PA R T A Investigations

and Analyses
he coverage of each subject in Part A is deliberately uneven, with more infor-

T mation 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 con-
struction (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; edit-
ed by A. Keith Turner and Robert L. Schuster. National Academy Press, published
1996, 675 pp.
 CHAPTER
1
Landslides
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 publica-
tions. 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 profes-
sional 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 profession-
al to choose between alternatives. For each treatment, the pro-
vided information generally covers the following:
• Appropriate (and inappropriate) use
• Principle of effectiveness for landslide remediation/pre-
vention
• Design method
• Construction/installation procedure and field equipment
• Examples or case histories taken from the author’s experi-
ences or published materials
• Construction costs in the United States using the
Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index
(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 con-
tinually 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 bed-
ding planes. However, slopes of weathered rock, where slip-
page occurs through soil or broken rock (and respond as soil
mechanics), are included. Another excluded group of land-
slides are those involving cold region engineering such as per-
mafrost or seasonally frozen ground.
The book contains numerous case histories or examples
to illustrate the practical uses of remedial/preventative tech-
niques. 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.
3
4 INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

1.2 LANDSLIDE DESCRIPTIONS Landslide Size

There is no standard for describing landslides by size, but it is
The term landslide is sometimes felt to be inadequate because useful to provide some reference. Table 1.1 has been used as
many types of slope movement do not involve sliding. The the guide to describing landslide size throughout this book.
geomorphologist term mass wasting is little improvement.
Cruden (1991) has suggested a simple definition of landslide:
Table 1.1 Grouping Landslides by Area in Plan
the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope.
For this book, the term landslide covers all slope movements Descriptor Area, sq. ft. Area, sq. m.
that occur from natural or manmade causes except ground
Very small <2000 <200
subsidence.
Small 2,000–20,000 200–2,000
The dimensions and geometry of a landslide have been
described by Varnes (1978) using the cutaway drawing shown Medium 20,000–200,000 2,000–20,000

on Figure 1.1. Subsequently, the International Association of Large 200,000–2,000,000 20,000–200,000

Engineering Geologists (IAEG) created a Commission on Very large 2,000,000–20,000,000 200,000–2,000,000
Landslides that has produced the section and definitions Huge >20,000,000 >2,000,000
shown on Figure 1.2 (IAEG, 1990).There are many variations
from these terms in common use. In this book, alternative Note: 1 sq. mile = 27,878,400 sq. ft. 1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft. Length is measured horizon-
tally, not along the slope. If the size is near the border between categories, both sizes
terms are used:
are mentioned (e.g., landslide of around 20,000 sq. ft. is described as a small-to-medi-
IAEG TERM BOOK TERM um 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 rec-
main scarp headscarp ommended that the area be based on the eroded bowl at the initiation site, ignoring
any further erosion further downslope in the valley below.
minor scarp secondary scarp
surface of rupture slip surface (occasionally slip plane if
planar)
1.3 LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION
The author also uses the following terms:
Length — horizontal distance from top of headscarp to toe In the original work by Varnes (1978) which has been updated
(upslope to downslope). The horizontal distance for slope and partly revised by Cruden and Varnes (1996) slope move-
length is chosen because it is a quick method of determin- ments have been subdivided into six categories:
ing size from plan drawings. 1. Falls
Width — generally, the widest dimension across the slope. 2. Topples
Depth — usually described as “up to” the maximum depth 3. Slides — rotational and translational
below the existing ground surface. 4. Lateral spreads
Slope — average slope in degrees from horizontal, or an 5. Flows
average gradient of horizontal : vertical. 6. Composites — combination of types

Crown cracks de Zon

ple e o
tio f
Crown n
Transverse
cracks
d
ea
H

ac
cu Zon
mu e o
lat f
ion
Transverse
ridges
Su

rfa
Figure 1.1 Terminology ce
of Main body
for describing landslide ru p Fo
t u re ot
features (modified from
Varnes, 1978). Toe of surface of rupture Tip
e
To

Surface of separation
Radial cracks
 LANDSLIDES 5

19

B A
9 8 7 6 4 3 1 PLAN

19
14
A
5
16
20
15
SECTION
18 17

B (13) = (17) + (18)

11
12 10

No. Name Definition No. Name Definition

1 Crown Practically undisplaced material 11 Toe of surface Intersection (usually buried) between
adjacent to highest parts of of rupture lower part of surface of rupture (10)
main scarp of a landslide and original ground
surface (20)
2 Main scarp Steep surface on undisturbed
ground at upper edge of landslide 12 Surface of Part of original ground surface (20)
caused by movement of displaced separation now overlain by foot (7) of landslide
material (13, stippled area) away
from undisturbed ground; it is a 13 Displaced Material displaced from its original
visible part of surface of rupture (10) material position on slope by movement in
landslide; comprises both depleted
3 Top Highest point of contact between mass (17) and accumulation (18)
displaced material (13) and
main scarp (2) 14 Zone of Area of landslide within which
depletion displaced material lies below
4 Head Upper parts of landslide along original ground surface (20)
contact between displaced material
and main scarp (2) 15 Zone of Area of landslide within which
accumulation displaced material (13) lies above
5 Minor scarp Steep surface on displaced material original ground surface (20)
of landslide produced by differential
movements within displaced material 16 Depletion Volume bounded by main scarp (2),
depleted mass (17), and original
6 Main body Part of displaced material of ground surface (20)
landslide that overlies surface of
rupture between main scarp (2) and 17 Depleted mass Volume of displaced material (13)
toe of surface of rupture (11) that overlies surface of rupture (10) but
underlies original ground surface (20)
7 Foot Portion of landslide that has moved
beyond toe of surface of rupture (11) 18 Accumulation Volume of displaced material (13)
and overlies original ground that lies above original ground
surface (20) surface (20)

8 Tip Point on toe (9) farthest from top 19 Flank Undisplaced material adjacent to
(3) of landslide sides of surface of rupture; if left
and right are used, they refer to
9 Toe Lower, usually curved margin of flanks as viewed from crown;
displaced material of a landslide, otherwise use compass directions
most distant from main scarp (2)
20 Original ground Surface of slope that existed
10 Surface of Surface that forms (or that has surface before landslide took place
rupture 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

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 20–80% 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 classi-
fication 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
6 INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES
Figure 1.3 Examples of landslide occurrences (after Varnes, 1978).
and injuries. These failures include flow slides, earthquake-
induced 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

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 sta-
bility for reasonably foreseeable future conditions?
The two-step approach recommended for landslide reme-
diation avoids the common pitfalls of developing a “one solu-
tion fits all” mentality (e.g., install horizontal drains or
construct support berms) and blindly applying a “design” fac-
tor 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 respon-
sibility for economic losses or loss of life. However, the techni-
cal reasons for determining causation are that this
understanding often can lead to the most appropriate treat-
ment and help to determine the amount of treatment needed.
A few simple examples will illustrate the relationship between
causation and treatment:
• 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 cal-
culate how much force is needed to reinstate the prior
stability. This approach is described as Original Profile
LANDSLIDES 7
Analysis in Chapter 10 and can be applied in other inno-
vative 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 blan-
ket, (ii) install horizontal drains to reduce seepage at the
face, or (iii) reinstate original slope face, including
drainage sufficient to prevent future erosion.
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 dis-
tinct 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 pres-
sures 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 cross-
sections 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).