dams located all over the
world, Ermini and Casagli (2003) recognized three “stability domains”
for the dimensionless blockage index as shown in Fig. 12: (1) when
DBI b 2.75, the landslide dam lies in the stability domain; (2) when
2.75 b DBI b 3.08, the landslide dam is in the uncertain domain; and
(3) when DBI N 3.08, the landslide dam is in the instability domain.
Although there are some exceptions as shown in Fig. 12, DBI has proven
to be an effective index and has recently been used many times in
 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
Fig. 12. Stability analysis using Dimensionless Blockage Index (after Ermini and Casagli
(2003)). Solid triangle: Stable natural dam (SD); solid diamond: Unstable natural dam
(UD).
practice for risk assessments of landslide dam breaching (Strom, 2010;
Kiyota et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2011; Weidinger, 2011; among others).
For the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam, the length, width and
depth are about 300, 350 and 28 m, respectively; the volume is about
1.30 × 106 m3; and the upstream catchment area is 38.4 km2. Using
these data and Eq. (1), the DBI of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam
was calculated as 2.92. From Fig. 12, it can be seen that Higashi-
Takezawa landslide dam is located in the uncertain stability domain.
This suggests that, as a preliminary forecast of landslide dam evolution,
we cannot estimate whether this landslide dam will remain stable.
The uncertainty in the evaluation of dam longevity by means of DBI
may reflect that DBI is based on topographic features of the landslide
dam and the upstream catchment area, without considering dam's geo-
technical properties. Strom (2010) similarly questioned these limita-
tions of the DBI and suggested that additional quantitative parameters
characterizing landslide dams and dammed lakes should be used in
the stability analysis of landslide dams. However, although the geotech-
nical properties of landslide dams play a key role in dam stability and
also in the resistance to overtopping erosion, they have been rarely in-
corporated in stability analyses, probably due to the difficulties in
obtaining them. We expect that risk assessments of dam breaching
may be improved by using DBI together with information on geotechni-
cal properties of materials forming the dam.
It has been reported that breaching of landslide dams normally re-
sults from three types of failure processes (Takahashi and Kuang,
1988; O'Connor and Beebee, 2009; O'Connor et al., 2013),
i.e., occurrence of slides on the dam body, progressive failure, and
Table 1
Empirical equations for calculating the critical erosive shear stress of sediments (τc in Pa) (after Chang et al., 2011).
References Empirical expression and main parameters
Smerdon and Beasley (1961) τc = 0.16PI0.84; PI: plasticity index (%)
τc = 10.2D-0.63
r ; Dr: dispersion ratio
τc = 3.54 × 10−28.1d50; d50: mean particle size (m)
τc = 0.493 × 100.0182PC; PC: percent of clay by weight (%)
Neill (1973) τc = 0.7609γw(Gs − 1)d2/3 50 h
1/3
γw: unit weight of water (kN m−3); Gs: specific gravity (kN m−3); h: depth of flow (m)
Mitchener and Torfs (1996) τc = 0.015(ρb − 1000)0.73; ρb: bulk density of soil (kg/m3)
Julian and Torres (2006) τc = 0.1 + 0.1779P + 0.0028P2 − 2.34 × 10−5P3
P: fines content (%) (b0.063 mm)
Annandale (2006) τc = 2/3 × gd(ρs − ρw) tan φ;
ρs: mass density of soil (kg m−3); ρw: mass density of water (kg m−3); φ: friction
angle; d: particle diameter (m)
Thoman and Niezgoda (2008) τc = 77.28 + 2.20(Act) + 0.26Dr − 13.49Gs − 6.4pH + 0.12w
Act: Activity; w: water content (%)
Chang et al. (2011) τc = 6.8(PI)1.68P−1.73e−0.97
PI: plasticity index; e: void ratio; P: fines content
Dispersion ratio: ratio of the total weight of silt and clay sized aggregates to the total weight of silt and clay sized particles; Activity: plasticity index divided by the percentage of clay.
55
overtopping erosion. It has also been noted that overtopping breaching
is dominant in breached landslide dams, and progressive dam failure
due to seepage (piping flow) is rare (Mizuyama et al., 1987, 1989;
Peng and Zhang, 2012). In the following, analyses were performed to
assess these possible failure mechanisms for the Higashi-Takezawa
landslide dam.
First, to evaluate whether the landslide dam could fail due to sliding
on the dam body, 2D slope stability analysis of the displaced landslide
materials blocking the river by the limit equilibrium method was con-
ducted immediately after its formation as an emergency response
(Exploratory Committee of Countermeasures against Landslide Dams
in the Imo River basin, 2005). As well known, in this kind of slope stabil-
ity analysis the properties of the landslide sediments, such as the unit
weight (γ), effective cohesion (c), and friction angle (θ), will be neces-
sary. For the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam, γ was assumed to be
18 kN m− 3, while c and θ were selected by two differing methods,
i.e., (1) using the results of shear tests on the samples taken from the
sliding surface on the source area, (c = 25.5 kN m− 2; θ = 18.0°)
which resulted in a safety factor of 1.19 for the displaced slope before
the earthquake; (2) using the values obtained from back calculation
with an assumption that the safety factor for the displaced slope before
the earthquake was 1.0 (c = 25 kN m−2; θ = 14.6°). For a safer estima-
tion, the latter values of c and θ were used to analyze the stability of the
landslide sediments against the potential sliding along the original river
bed (parallel to L5 in Fig. 8). The safety factor was estimated to be 36.63,
showing that the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam was at very low risk
of failure due to the occurrence of slides.
Nevertheless, with the continued increase in the water level of the
barrier lake, it was believed that overtopping flow would occur on the
Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam and then bursting erosion would com-
mence if the flow-induced shear stress on the outflow bed exceeded the
critical erosive shear stress (τc) of the sediments. At present, several em-
pirical equations have been proposed to determine τc based on different
approaches (Table 1), but none of them is widely accepted. As listed in
Table 1, different equations are restricted to different types of sedi-
ments. Yamabe et al. (2010) took samples from different locations of
the landslide dam and performed detailed geotechnical tests on them
following the Japanese Industrial Standards of JIS A1202, JIS A1204
and JIS A1225 (The Japanese Geotechnical Society, 2009) (Table 2). De-
tails on these standards could be referred to. Sassa et al. (2007) also took
samples (S1 and S2 in Fig. 5) from the main scarp of the landslide and
the central part of the dam crest to measure their basic soil parameters
in laboratory, and found that the materials consisted of 93% fine sand,
~3% silt and 4% clay with a mean particle size (d50) of 0.18 mm. Consid-
ering that the materials composing the dam body are sandy sediments,
a critical erosive shear stress of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam
was estimated to be 0.32 Pa by using the equation of Annandale
Type of sediments Testing method
Cohesive Flume test
Gravel, glass balls Flume test
Mixture of mud and sand Flume test
Cohesive Field monitoring
Homogeneous cohesionless No record
Cohesive Submerged jet
Gravelly sandy sediments Submerged jet
56 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
Table 2
Geotechnical properties of the landslide materials (after Yamabe et al., 2010).
Location ρwet (g cm−3) ρdry (g cm−3) ρs (g cm−3)
Head 1.58 1.20 2.69
Central 1.67 1.38 2.63
toe 1.88 1.47 2.64
ρwet: Wet density; ρdry: Dry density; ρs: Particle density of sediments; W: Natural water content (g cm−3); e: Void ratio; τr = c + σtan(θ), σ is the effective normal stress in kPa, c′ is ef-
fective cohesion, and θ is friction angle; κ: Permeability.
(2006) that is suitable for the sediments with fines less than 10%
(Table 1). For the estimation, d50 (1.8 × 10−4 m) was used for d, dry
density (ρdry) was 1380 kg m− 3, and a friction angle of 35.6° was
used, considering that overtopping would occur on the center part of
the landslide dam (see Fig. 6). We used the Annandale equation, be-
cause (1) the materials of the landslide dam is sandy, and (2) Chang
and Zhang (2010) had successfully used this equation to estimate the
soil erodibility for some landslide dams triggered by the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake in China. Although the resulting τc of 0.32 Pa is
a very rough estimation, it can provide a reference for the possible
range of the critical erosive shear stress. Comparing this value to results
obtained by other researchers (e.g., Leonard and Richard, 2004; Shugar
et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2011), it could be inferred that the soil compris-
ing the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam has low resistance against
overtopping flow and consequent outbursting failure. In fact, during
construction of a sluiceway as an emergency countermeasure, signifi-
cant erosion and collapse was triggered on the downstream slope at
the outlet of the pump pipes (Mori et al., 2012). Therefore, we conclud-
ed that if countermeasures were not performed, the Higashi-Takezawa
landslide dam would have suffered outburst breaching after the occur-
rence of overtopping flow.
We surveyed the shear-wave velocity profiles of several large land-
slide dams formed during the 2008 Wenchuan, China earthquake and
found that dams that abruptly breached during sluiceway construction
had shear-wave velocity values lower than 250 m s−1 (Wang, 2011). It
is known that the standard penetration test N value of soil has a positive
correlation with its shear-wave velocity (Imai and Tonouchi, 1982) and
the degree of soil consolidation. Cha and Cho (2007) also tried to esti-
mate the shear strength of sandy soils based on in situ shear wave veloc-
ity. We assume that the sediments having high shear wave velocity
would have greater critical shear stress. From Figs. 9 to 11 we can see
that almost all the domains of the Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam
have low shear-wave velocity values (b 250 m s−1). Therefore, we con-
clude that the landslide dam is in a loose state, so abrupt breaching
could occur after the occurrence of overtopping.
Hydraulic prediction of downstream flooding due to failure of a
landslide dam is of great importance for assessing potential damage
downstream and for conducting effective evacuation. Several ap-
proaches for such hydraulic prediction have been proposed based on
experimental work on landslide dams that consist of homogenous sed-
iments (Takahashi and Kuang, 1988; Takahashi and Nakawaga, 1993;
Ishikawa et al., 1992; Satofuka et al., 2010). However, as revealed by
the Vs profile of the sediments forming the Higashi-Takezawa landslide
dam, a dam likely consists of heterogeneous debris. Therefore, material
heterogeneity should be considered in the analysis of a landslide dam.
Especially in the analysis of breaching risk due to overtopping, different
critical shear stresses should be used for sediments at locations with dif-
fering shear wave velocities.
7. Summary and conclusions
The Higashi-Takezawa landslide dam was formed during the 2004
Mid-Niigata Prefecture (M6.8) earthquake and was successfully stabi-
lized by emergency and permanent countermeasures. To understand
the internal structure of the dam and provide reliable parameters for
W (%) e τr κ (cm s−1) Number of samples
c′ (kN cm−2) θ′ (°)
32.0 1.25 – – 9.99 × 10−5 1
21.4 0.92 19.8 35.6 1.41 × 10−2 5
28.1 0.80 27.8 36.5 3.02 × 10−6 10
the stability analysis of the dam, we used a multiple-channel surface-
wave technique and microtremor array measurements to survey the
S-wave velocity profile, Based on the survey results, the formation pro-
cess and the breaching risk of the dam were analyzed. Some conclusions
can be drawn as follows:
1) The shear-wave velocities of the sediments of the dam were
generally low, because the dam consisted of strongly weathered
sandstone and siltstone.
2) Three layers with differing shear-wave velocities were identified.
The boundary between shallower and deeper layers of sediments
had an inclination of about 8° in the downslope direction, indicating
that the displaced landslide materials moved along a sliding surface
in the deposition area consistent with that developed in the source
area.
3) The Vs profile of the dam suggested that the displaced landslide
materials were little disturbed, although they experienced rapid
movement with long-travel distance.
4) The sediments forming the dam had low resistance to overtopping
erosion due to low degrees of consolidation implied by the low
shear-wave velocities. Therefore, although the DBI value of
Higashi-Takezawa dam showed that it was located in the uncertain
stability domain, the dam likely would have suffered from abrupt
breaching following the occurrence of overtopping flow.
Some boreholes were drilled on the Higashi-Takezawa landslide
dam after its formation, and geotechnical properties of soil samples
taken from different parts of the landslide and dam were examined to
obtain the density, void ratio and shear strength of the sediments
(Yamabe et al., 2010). However, these data were limited to discrete
sample points. In contrast, geophysical surveys can provide such data
for a wider area and consequently enable the three-dimensional analy-
sis of dam stability with higher reliability. Therefore, new methods for
assessing the possibility of failures on a landslide dam and estimating
the critical erosive shear stress and erodibility of the sediments of the
dam need to be developed based on results from shear-wave velocity
surveys.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the support to this study provided by the Yuzawa
Sabo Office, Hokuriku Regional Development Bureau, Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport, Japan. This research was supported by
JSPS KAKENHI (grant numbers: 21403002 and 15H01797) and the
Opening Fund of Research Institute for Natural Hazards & Disaster Re-
covery, Niigata University (2013-#03). Dr. Chunxiang Wang in Niigata
University is thanked for his help with the field survey. Valuable review
and English editing by Mr. William Schulz (USGS) are greatly appreciat-
ed. Finally, our special thanks go to Dr. Elizabeth Safran, two anonymous
reviewers, and Prof. Takashi Oguchi, for their valuable comments that
substantially improved this paper.
References
Abdrakhmatov, K., Strom, A., 2006. Dissected Rockslide and Rock Avalanche Deposits;
Tien Shan Kyrgyzstan. In: Evans, S.G., Scarascia Mugnozza, G., Strom, A., Hermanns,
 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
R.L. (Eds.), Landslides From Massive Rock Slope Failure, NATO Science Series: IV:
Earth and Environmental Sciences Vol. 49. Springer, pp. 551–572.
Annandale, G.W., 2006. Scour Technology-Mechanics and Engineering Practice. McGraw-
Hill, New York, p. 430.
Casagli, N., Ermini, L., 1999. Geomorphic analysis of landslide dams in the northern
Apennine. Trans. Jpn. Geomorphol. 20, 219–249.
Casagli, N., Ermini, L., Rosati, G., 2003. Determining grain size distribution of the material
composing landslide dams in the Northern Apennines: sampling and processing
methods. Eng. Geol. 69, 83–97.
Cencetti, C., Fredduzzi, A., Marchesini, Naccini, M., Tacconi, P., 2006. Some considerations
about the simulation of breach channel erosion on landslide dams. Comput. Geosci.
10, 201–219.
Cha, M., Cho, G., 2007. Shear strength estimation of sandy soils using shear wave velocity.
Geotech. Test. J. 30 (6), 1–12.
Chang, D.S., Zhang, L.M., 2010. Simulation of the erosion process of landslide dams due to
overtopping considering variations in soil erodibility along depth. Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci. 10, 933–946.
Chang, D.S., Zhang, L.M., Xu, Y., Huang, R.Q., 2011. Field testing of erodibility of two land-
slide dams triggered by the 12 May Wenchuan earthquake. Landslides 8, 321–332.
Chen, S.C., Hsu, C.L., Wu, T., Chou, H.T., Cui, P., 2011. Landslide Dams Induced by Typhoon
Morakot and Risk Assessment. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Debris-flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment. Padua,
Italy, pp. 653–660.
Chigira, M., Yagi, H., 2006. Geological and geomorphological characteristics of landslides trig-
gered by the 2004 Mid Niigata prefecture earthquake in Japan. Eng. Geol. 82, 202–221.
Costa, J.E., Schuster, R.L., 1988. The formation and failure of natural dams. Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull. 100, 1054–1068.
Costa, J.E., Schuster, R.L., 1991. Documented Historical Landslide Dams From Around the
World. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 91-239 (486 pp.).
Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P., Fusi, N., Sosio, R., 2011. Formation, Characterization, and Modeling
of the Val Pola Rock-avalanche Dam (Italy). In: Evans, S.G., Hermanns, R.L., Strom, A.,
Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (Eds.), Natural and Artificial Rockslide Dams. Springer,
pp. 347–368.
Cui, P., Han, Y., Chao, D., Chen, X., 2011. Formation and Treatment of Landslide Dams
Emplaced During the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, Sichuan, China. In: Evans, S.G.,
Hermanns, R.L., Strom, A., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (Eds.), Natural and Artificial
Rockslide Dams. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 295–321.
Cui, P., Zhou, G.G.D., Zhu, X.H., Zhang, J.Q., 2013. Scale amplification of natural debris flows
caused by cascading landslide dam failures. Geomorphology 182, 173–189.
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., Deng, J.H., Tham, L.G., 2005. The 1786 earthquake-triggered landslide
dam and subsequent dam-break flood on the Dadu River, southwestern China. Geo-
morphology 65, 205–221.
Davies, T.R., McSaveney, M.J., 2011. Rock-avalanche Size and Runout – Implications for
Landslide Dams. In: Evans, S.G., Hermanns, R.L., Strom, A., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.
(Eds.), Natural and Artificial Rockslide Dams. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 441–462.
Davies, T.R., Manville, V., Kunz, M., Donadini, L., 2007. Modeling landslide dambreak flood
magnitudes: case study. J. Hydraul. Eng. 133, 713–720.
Delaney, K.B., Evans, S.G., 2015. The 2000 Yigong landslide (Tibetan Plateau), rockslide-
dammed lake and outburst flood: review, remote sensing analysis, and process
modelling. Geomorphology 246, 377–393.
Dong, J.J., Li, Y.S., Kuo, C.Y., Sung, R.T., Li, M.H., Lee, C.T., Chen, C.C., Lee, W.R., 2011. The for-
mation and breach of a short-lived landslide dam at Hsiaolin village, Taiwan — part I:
post-event reconstruction of dam geometry. Eng. Geol. 123, 40–59.
Dong, J.J., Tung, Y.H., Chen, C.C., Liao, J.J., Pan, Y.W., 2009. Discriminant analysis of the geo-
morphic characteristics and stability of landslide dams. Geomorphology 110,
162–171.
Dunning, S.A., Armitage, P.J., 2011. The Grain-size Distribution of Rock-avalanche De-
posits: Implications for Natural Dam Stability. In: Evans, S.G., Hermanns, R.L., Strom,
A., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (Eds.), Natural and Artificial Rockslide Dams. Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 497–498.
Ermini, L., Casagli, N., 2003. Prediction of the behaviour of landslide dams using a geomor-
phological dimensionless index. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 28, 31–47.
Exploratory Committee of Countermeasures against Landslide Dams in Imo River basin, 2005e.
Documents of the 4th committee meeting, 2005. http://www.hrr.mlit.go.jp/yuzawa/sabo/
chuetsu/taisaku/iinkai_4th/shiryou.pdf (accessed on December 16, 2015).
Fan, X., Gorum, T., van Westen, C.J., Korup, O., Xu, Q., Dai, F., Huang, R., Wang, G., 2012.
Transient water and sediment storage of the decaying landslide dams induced by
the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Geomorphology 171–172, 58–68.
Fread, D.L., 1977. The Development and Testing of a Dam-break Flood Forecasting Model.
Proceedings of Dam-break Flood Routing Model Workshop, Bethesda, MD,
pp. 164–197.
Fread, D.L., 1988. BREACH: An Erosion Model for Earth Dam Failures. National Weather
Service (NWS) Report. NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Fujisawa, K., Kobayashi, A., Aoyama, S., 2009. Theoretical description of embankment ero-
sion owing to overflow. Géotechnique 59, 661–671.
Hayashi, K., Suzuki, H., 2004. CMP cross-correlation analysis of multi-channel surface-
wave data. Explor. Geophys. 35, 7–13.
Hayashi, K., Hirade, T., Iiba, M., Inazaki, T., Takahashi, H., 2008. Site investigation by
surface-wave method and micro-tremor array measurements at central Anamizu,
Ishikawa Prefecture. Butsuri-Tansa (Geophys. Explor.) 61, 483–498 (in Japanese
with English abstract).
Imai, T., Tonouchi, K., 1982. Correlation of N-value with S-wave Velocity and Shear Mod-
ulus. Proc. 2nd European Symp. of Penetration Testing (Amsterdam), pp. 57–72.
Ishikawa, Y., Irasawa, M., Kuang, S.F., 1992. Study on prediction and countermeasures of
flood disasters caused by landslide dam failures. J. Jpn. Soc. Erosion Control Eng. 45
(1), 14–23.
57
Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2013. Responding to the potential risks of the natu-
ral dam in Ambon: JICA dispatches an expert team to support the government of
Indonesia. http://www.jica.go.jp/indonesia/english/office/others/c8h0vm000001puns-
att/press130816.pdf (vied on February 11, 2015).
Julian, J.P., Torres, R., 2006. Hydraulic erosion of cohesive riverbanks. Geomorphology 76,
193–206.
Kinoshita, A., Yamaguchi, S., Yamasaki, T., Shibasaki, T., Kojima, T., Yoshimatsu, H., 2009.
Study on geo-technical characteristics of the slip surface of a large-moved landslide
triggered by the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake. J. Jpn. Landslide Soc. 45,
418–427.
Kiyota, T., Sattar, A., Konagai, K., Kazmi, A.Z., Okuno, D., Ikeda, T., 2011. Breaching failure of
a huge landslide dam formed by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Soils Found. 51 (6),
1179–1190.
Konagai, K., Sattar, A., 2012. Partial breaching of Hattian Bala landslide dam formed in the
8th October 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Pakistan. Landslides 9, 1–11.
Korup, O., 2002. Recent research on landslide dams - a literature review with special at-
tention to New Zealand. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 26, 206–235.
Korup, O., 2004. Geomorphometric characteristics of New Zealand landslide dams. Eng.
Geol. 73, 13–35.
Korup, O., 2005. Geomorphic hazard assessment of landslide dams in South Westland,
New Zealand: fundamental problems and approaches. Geomorphology 66, 167–188.
Korup, O., 2012. Earth's portfolio of extreme sediment transport events. Earth Sci. Rev.
112, 115–125.
Korup, O., Tweed, F., 2007. Ice, moraine, and landslide dams in mountainous terrain. Quat.
Sci. Rev. 26, 3406–3422.
Korup, O., Wang, G., 2014. Multiple Landslide-damming Episodes. In: Davies, T., Shroder,
J.F. (Eds.), Landslide Hazards, Risks, and Disasters. Elsevier, pp. 241–262.
Leonard, J., Richard, G., 2004. Estimation of runoff critical shear stress for soil erosion from
soil shear strength. Catena 57, 233–249.
Marui, H., 2005. Emergency Response Against Landslide Dams Formed in Imo-River
Watershed. Proceedings of the Symposium on Landslide Hazards and Emergency Re-
sponse. Japan Landslide Society, pp. 30–37.
Marui, H., Yoshimatsu, H., 2005. On the Countermeasures Against the Landslide Dams
Triggered by Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake. Proceedings of the Debriefing of
the Damage Caused by the 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake. The Japan Land-
slide Society and Japan Society of Engineering Geology, pp. 60–67.
Mitchener, H., Torfs, H., 1996. Erosion of mud/sand mixtures. Coast. Eng. 29, 1–25.
Mizuyama, T., Ishikawa, Y., Fukumoto, A., 1987. Landslide dams outburst due to seepage.
Annu. Public Work. Res. Inst. 2744, 18–91 (in Japanese).
Mizuyama, T., Ishikawa, Y., Fukumoto, A., 1989. Landslide dams outburst and its counter-
measure. Civ. Eng. J. 31-11, 50–56 (in Japanese).
Mori, T., Inoue, K., Sakaguti, T., Mizhuyama, T., 2012. Natural Dams in Japan and Counter-
measures. Kokonsyoin, Tokyo (186 pp. (in Japanese)).
Nagai, Y., Maruyama, J., Yoshida, K., Yamakoshi, T., 2008. Emergency response and perma-
nent measures for large landslide dams triggered by the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture
earthquake in Japan. Int. J. Erosion Control Eng. 1 (1), 20–29.
Neill, C.R., 1973. Guide to Bridge Hydraulics. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (191
pp.).
O'Connor, J.E., Beebee, R.A., 2009. Floods From Natural Rock-material Dams. In: Burr, D.,
Carling, P., Baker, V. (Eds.), Megafloods on Earth and Mars. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 128–171.
O'Connor, J.E., Clague, J.J., Walder, J.S., Manville, V., Beebee, R.A., 2013. Outburst Floods. In:
Shroder, J. (Editor in Chief), Wohl, E.E., (Ed.), Treatise on Geomorphology, v. 9 (Fluvial
Geomorphology). Academic Press, San Diego, U.S.A., pp. 475–510.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64,
800–808.
Peng, M., Zhang, L.M., 2012. Breaching parameters of landslide dams. Landslides 9, 13–31.
Peng, M., Zhang, L.M., Chang, D.S., Shi, Z.M., 2014. Engineering risk mitigation measures
for the landslide dams induced by the 2008Wenchuan earthquake. Eng. Geol. 180,
68–84.
Research Group for Active Faults of Japan (Ed.), 1991. Active Faults in Japan: Sheet Maps
and Inventories, Revised ed. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (437pp. (in Japanese
with English summary)).
Sakurai, W., 2013. On the Countermeasures to the Large-scale Geohazards Triggered by
Typhoon No.12 in September 2011, Japan. Deep-seated Landslides and Landslide
Dams, Proceedings of Landslide Field Trip and Symposium. Kansai Branch of Japan
Landslide Society, pp. 7–22 (in Japanese).
Sassa, K., 1996. Prediction of Earthquake Induced Landslides. Proceedings of 7th Interna-
tional Symposium on Landslides Vol. 1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
pp. 115–132.
Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Wang, F.W., Wang, G., 2007. Sliding mechanism of the 2004 Mid-
Niigata Prefecture earthquake-triggered-rapid landslides occurred within the past
landslide masses. J. Jpn. Landslide Soc. 44 (2), 71–78 (in Japanese with English
abstract).
Satofuka, Y., Mori, T., Mizuyama, T., Ogawa, K., Yoshino, K., 2010. Prediction of floods
caused by landslide dam collapse. J. Disaster Res. 5 (3), 288–295.
Shugar, D., Kostaschuk, R., Ashmore, P., Desloges, J., Burge, L., 2007. In situ jet-testing of
the erosional resistance of cohesive streambeds. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34, 1192–1195.
Singh, V.P., 1996. Dam Breach Modeling Technology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Smerdon, E.T., Beasley, R.P., 1961. Critical tractive forces in cohesive soils. Agric. Eng. 42, 26–29.
Strom, A., 2010. Landslide dams in Central Asia region. J. Jpn. Landslide Soc. 47 (6),
309–324.
Tabata, S., Mizuyama, T., Inoue, K., 2002. Landslide Dam and Hazards. Kokonshoin, Tokyo
(205 pp.).
Takahashi, T., Kuang, S.F., 1988. Hydrograph Prediction of Debris Flow Due to Failure of
Landslide Dam. Annuals, Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., No. 31 B-2, pp. 601–615.
58 G. Wang et al. / Geomorphology 267 (2016) 48–58
Takahashi, T., Nakawaga, H., 1993. Flood and debris flow hydrograph due to collapse of a
natural dam by overtopping. J. Hydrosci. Hydraul. Eng. 37, 699–704.
The Japanese Geotechnical Society, 2009. Standards of Japanese Geotechnical Society for
Laboratory Test. pp. 730–789 (Tokyo, In Japanese).
Thoman, R.W., Niezgoda, S.L., 2008. Determining erodibility, critical shear stress, and al-
lowable discharge estimates for cohesive channels: case study in the Power River
Basin of Wyoming. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134, 1677–1687.
Wang, G., 2011. Formation of Large Scale Landslide Dams and Failure Prediction. Proceed-
ings of 2011 Landslide Symposium. Kansai Branch of Japan Landslide Society,
pp. 65–80 (in Japanese).
Wang, G., Huang, R., Kamai, T., 2014. The Internal Structure and Stability of Some Large
Landslide Dams Induced by the 2008 Wenchuan (Mw7.9) Earthquake, China. In:
Lollino, et al. (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory. Landslide Process
(Proceedings of 2014 IAEG) vol. 2, pp. 1163–1169.
Wang, G., Huang, R., Kamai, T., Zhang, F., 2013. The internal structure of a rockslide dam
induced by the 2008 Wenchuan (Mw 7.9) earthquake, China. Eng. Geol. 156, 28–36.
Weidinger, J.T., 2011. Stability and Life Span of Landslide Dams in the Himalayas (India,
Nepal) and the Qin Ling Mountains (China). In: Evans, S.G., Hermanns, R., Strom,
A.L., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (Eds.), Natural and Artificial Rockslide Dams. Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 243–277.
Yamabe, K., Marui, H., Yoshimatsu, H., Yamamoto, S., 2010. Landslide dam in
Higashitakezawa and Terano area formed by the Mid Niigata Prefecture earthquake.
J. Jpn. Landslide Soc. 47 (6), 41–52 (in Japanese with English abstract).