Improving and Applying the Measurement of Erodibility: Examining and Calibrating Rock Mass Indices

The Rock Mass Strength index (Selby, 1980) has become a standard test in geomorphology to quantify rock erodibility. Yet, the index combines a mixture of quantitative and qualitative parameters, yielding classification disparities arising from subjective user interpretations and producing final ratings that are effectively only comparable within a single researcher's dataset. Other methods, such as the Rock Quality Designation (Deere and Deere, 1988) and the Slope Mass Rating system (Bieniawski, 1989; Romana, 1995) employ some additional quantitative methods, but do not eliminate variability in user interpretation. Still, the idea of quantifying erodibility in an easily-applied field method holds great potential for furthering the understanding of large-scale landscape evolution. Therefore, we are applying several published and unpublished erodibility indices across a suite of rock types, varying the relative weights of index parameters and calculating ratings based on various potential interpretations of the index guidelines. To evaluate these results, we regress the iterations against the mean topographic slopes, allowing us to determine which index and weighting scheme is ideal overall. Results thus far have shown discrepancies between rating and slope in rocks that are more susceptible to chemical weathering (a parameter not typically included in erodibility indices). We are therefore examining the addition of chemical composition as an index parameter, or the possibility of creating weighting schema tailored to specific rock types and erosional environments. Preliminary results also suggest that beyond a threshold fracture density, high compressive rock strength is rendered moot, requiring further modification to existing indices.