he coverage of each subject in Part A is deliberately uneven, with more information being provided on topics that engineers and

geologists typically have difficulties in understanding. For example, a detailed presentation is given on the shear strength of stiff clays and the failure of such slopes many years after construction (delayed failure). Other techniques, such as cone penetration testing, are only mentioned briefly because they are rarely used on landslides. These choices have been made to control the length of Part A in deference to Part B, the main focus of the book. Nevertheless, engineers and geologists should find much useful information on site investigations and stability analyses for landslides in Part A. Many textbooks are currently available on these subjects. Three of them are especially recommended by the author as being complementary and supplementary to the present volume. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd ed., by Karl Terzaghi, Ralph B. Peck, and Gholamreza Mesri. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Third Edition published 1996, 548 pp. Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance, by John Dunnicliff. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., published 1988, 575 pp. Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Special Report 247. Multiple authors; edited by A. Keith Turner and Robert L. Schuster. National Academy Press, published 1996, 675 pp.

CO

PY R

IG

HT

ED

MA

TE

PA R T A

Investigations and Analyses

RI

AL

CHAPTER

Landslides

1
(ENRCCI) as a guide to converting historical data to current cost Practical issues are stressed. References are given that can provide more detailed information on each subject. It should be understood that remedial/preventative techniques are continually changing as new technologies become available. The opinions expressed in the book are those of the author, and other knowledgeable persons may disagree on specific points. In this regard, the author generally mentions dissenting opinions where appropriate. The length of the book has been a concern, and this has required choices to be made on what topics to include or exclude from the book. It was decided that landslides in hard rocks would be excluded.These are landslides in which failure is controlled by discontinuities such as joints, faults, or bedding planes. However, slopes of weathered rock, where slippage occurs through soil or broken rock (and respond as soil mechanics), are included. Another excluded group of landslides are those involving cold region engineering such as permafrost or seasonally frozen ground. The book contains numerous case histories or examples to illustrate the practical uses of remedial/preventative techniques. In addition, 12 case histories are presented at the end of the book that demonstrate technical points discussed in the main body of the book.These are cross-referenced. Regarding individual topics, the author has chosen to be (i) mainstream; i.e., describing methods more commonly used or followed, and (ii) selective in coverage; i.e., writing more extensively on subjects for which many engineers experience difficulty, such as strength of clays, and briefly on subjects that are considered common knowledge. Thus, coverage of topics is deliberately uneven.

1.1 SCOPE OF THE BOOK Many books have been written about the identification, analysis, and treatment of landslides. There are specific books on laboratory testing, field instrumentation, and methods of slope stability analysis. Professional societies with interests in landslides sponsor seminars, conferences, and research publications. In many parts of the world, the economic losses caused by landslides are large, and there is significant loss of life. This book is written primarily for the benefit of professional civil engineers and engineering geologists who are involved in civil engineering works. It is intended to be a practical guide for such practitioners. Other professionals who may benefit from knowledge in the book include structural engineers, highway and railroad engineers, mining engineers, planners, educators, construction attorneys, civil engineering contractors, dam and power generator engineers, public works engineers, water supply engineers, and others in related fields. The remedial and preventative treatment of landslides is the principal focus of the book.The intent of this section is to provide the reader with a reasonably thorough understanding about each technique that is sufficient to allow the professional to choose between alternatives. For each treatment, the provided information generally covers the following:

Appropriate (and inappropriate) use Principle of effectiveness for landslide remediation/prevention Design method Construction/installation procedure and field equipment Examples or case histories taken from the authors experiences or published materials Construction costs in the United States using the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index

INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

1.2 LANDSLIDE DESCRIPTIONS The term landslide is sometimes felt to be inadequate because many types of slope movement do not involve sliding. The geomorphologist term mass wasting is little improvement. Cruden (1991) has suggested a simple definition of landslide: the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. For this book, the term landslide covers all slope movements that occur from natural or manmade causes except ground subsidence. The dimensions and geometry of a landslide have been described by Varnes (1978) using the cutaway drawing shown on Figure 1.1. Subsequently, the International Association of Engineering Geologists (IAEG) created a Commission on Landslides that has produced the section and definitions shown on Figure 1.2 (IAEG, 1990).There are many variations from these terms in common use. In this book, alternative terms are used:
IAEG TERM BOOK TERM

Landslide Size There is no standard for describing landslides by size, but it is useful to provide some reference. Table 1.1 has been used as the guide to describing landslide size throughout this book.
Table 1.1 Grouping Landslides by Area in Plan
Descriptor Very small Small Medium Large Very large Huge Area, sq. ft. <2000 2,00020,000 20,000200,000 200,0002,000,000 2,000,00020,000,000 >20,000,000 Area, sq. m. <200 2002,000 2,00020,000 20,000200,000 200,0002,000,000 >2,000,000

main scarp minor scarp surface of rupture

headscarp secondary scarp slip surface (occasionally slip plane if planar)

Note: 1 sq. mile = 27,878,400 sq. ft. 1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft. Length is measured horizontally, not along the slope. If the size is near the border between categories, both sizes are mentioned (e.g., landslide of around 20,000 sq. ft. is described as a small-to-medium landslide). For slopes steeper than 45 to the horizontal, it is recommended that vertical height replace horizontal length in the area calculation. For flow slides, it is recommended that the area be based on the eroded bowl at the initiation site, ignoring any further erosion further downslope in the valley below.

The author also uses the following terms: Length horizontal distance from top of headscarp to toe (upslope to downslope). The horizontal distance for slope length is chosen because it is a quick method of determining size from plan drawings. Width generally, the widest dimension across the slope. Depth usually described as up to the maximum depth below the existing ground surface. Slope average slope in degrees from horizontal, or an average gradient of horizontal : vertical.

1.3 LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION In the original work by Varnes (1978) which has been updated and partly revised by Cruden and Varnes (1996) slope movements have been subdivided into six categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Falls Topples Slides rotational and translational Lateral spreads Flows Composites combination of types

Crown cracks
wn Cro

de Zon ple e o tio f n

Transverse cracks
H ea d

cu Zon mu e o lat f ion Transverse ridges

Su

ac

Figure 1.1 Terminology for describing landslide features (modified from Varnes, 1978).

rfa

ce

of

ru p

Main body t u re

Fo

ot

Surface of separation Radial cracks

To

Toe of surface of rupture

Tip

LANDSLIDES

19 2

B
9 8 7 6 4 3 1

PLAN

19
14

A
16

5 20
15

SECTION
17 (13) = (17) + (18)
10

18

B
12 11

No. 1

Name Crown

Definition Practically undisplaced material adjacent to highest parts of main scarp Steep surface on undisturbed ground at upper edge of landslide caused by movement of displaced material (13, stippled area) away from undisturbed ground; it is a visible part of surface of rupture (10) Highest point of contact between displaced material (13) and main scarp (2) Upper parts of landslide along contact between displaced material and main scarp (2) Steep surface on displaced material of landslide produced by differential movements within displaced material Part of displaced material of landslide that overlies surface of rupture between main scarp (2) and toe of surface of rupture (11) Portion of landslide that has moved beyond toe of surface of rupture (11) and overlies original ground surface (20) Point on toe (9) farthest from top (3) of landslide Lower, usually curved margin of displaced material of a landslide, most distant from main scarp (2)

No. 11

Name Toe of surface of rupture

Definition Intersection (usually buried) between lower part of surface of rupture (10) of a landslide and original ground surface (20) Part of original ground surface (20) now overlain by foot (7) of landslide Material displaced from its original position on slope by movement in landslide; comprises both depleted mass (17) and accumulation (18) Area of landslide within which displaced material lies below original ground surface (20) Area of landslide within which displaced material (13) lies above original ground surface (20) Volume bounded by main scarp (2), depleted mass (17), and original ground surface (20) Volume of displaced material (13) that overlies surface of rupture (10) but underlies original ground surface (20) Volume of displaced material (13) that lies above original ground surface (20) Undisplaced material adjacent to sides of surface of rupture; if left and right are used, they refer to flanks as viewed from crown; otherwise use compass directions Surface of slope that existed before landslide took place

Main scarp

12 13

Surface of separation Displaced material

Top

14

Zone of depletion Zone of accumulation Depletion

Head

15

Minor scarp

16

Main body

17

Depleted mass

Foot

18

Accumulation

8 9

Tip Toe

19

Flank

20 10 Surface of rupture Surface that forms (or that has formed) lower boundary of displaced material (13) below original ground surface (20); also termed slip surface or shear surface; if planar, can be termed slip plane or shear plane

Original ground surface

Figure 1.2 Description of landslide parts (based on UNESCO Working Party, 1993, with minor modifications).

For each of these subdivisions, the materials are grouped as either (1) rock, (2) predominantly coarse material (debris), and (3) predominantly fine material (earth). Predominantly coarse is defined as having 2080% of particles in the gravel/boulder size (>2mm). Sketches of various failure types (excluding composites) from Varnes (1978) are given on Figure 1.3 with abbreviated comments. For more detailed information, the reader is referred to the original publication.

Skempton and Hutchinson (1969) provide another classification system for landslide types. Their system is useful for engineering work but is less widely accepted than the Varnes system. 1.4 PREVENTION OF LANDSLIDES Prevention rather than remediation is desirable where slope failure is likely to be rapid and there is a high risk of damage

INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

Figure 1.3 Examples of landslide occurrences (after Varnes, 1978).

and injuries. These failures include flow slides, earthquakeinduced slides, and rock slides. Potential landslides due to these causes can be reduced in a cost-effective way by taking these actions:

Identifying landslide risk through hazard mapping and past experience, then implementing a plan of hazard reduction on a prioritized basis

Periodic inspections of facilities that are vulnerable to landslides to observe any early signs of distress and, if appropriate, take preventative action to avert a landslide Maintaining and improving drainage measures in areas vulnerable to landslides Protecting lifeline facilities, buildings, and other places of public access from earthquake-induced landslides

LANDSLIDES

1.5 REMEDIATION OF LANDSLIDES Two basic questions need to be addressed: 1. What is the cause of the landslide? 2. What is the amount of remediation needed to maintain stability for reasonably foreseeable future conditions? The two-step approach recommended for landslide remediation avoids the common pitfalls of developing a one solution fits all mentality (e.g., install horizontal drains or construct support berms) and blindly applying a design factor of safety of 1.3 or 1.5 to a landslide, when the amount of remediation needed to answer Question 2 can be rationally determined from an understanding of causation. Question 1 is often the focus of a legal claim over responsibility for economic losses or loss of life. However, the technical reasons for determining causation are that this understanding often can lead to the most appropriate treatment and help to determine the amount of treatment needed. A few simple examples will illustrate the relationship between causation and treatment:

Analysis in Chapter 10 and can be applied in other innovative ways for slope stabilization. Landslide develops from erosion in a cut slope. Causation: Loss of ground undermining the slope Possible treatments: (i) control seepage with a filter blanket, (ii) install horizontal drains to reduce seepage at the face, or (iii) reinstate original slope face, including drainage sufficient to prevent future erosion.

A leaking canal triggers instability of a nearby slope. Causation: Raised groundwater levels due to leaking water Possible treatments: (i) line the canal, (ii) create a seepage barrier downslope, (iii) install a trench drain to lower groundwater level back to pre-canal levels. Road widening project causes cut slope failure. Causation: Unloading toe of slope Possible treatments: (i) build structural wall, (ii) raise road level to reinstate ground, or (iii) relocate road, plus other options. However, the knowledge that the slope was stable before the road-widening cut allows the designer to calculate how much force is needed to reinstate the prior stability. This approach is described as Original Profile

Question 2 generally requires an extra margin of safety to be put into remediation to allow for reasonably foreseeable future conditions. For example, it is improbable that the storm that triggered a landslide will be the heaviest likely to be experienced during the service life of the facility. Therefore, the remedial design should assume that somewhat higher (but reasonable) groundwater levels will occur in the future. If stability calculations are involved in remedial studies, an extra margin of safety allows for uncertainties in analysis. Here the geotechnical designer of a landslide remediation has distinct advantages over a conventional slope stability analysis. The advantages are: (i) the factor of safety is known to be 1.00 in a landslide at the onset of failure; (ii) the shape of the slip surface can be measured by inclinometers; and (iii) groundwater pressures at the actual slip surface can be measured. Thus, a back analysis of the landslide at failure can be modeled with good accuracy, allowing parametric analyses (variations of shear strength and groundwater) to be examined. Since remedial treatments and back analysis are performed on the same crosssections they are comparative (before and after) studies. Any errors in the assumptions of the back analysis are carried forward into the remedial analysis. Thus, there is a very high probability that stability will be achieved.Accordingly, a lower factor of safety F is permissible for landslide remediation than for general slope stability design because the potential errors of the analysis are lower (see Chapter 10 for a fuller discussion of this issue).