|
<br />~ .-
<br />
<br />?~;:,,'.,,:;,- .~'"':~~ .c,,,-<,J..~-,,,_
<br />. .' , ~-: .~..,..
<br />. - ~..;:
<br />
<br />:.:."
<br />
<br />C.F. Wayrhol7laJ'. R.D. Jarrelf / Geomorphology J I (/994) /5-40
<br />
<br />lbably
<br />
<br />T:thle4
<br />Cast fabric data from fluvial nnd 1tU1S54wasting deposits
<br />
<br />33
<br />
<br />OejJosi'
<br />
<br />Ref,!!
<br />
<br />LOCluon
<br />
<br />Number
<br />of
<br />sounples~
<br />
<br />51
<br />
<br />No~ized eigenv3.lu~
<br />
<br />53
<br />
<br />Arthurs Rock Gulch. Colorodo
<br />Fa I. Site 4 F1llSh "000 0.771 O.ISI 0,078 28/S0 III
<br />FB2. Site 4 F1llSh "00<1 0,684 0.139 0,078 8/58 [II
<br />FB3. Site 4 F1llSh 600<1 0,617 0.239 0.143 46/56 [II
<br />FB4.Si"'l F1llSh 600<1 0,603 0.114 0.123 29/42 {II
<br />FB1.Site I F1llSh 6000 0.7m 0.103 0,089 48/49 {II
<br />FS3. 5i", 5 Debris flow? 0.536 0.31S 0.148 33/S2 [II
<br />Me. Hekta. Icelnnd Debris flow 2 0.558' (0,037)' 0.367 O.D7S (0,028) (21
<br />West Cr.lin valley, England Debris torrent 4 0.606 (0.103) 0.307 0,087 (0.026) [ll
<br />West Gr;1tn valley. England Debris flow I 0.514 OJ47 O,1l9 [4{
<br />Long Gulch. Colorado F1llSh "00<1 0,769 0,132 0.099 130/43 [IJ
<br />Tur1c:ey Creek.. Colol'lldo.
<br />S... 1 F1llSh "000 0.692 0218 0.D78 22/52 [II
<br />Bu2 F1nsh flood 0,715 0.161 0,123 88/48 [I]
<br />B...3 F1nshflood 0.638 0.240 0.122 77/44 [II
<br />Tucker Gulch. Colorado
<br />Sile 2. Flash flood? 0.600 0.181 0.118 49/48 {II
<br />Site I. bOlt' ( F1llSh "00<11 ' 0,646 0.261 0.092 90/51 [IJ
<br />Nigel ~. Canadian Debris flow 84 0.606 (0.079) 0.291 (0.059) 0.103 (0.041) [Sf
<br />RookyMlS.
<br />AII:1~ Alps. w. G~nnan.y Debris flow 9 0,607 (0.039) 0.177 (0,039) 0,116 (0.0431 [61
<br />a;\linumum of 25 mC:1$uremems per sample.
<br />'R.i.",.,,,,,: {I] This p:lper. (21 Ceirsdottir (j988). 131 Corling (1987a). [41 Coriing (198Th). [5] Owe.s (1973). [6.) Rappel (1983).
<br />~Avel':1ge V:llue.
<br />.ron<: stand:u'd devi.:u.ion.
<br />
<br />sits at
<br />Jne of
<br />, Most
<br />and 4.
<br />u[ders
<br />ve the
<br />'rsare
<br />argins
<br />e peg-
<br />ectan~
<br />ibits a
<br />S-axis
<br />od are
<br />jiorite
<br />:) side
<br />ce for
<br />matite
<br />:FBw
<br />
<br />ofthe
<br />n that
<br />ulders
<br />~tain a
<br />to the
<br />
<br />active
<br />:s that
<br />zed at
<br />iepos-
<br />J bars
<br />anic Ie
<br />.eFB3
<br />iepos-
<br />Itiated
<br />.y are
<br />iering
<br />these
<br />es and
<br />I).
<br />,posits
<br />mples
<br />6694.
<br />or the
<br />
<br />deposit. The radiocarbon activity of the second sample
<br />(GX-I669S. Table I) is 99.6:!:2.3% of the 19S0sWl-
<br />dard "c activity. This sample was probably deposited
<br />in the FB3 boulder matrix by a recent flood and thus
<br />provides a minimum limiting age for FB3.'
<br />Large boulders along (he active channel margin are
<br />considered to be FB4 deposits (Fig. Sd). These boul-
<br />ders were probably reworked from older deposits. FB4
<br />deposits show [ittleto no weathering (Fig. 7; Table I).
<br />
<br />5.6. Clost fabric and deposit origin
<br />
<br />~
<br />;
<br />l
<br />
<br />Eigenvalue data from clast fabric measurements of
<br />water-flood deposits in the Colorado Front Range
<br />(including Anhurs Rock Gulch) are listed in Tab[e 4.
<br />Fabric data from debris-flow deposits are included for
<br />
<br />,
<br />,
<br />~
<br />
<br />52
<br />
<br />Eigenvector
<br />trend and plunge
<br />VI
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />exP!.ANAT1QH
<br />
<br />'"
<br />re
<br />~
<br />s
<br />
<br />~- -
<br />,x ._~/.,..
<br />\.. \ .......,wMd 0
<br />\ ~.p-m)(
<br />\ 0 ..".'"
<br />\ 0 I "'o-_l'Ia,/
<br />'0_....... ~..... $h.
<br />-':;t1..~'. .
<br />'..; "..;
<br />1'8:1,.. ...~";!',
<br />
<br />NIOI!1.P,t,SS.
<br />"""""""""'.....
<br />""""'......
<br />w. ..-.,
<br />
<br /><> AA'lHUAS AOCll: QtJl,CH
<br />
<br />WT.HlKLA.ICS..ANO
<br />....<lW><.OO
<br />
<br />... TlJAK!Y CReEl(, co
<br />
<br />4 i1JCXEAGUl.CH.CO
<br />
<br />
<br />9
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />o
<br />o
<br />
<br />2 + 'w.~AU.lV.
<br />
<br />In (S2IS3)
<br />
<br />Fig. 9. Ratio plot ornoll1'llllized .:igenvaJues (51. 52. 53) forclast.
<br />fabric data showing differences between waIer.ftood deposits and
<br />debris-flow hyperconcentr:lted-ftow(?) deposiCl, Data sources listed
<br />in Table 4.
<br />
|