You are on page 1of 11

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 6, 133143, 2006

SRef-ID: 1684-9981/nhess/2006-6-133 Natural Hazards


European Geosciences Union and Earth
2006 Author(s). This work is licensed System Sciences
under a Creative Commons License.

Mathematical modelling of the landslide occurred at Gagliano


Castelferrato (Italy)
M. Maugeri, E. Motta, and E. Raciti
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Catania, Italy
Received: 14 July 2005 Revised: 20 December 2005 Accepted: 20 December 2005 Published: 7 February 2006

Part of Special Issue Documentation and monitoring of landslides and debris flows for mathematical modelling and design of
mitigation measures

Abstract. Shallow slopes in clayey colluvial covers are often masses introducing advanced material modelling (elastovis-
involved in progressive downhill motion with discontinuous coplasticity).
rate of movements, depending on fluctuations in pore-water Damage caused by landslides seems to be closely con-
pressure. nected to the rate of movement, the way it is triggered off
In geotechnical engineering research on natural slopes, the and develops and the extension of the involved area (Hungr
main efforts have been concentrated on stability analysis, al- et al., 1984).
ways with a rigid perfectly plastic body assumption. In case Many authors, in their researches, deal with slow slope
of slow slope movements, however, the notion of stability movements in natural slopes, that represent a typical exam-
losses its sense, so the main question is not to evaluate a sta- ple of the creep behaviour of soils and rocks (Bertini et al.,
bility factor, but to model a velocity field and to define the 1980; Butterfield, 2000; DElia, 1991; Feda, 1992; Gottardi
kinematic and dynamic features of the movement (mobility et al., 2001; Leroueil et al., 1996; Picarelli, 1997; Russo et
analysis). al., 1997; Vulliet, 1999). There are different kinds of creep:
Many authors, in their researches, deal with slow slope gravitational creep is gravity dependent, so it is continu-
movements and for the complexity of the problem and the ous and progressive. Seasonal creep depends primarily
great number of parameters involved they agree about apply- on changing climatic conditions: the involved slopes imper-
ing numerical techniques (FEM, FDM) and advanced mate- ceptibly move, alternating low speed of movement periods
rial modelling (elastoviscoplasticity) and suggest to calibrate (just some mm/year) and accelerating phases (even several
the involved parameters values with the help of back analy- m/day), in response to fluctuations in pore-water pressure
ses of existing case histories. induced by seasonal change in ground water level (Vulliet,
In this paper a mathematical model predicting the land- 1999).
slide body viscous deformations, is presented. The model has This paper deals with mathematical modelling of seasonal
been implemented in a computer FDM code, and has been creep in natural slopes: in this case the notion of stability
tested on some well known case histories. Here it is applied losses its sense, so the main question is not to evaluate a sta-
to the case of a landslide occurred at Gagliano Castelferrato bility factor, but to model a velocity field and to define the
(Sicily Italy), where a great number of field measurements kinematic and dynamic features of the movement (mobility
was available. analysis). For the complexity of the problem and the great
number of parameters involved relating together geometrical
features and constitutive models of soil, most of the quoted
authors suggest to apply numerical techniques (FEM, FDM)
1 Introduction
with advanced material modelling (elastoviscoplasticity) and
to calibrate the involved parameters with the help of back
In geotechnical research, the main efforts in the domain of
analyses of existing case histories.
natural slopes have been concentrated on classical methods
A mathematical model predicting the landslide body vis-
of stability analysis, based on a rigid perfectly plastic body
cous deformations, is presented and then implemented in a
assumption and on the individuation of a hypotetical slid-
computer FDM code. This code has been tested on some
ing surface. The development of new computational proce-
well known case histories: Alvera Landslide (Deganutti and
dures later came to better model the behaviour of soil or rock
Gasparetto, 1992; Butterfield, 2000; Gottardi and Butterfield,
Correspondence to: M. Maugeri 2000; Silvano, 2001); Salledes experimental embankments
(mmaugeri@dica.unict.it) (Morin, 1979; Blondeau et al., 1983; Pouget et al., 1985;
134 M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide

The displacement at the ground level, sTOT , can be calcu-


lated by the following equation:

sTOT = (t) h (1)

If the landslide body is not homogeneous, or is more than


10 m thick, a multilayer model can be used, in which the slid-
ing body can be discretised into n layers of appropriate thick-
ness (Fig. 2). In this case, an hypothetical vertical line inside
the landslide body can be represented as a vertical shelf beam
with a partially fixed basal node and a series of other beams
linked to the lower node and linked each other by partially
fixed nodes. For each i-layer (1<i<n), i (t) is the rotation
of a hypothetical vertical line inside each layer of discretiza-
tion, that is the shear strain inside each layer. The total shear
strain is represented by the profile given by the all the rota-
tions i (t) of the beams around their lower node (see Fig. 2).
The total surface displacement measured ad the ground
level, sTOT , can be calculated by the following equation:
n
X
sTOT (t) = i (t) hi (2)
Fig. 1. A single-layer mechanical scheme to evaluate the shear i=1
strain inside a sliding slab of soil; is the slope angle. (t) is the
rotation of a hypothetical vertical line inside the landslide body, that in which, for each i-layer, hi is the thickness of the measured
represents the shear strain; is the shear stress; h is the landslide in the vertical direction; si is the relative displacement and it
body vertical thickness; hw (t) is the ground water level, measured can be calculated as si (t) =i (t) hi .
from the stable base. hw (t) is the ground water level, measured in the vertical
direction from the stable base.
In Fig. 1, a Burgers model is represented but any spring-
Vulliet, 1986; Cartier et al., 1988; Russo, 1997); Fosso San dumper-plastic body in theory can be inserted. In this work
Martino landslide (Bertini et al., 1980, 1984, 1986; Cazacu nine rheological models have been tested in the numerical
and Cristescu, 2000; DElia et al., 1983, 1998), but the ob- application (see Table 1).
tained results are shown elsewhere (Maugeri et al., 2005). The variation of piezometric levels, whose chronological
Here it will be applied to the case of Gagliano Castelfer- course can be deduced by means of piezometric monitoring,
rato Landslide (Central Sicily Italy), chosen for the great has been taken as the only cause of effective stress boundary
number of available results of field measurements and incli- condition change (seasonal creep). The mobilizing stress is
nometric and piezometric monitoring, from the beginning of hypotised as gravitative and coinciding with the weight com-
1990 up to the end of 1993 (Raciti, 2003). ponent acting parallel to the sliding surface, so it can be usu-
ally taken as constant. The response in shear strain is evalu-
ated representing the landslide body behaviour, from time to
2 A Rheological model for slow slope movements time, by specific rheological elements.

Let us hypotize having a slope with a traslative sliding mech-


anism (Fig. 1). is the slope angle; h is the landslide 3 The mathematical model
body thickness measured in the vertical direction; hw (t) is
the ground water level, measured from the stable base sTOT 3.1 The single layer model
will be the total surface displacement measured at the ground
level. To evaluate the viscous deformations inside a clayey A mathematical model, based on Hohanemser and Prager
soil slab in response to an effective stress change an elasto- (1932) general equation for visco-elastic behaviour (Reiner,
visco-plastic rheological model has been adopted for the 1958) has been built up to evaluate the shear deformation,
clayey material. (t), of an hypothetical vertical line of the landslide body.
Combining ideally elastic, plastic and viscous bodies equa-
In a first approach the all landslide body can be thought as
tions, the following differential equation can be obtained:
a single layer that can undergo shear strains. An hypothetical
vertical line inside the landslide body can be represented as d d n d
a vertical shelf beam (AB) in which the basal node, A, is a + a0 + a1 + ... + an n = b0 + b1
dt dt dt
partially fixed; the rotation (t) of the beam AB around its d m
lower node, A, represents the shear strain (see Fig. 1). +... + bm m . (3)
dt
M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide 135

Fig. 2. A multi-layer scheme to evaluate the shear strain inside a sliding slab of soil; is the slope angle; i (t) is the rotation of a hypothetical
vertical line inside each layer in which the landslide body has been discretised, and it represents the shear strain. hTOT is the all landslide
body thickness, while hi , are the thickness of each i-layer, taken in the vertical direction; hw (t) is the ground water level, measured from
the stable base. sTOT is the total surface displacement measured ad the ground level, while si (t), are the relative displacement measured in
correspondence of each i-layer and they can be calculated as si =hi i (t).

Table 1. Calculation of the values of Eq. (5) parameters.

Table 1. Calculation of the values of Equation (5) parameters.

Maxwell Lethersich Jeffreys Burgers Bingham modified Bingham Schwedoff Lo Shiffmann et al.
a 0 0 0 0 0 per < y 0 per < y 0 per < y 0 per < y 0 per < y

y per = y
y per y y per
y y per y
y per y

a0 1 G1 1 1 0

per < y 0

per < y 0

per < y 1 (G0 + G1 + G 2 ) per < y

1 1 per y 1 per y 1 per y 1 per y

a1 1 1 + 2 2 1
+
1
+
2 0 1
per < y
1 0 (1 + 2 ) per < y
G per < y
1 G1 G2 G2 G 0 per y
G1 0
1
G1
1 per y 1 +
1
N1 per y
G 1 G1
G 0

a2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
G1 G2

b0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G1 per < y G0 (G1 + G 2 ) per < y



0 per y 0 per y

b1 1 G1 1 + 2 1 1 per < y 1 per < y 1 per < y (1 + 2 ) per < y [ 2 (G 0 + G1 + G 2 ) + G 0 2 ] per < y

1 per y 1 per y 1 per y 2 per y 2 per y

b2 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 ( 1 + 2 ) per < y

G1 G2 0 per y

Raciti (2003) used the following second order differential where: a, a0 , a1 , a2 , b1 , and b2 are parameters varying in
equation: each rheological model. The equations to evaluate them for
the nine applied models are listed in Table 1 (Raciti, 2003).
a + a0 (t) + a1 (t) + a2 (t) 13
Soil viscosity N , expressed in Pa*s [=N s/m2 ], can
= b0 (t) + b1 (t) + b2 (t) (4) be represented by Newtonian dampers, whose viscosity
136 M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide

coefficients can be evaluated by Somiglianas equation in the Mohr-Coulomb-Terzaghi criterion used to represent
(1925). In the case of a semi elliptical shaped channel with lim (t), the soil yielding resistance:
semi axes h and b/2 Somiglianas equation is as follows:
lim (t) = c0 + 0 (t) tan 0 . (9)
s h2 sen
N = #, (5)
in which c0 , 0 , are, respectively, the cohesion and the friction
"
h2
2 (v v0 )  2 +1 angle of each layer of discretizzation and 0 (t) is the effec-
b
2
tive stress, which varies with the piezometric level inside the
where S , is the soil unit weight; h, b and , are landslides landslide body. This, on its turn, varies with time, t:
thickness taken in vertical, width and slope angle; v and v0
are, respectively, the landslide body velocity at the ground 0 (t) = u (t) . (10)
surface and near the sliding surface. As in Somiglianas
equation only v and v0 are considered, without taking into where is the total stress, u(t) is the pore pressure at the
account any kinematic parameter inside the landslide body, base of the layer, and it can be calculated as:
the equation fits best with shallow landslides as comparisons
to real cases confirm. W , is the water viscosity, well known u (t) = w hw (t) cos2 (11)
in literature; in this work W =1102 poise=10 Pa*s has been
assumed (Jaeger, 1964). G0 , G1 and G2 are soil shear mod- and hw (t) is the ground water level measured from the stable
uli; they can be experimentally estimated by laboratory tests base (it varies during time, t).
or by back analysis. y is the yielding stress. In case of reac- If (t) >=0 its value is updated with the calculated one,
tivation landslides a value close to the residual shear strength (t) = (t), otherwise, if the resistant stress get over the ef-
can be chosen. fective one, i (t)=0 can be taken.
(t) is the time dependent shear stress and it can be cal- As (t) varies with the piezometric level inside the land-
culated as the non -balanced part of act (obviously if it is slide body, it varies with time.
greater than zero): The viscous behaviour can be found in Eq. (4) parameters.
Equation (4) has been solved by Raciti (2003) with the fi-
(t) = act lim (t) (6) nite difference method, obtaining the following general para-
metric equation, whose coefficients are functions of the in-
act is the acting stress, hypotised as gravitative and coincid-
volved material elasto-visco-plastic features:
ing with the weight component parallel to the sliding surface
and taken as constant in each layer, except for the particular
(t + 1t)
case of trenches or overburden (like those of Salledes exper-
imental embankments, A e B). = B0 (t) + B() (t 1t)
It can be calculated as follows: +A + A0 (t) + A() (t 1t)
+A(2) (t 21t) (12)
act = sen (7)
cos2
where:
in which is the slope angle, while is the total stress,
calculated as: b0 1t 2 + b1 1t + 2 b2 b2
B0 = B() =
b1 1t + b2 b1 1t + b2
= S h cos2 (8)
a 1t 2 a0 1t 2 + a1 1t + a2
A= A0 =
in which h is the thickness of the landlide body, measured in b1 1t + b2 b1 1t + b2
the vertical direction. a1 1t + 2 a2
A() =
In many cases of slow slope movements involving collu- b1 1t + b2
vial covers, a close correlation between the piezometric lev-
els time evolution and the displacement rates inside the land- and 1t is the time-step of calculation.
slide bodies can be observed (Manfredini et al., 1981; Naka- The displacement at the ground surface, s (t), can be cal-
mura, 1984; Sangrey et al., 1984; Morgenstern, 1985; Bertini culated by Eq. (1).
et al., 1986; Cascini et al., 1986; Iverson et al., 1987; Cartier In order to achieve an engineering-based validation of the
et al., 1988; Sirangelo et al., 1992; Davis et al., 1993; Pouget described mathematical model, which well explains the evo-
et al., 1994; Desai et al., 1995; Urciuoli, 1998; Alonso et lution of slow slope movements and to calibrate its parame-
al., 1999; Russo et al., 1999; Vulliet, 1999; Pellegrino et ters, a numerical code, ReoMod, had been compiled, imple-
al., 2000, 2002; Piscitelli et al., 2001; Crosta et al., 2003). menting many constitutive models: ReoMod had been ap-
So it should be taken into account in the numerical analy- plied to the case histories of Alvera Landslide, Salledes ex-
sis: piezometric level variations during time can be obtained perimental embankments, Fosso San Martino landslide (Rac-
introducing the piezometric level time dependence, hw (t), iti, 2003).
M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide 137

Table 2. Calculation of the values of Eq. (12) parameters.

Table 2. Calculation of the values of Equation (12) parameters.

Maxwell Lethersich Jeffreys Burgers Bingham modified Bingham Schwedoff Lo Shiffmann et al.

ai 0 0 0 0 0 per i < y_i 0 per i < y_i 0 per i < y_i 0 per i < y_i 0 per i < y_i

y_i per i y_i y_i per i y_i y_i per i y_i y_i per i y_i y_i per i y_i

a0i 1 G1 _ i 1 1 0 per i < y_i 0 per i < y_i 0 per i < y_i 1 (G0 _ i + G1 _ i + G 2 _ i ) per < y

1 _ i 1 per i y_i 1 per i y_i 1 per i y_i 1 per y

a1i 1 _ i 1 _ i + 2 _ i 2 _ i 1 _ i 1 _ i 2 _ i 0 1
per i < y_i
1 0 (1 _ i + 2 _ i ) per i < y_i
+ + G

per i < y_i
1 _ i 1_i per i y_i
G1 _ i G2 _ i G1 _ i G2 _ i G2 _ i

G1 _ i

0
1 _ i per i y_i 1 +
1
1 _ i per i y_i
G 1_i
G1 _ i G 2 _ i

a 2i 0 0 0 1 _ i 2 _ i 0 0 0 0 0
G1 _ i G 2 _ i

b0i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gi per i < y_i G0 _ i (G1 _ i + G2 _ i ) per < y



0 per i y_i 0 per y

b1i 1 _ i G1 _ i 1 _ i + 2 _ i 1 _ i 1 per i < y_i 1 per i < y_i 1 per i < y_i (1 _ i + 2 _ i ) per i < y_i [ ]
2 _ i (G 0 _ i + G1 _ i + G 2 _ i ) + G 0 _ i 2 _ i per i < y _ i

1_i per i y_i 1_i per i y_i 1_i per i y_i 2 _ i per i y_i 2_i per i y _ i

b2 i 0 2_i 1 _ i 2 _ i 1 _ i 2 _ i 0 0 0 0 2 _ i ( 1 _ i + 2 _ i ) per < y



G1 _ i G2 _ i 0 per y

3.2 The multilayer model shear moduli inside the i-layer; they can be experimentally
estimated by laboratory tests on samples of that layer, or by
In the case of a multilayer model, Eq. (4) becomes: back analysis. y i is the yielding stress of the i-layer. In
14
case of reactivation landslides a value close to the residual
ai + a0i i (t) + a11 i (t) + a2i i (t)
shear strength can be chosen.
= b0i i (t) + b1i i (t) + b2i i (t) (1 i n) i (t) is the time dependent shear stress and it can be cal-
(13) culated as the non -balanced part of acti (t) (obviously if it
is greater than zero):
where ai , a0i , a1i , a2i ; b0i , b1i , b2i are parameters whose
values are functions of the mechanical properties of the soil i (t) = acti lim i (t) (15)
constituting each layer. They are different for each rheolog- where acti is the resulting shear stress, and it can be calcu-
ical model and they can be evaluated by the equations listed lated as follows:
in Table 2. i
Soil viscosity coefficients i [Pa*s], can be evaluated by acti = sen (16)
cos2
Somiglianas equation (1925). in which is the slope angle.
For a better evaluation of the soil slab deformation, as the " #
n
landslide body has been discretised into thin layers (Fig. 2), X
i = i hi cos2 (17)
a different value of i can be estimated for each layer, taking
m=i
into account the boundary velocity values, vi and vi1 , for
each one. in which hi (1<i<n) is the thickness of each layer of dis-
So, for the multilayer model, Somiglianas equation has cretizzation, measured in the vertical direction. lim i (t) is
been written as follows: the yielding shear stress and it can be calculated by the Mohr-
Coulomb-Terzaghi criterion, taking into account the piezo-
s i h2i sen metric level time evolution:
i = " #, (1 < i < n) (14)
h2 lim i (t) = ci0 + i0 (t) tan i0 . (18)
2 (vi vi1 )  i 2 +1
bi
2 in which and ci0 i0
(1<i<n) are respectively, the cohesion
where, for each i-layer, s i , is the soil unit weight; bi and and the friction angle of each layer of discretizzation and
hi are layers thickness taken in the vertical direction and i0 (t) is the effective stress, which varies with the piezomet-
width; is the slope angle; vi and vi1 are, respectively, ric level inside the landslide body. This, on its turn, varies
each layers upper and lower boundary velocities; W is the with time, t:
water viscosity (W =10 Pa*s). G0 i , G1 i and G2 i are soil i0 (t) = i ui (t) . (19)
138 M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide

200

Monthly rainfall [mm]


(a)
160

120

80

40

May-90
Jun-90
Jul-90

Oct-90

Jan-91
Feb-91
Mar-91
Apr-91
May-91
Jun-91
Jul-91
Aug-91
Sep-91
Oct-91
Nov-91
Dec-91
Jan-92
Dec-89
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90

Aug-90
Sep-90

Nov-90
Dec-90

Feb-92
1600
(b)
1200

hcum [mm]
800

400

Jan-91

May-91

Jul-91
Dec-89
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90
May-90

Feb-91
Jun-90
Jul-90
Aug-90
Sep-90
Oct-90
Nov-90
Dec-90

Mar-91
Apr-91

Oct-91
Jun-91

Nov-91
Dec-91

Feb-92
Aug-91
Sep-91

Jan-92
Fig. 4. (a) Histogram of Gagliano Castelferrato monthly rainfall,
measured at Gagliano Castelferrato rain gauge (Hydrometric station
192, Gagliano Castelferrato; Elevation m a.s.l. 837), from January
1990 to December 1991. (b) Cumulated rainfall for the same pe-
riod.

23
(a)
22
hw [mm]

Fig. 3. A Map of Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide area: the north-


21
ern part of the landslide body, called B, slides toward the north
western direction; the southern part of the landslide body, called A, 20

Jan-91

May-91

Jul-91
Dec-89
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90
May-90

Oct-90

Feb-91

Oct-91
Nov-91
Dec-91

Feb-92
Jun-90
Jul-90
Aug-90
Sep-90

Nov-90
Dec-90

Mar-91
Apr-91

Jun-91

Aug-91
Sep-91

Jan-92
slides toward the south western direction; a transition zone between
them moves toward the eastern direction and has more evident de-
120
formations at the ground level. XX is the analysed section, along (b)
which S11, S16 and S17 boreholes are located.
disp [mm]

80

40

where i is the total stress, ui (t) is the pore pressure mea- 0

Jan-91

May-91

Jul-91
Dec-89
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90
May-90
Jun-90
Jul-90
Aug-90
Sep-90
Oct-90
Nov-90
Dec-90

Feb-91
Mar-91
Apr-91

Oct-91
Jun-91

Aug-91
Sep-91

Nov-91
Dec-91
Jan-92
Feb-92
sured at the base of each layer, and it can be calculated as
follows:
Fig. 5. (a) Piezometric levels measured in S17 borehole from July
ui (t) =
" # " # 1990 to February 1992. (b) Displacements versus time measured in
i1 i1 S17 inclinometer, from January 1991 to February 1992.
hi cos2 if hw (t)
P P
w hw (t) hi > 0

m=1 " m=1 #


i1
+A(2)i i (t 21t) (21)
P
0 if hw (t) hi 0

m=1
(20) where:

where hw (t) is the ground water level measured from the b0i 1t 2 + b1i 1t + 2 b2i
B0i = ;
stable base (it varies during time, t). b1i 1t + b2i
In each layer, if i (t) >=0 its value is updated with the b2i
B()i =
calculated one, i (t) =i (t), otherwise, if the resistant stress b1i 1t + b2i
get over the effective one, i (t)=0 can be taken. ai 1t 2 a0i 1t 2 + a1i 1t + a2i
As lim i (t) varies with the piezometric level inside the Ai = A0i =
b1i 1t + b2i b1i 1t + b2i
landslide body, it varies with time. a1i 1t + 2 a2i
The system of Eq. (13) can be solved with the finite dif- A()i = (22)
b1i 1t + b2i
ference method, obtaining a general parametric system of n
equations, whose coefficients are functions of the involved and 1t is the time-step of calculation.
material elasto-visco-plastic features: As soon as the shear stress i (t) is greater than zero, shear
deformations take place, and they can be calculated, for each
i (t + 1t)
layer of discretization, by the system of Eq. (21).
= B0i i (t) + B()i i (t 1t) In this case, an indication of the ground surface displace-
+Ai + A0i i (t) + A()i i (t 1t) ment can be obtained by Eq. (2). Obviously, the deformation
M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide 139

Fig. 6. The geological section XX.

evolution depends, not only on the actual, but also on the past hole from August 1990 to February 1992 and Fig. 5b shows
stress-strain state. the ground surface displacements, measured very closely to
The numerical code ReoMod had been extended for the the S17 borehole, versus time from January 1991 to Febru-
multy-layer scheme, to solve Eq. (21). Then, to calibrate ary 1992. Measurements of displacements taken from March
its parameters, it has been applied to all the case histories to June 1992 are not plotted, as they could not be studied in
quoted in Sect. 3.1, with nine rheological models (Maxwell, absence of piezometric level measurements. A close corre-
Lethersich, Jeffeys, Burgers, Bingham, modified Bingham, lation among rainfalls, piezometric levels and rate of move-
Schwedoff, Lo, Shiffmann et al. in Feda, 1992). The re- ments can be noted, so an influence of pore pressure rising
sults of these applications are shown elsewere (Maugeri et inside the landslide body on the slope movements is evident.
al., 2005). The cross section XX, along which S11, S16 and S17
boreholes are located was chosen for a stability analysis,
based on the limit equilibrium method assuming a transla-
4 Application to Gagliano Castelferrato landslide tional failure mechanism and a rigid plastic behaviour for the
soil. Figure 6 shows a plots of the geological cross section
In this paper, a new case history of a landslide occurred XX, while in Fig. 7 the stratigraphy and inclinometric pro-
at Gagliano Castelferrato (Central Sicily Italy), has been file in S17 borehole, observed on 30 June 1992, after a pe-
modeled to verify the viscous behaviour of the landslide riod of monitoring started from 1 January 1991, are shown.
body. For this case history, a great number of field mea- The sliding surface was located at a depth of about 2530 m
surements and inclinometric and piezometric monitoring was below the ground surface in the transition zone between the
available (Raciti, 2003). clayey soils ant the silty sands. The stability analysis car-
In Fig. 3 a map of the landslide area is shown. The north- ried out assuming the different measured piezometric lev-
ern part of the landslide body, called B, slides toward the els, shown that the factor of safety during the observed pe-
northern-eastern direction; the southern part of the landslide riod sometimes was somewhat less then unity. Consequently
body, called A, slides toward the southern-western direction; some displacements should be observed.
a transition zone between them moves toward the eastern S17 borehole was chosen for the analysis with the numer-
direction and has more evident deformations at the ground ical code: in Table 3 the input parameters of the model are
level. listed.
In Fig. 4a an histogram of Gagliano Castelferrato monthly Two different analyses were performed: the first using the
rainfall, measured at Gagliano Castelferrato rain gauge (Hy- one-layer model and the second using the multi-layer model,
drometric station 192, Gagliano Castelferrato; Elevation to evaluate the influence of the layers of discretisation num-
m a.s.l. 837), from January 1990 to December 1991 is plot- ber on the analysis results. A depth dependent viscosity
ted, while Fig. 4b shows the cumulated rainfall for the same was calculated applying Eq. (14), that is a modification of
period. Somiglianas equation. The code applications results, refer-
A field investigation was carried out from 1990 to 1992. ring to S17 borehole (Figs. 3 and 5), are shown in Figs. 8, 9,
Twenty boreholes were executed and piezometric levels were 10, 11, 12 and 13.
measured from August 1990 to February 1992, while incli- The response of the analysis depending on the number of
nometric deformations were measured from January 1991 the discretisation layers is shown in Figs. 8 and 9. A compar-
to June 1992. Figure 5 deals with the monitoring period: ison between measured and calculated displacement-time se-
Fig. 5a shows the piezometric level measured in S17 bore- quence with the one-layer and the multilayer scheme (with 5
140 M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide

Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide


Table 3. Input Parameters for ReoMod applications. 0.11

0.1 Maxwell Model


0.1
Bingham Model
0.09
disp [m] disp [m]
0.09 0.08
Maxwell_01 Bingham_01
0.08 Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide
Maxwell_05 Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide
Bingham_05
0.11 0.07
0.1
0.07
0.1 Maxwell Model 0.06 Bingham Model
0.09

disp [m]

disp [m]
Gagliano 0.09
0.06

0.05
disp [m]
Maxwell_01
0.05
0.08
disp [m]
Bingham_01
Castelferrato 0.08 0.04
Maxwell_05 0.04
0.07
Bingham_05

0.07 0.03
0.03
landslide 0.06

disp [m]

disp [m]
0.06 0.02 0.02
0.05
0.05 0.01 0.01

Landslide body geometrical features 0.04 0


0.04
0

0.03
0.03

100

200

300

400

500

600

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

100

200

300

400

500

600

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300
700

1400

700

1400
0

0
Length L [m] 890 0.02 t [days] 0.02
t [days]
(a) 0.01 (b)
Width l [m] 40 0.01

0 0
Figure 8: Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time sequence measured in S17 borehole and the
Thickness hTOT [m] 30 calculated ones with the one-layer and the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers) [(a) Maxwell model, (b) Bingham

100

200

300

400

500

600

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

100

200

300

400

500

600

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300
700

1400

700

1400
0

0
Slope angle [ ] 8 Fig.
model].8. Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time
t [days] t [days]
sequence measured (a) in S17 borehole and the calculated (b) ones with
Average soil parameters of the all landslide body the8:one-layer
Figure and
displ the
Comparison between [mm] multilayer
the inclinometric scheme (with
displacement-time sequence5 measured
layers) in(a
displ [mm] S17Maxwell
borehole and the
calculated ones with the one-layer
0.05 and the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers) [(a) Maxwell model,
0.1(b) Bingham
Unit weight S [kN/m3 ] 18.90 model, b 0Bingham
model].
model). 0.1 0 0.05
0 0
cohesion c0 [kN/m2 ] 20
Peak friction angle p0 [ ] 16 -5
displ [mm]
-5
displ [mm]
Residual friction angle r0 [ ] 1112 -100 0.05 0.1 -10 0 0.05 0.1

depth [m]

depth [m]
0 0
Kinematic parameters -15 -15

-5 -5
Initial velocity at the ground level v [mm/year] 82 -20 -20

Initial velocity at the bedrock v0 [mm/year] 0 -10 -25 Displacement Profiles


Inclinometric disp
-10
-25
Displacement Profiles
Inclinometric disp

depth [m]

depth [m]
Maxwell_01 Bingham_01
Initial average elastic parameters of the all landslide body -15 -30 Maxwell_05 -15
-30 Bingham_05

Young modulus E [kN/m2 ] 18 000 -20


(a)
-20
(b)

Poissons ratio: 0.33 Figure 9: Gagliano Castelferrato


Displacement Landslide:
Profiles Displacement profiles in S17 borehole: comparison between
Displacement Profilesthe
measured
-25 inclinometric profile and the calculated
Inclinometric disp ones with the one-layer
-25 and the multilayer scheme (with
Inclinometric disp5
layers) [(a) Maxwell model, (b) Bingham
Maxwell_01 model]. Bingham_01
Maxwell_05 Bingham_05
-30 -30

(a) (b)

Figure 9: Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide: Displacement profiles in S17 borehole: comparison between the
measured
Fig. inclinometric profile and
9. Gagliano the calculated onesLandslide:
Castelferrato with the one-layer and the multilayer scheme
Displacement (with 5
profiles
layers) [(a) Maxwell model, (b) Bingham model].
in S17 borehole: comparison between the measured inclinometric
profile and the calculated ones with the one-layer and the multilayer
19
scheme (with 5 layers) (a Maxwell model, b Bingham model).

A further evaluation of the influence of the number of


discretisation layers, as well as of the chosen rheological
19
model is presented in Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13. A com-
parison, for all the rheological models used in this paper,
between the ground displacement-time sequence measured
in S17 borehole and the ReoMod ones with the one-layer
scheme (Fig. 10) and the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers)
(Fig. 11) is shown.
In Figs. 12 and 13, respectively, a comparison between
the calculated profiles for the one-layer and the multilayer
scheme (with 5 layers) with the inclinometric profile are pre-
sented.
Fig. 7. S17 borehole: stratigraphic condition and inclinometric pro- In the analyses Maxwell, Burgers, Lethersich, Jeffreys,
file obtained from 1 January 1991 to 30 June 1992. Bingham, Modified Bingham, Schwedoff, Lo, Shiffmann,
Vyalov models were applied.
In this case history Maxwell, Burgers, Lethersich, Jef-
layers) is presented, using first the Maxwell model (Fig. 8a) freys, Bingham, modified Bingham, Schwedoff, Lo models
and then the Bingham model (Fig. 8b). A comparison be- provided reliable results, with a good agreement between
tween the inclinometric profile and the calculated ones with calculated and measured displacements. However Shiff-
the one-layer and the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers) are mann and Vyalov models seems to overestimate the dis-
shown, first using Maxwell model (Fig. 9a) and then Bing- placement profiles. It is evident that the multilayer scheme
ham model (Fig. 9b). Obviously the comparison confirms grants a more accurate calculated profile, than the single-
that the more is the number of discretisation layers adopted, layer scheme, however the displacements calculated at the
the more accurate are the results obtained. ground surface are almost similar.
M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide 141
displ [mm]
0.11
Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide
0 0.05 0.1
displ [mm] 0.15
0.1

0.09
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.11
0.08
Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide 1 layer scheme
0 Displacement Profiles
0.1
0.07
disp [m]
Maxwell
-5 Inclinometric disp
0.09
0.06 Burgers Maxwell
Displacement Profiles
disp [m]

0.08
Lethersich -5 Inclinometric disp
Burgers
-10
0.05
1 layer scheme
Jeffreys
0.07
0.04
disp [m]
Bingham Maxwell
Lethersich

[m] [m]
Maxwell
Modified Bingham Burgers
Jeffreys
0.06 Burgers
-10
disp [m]

0.03
Schwedoff
-15 Lethersich
Bingham

depthdepth
Lethersich
0.05
0.02 Lo
Jeffreys
0.04
0.01
Shiffmann
Bingham
Jeffreys Bingham
Modified
Vyalov
Modified Bingham -15 Bingham
Schwedoff
0.030
Schwedoff -20 Modified Bingham
Lo
Lo
1000

1100

1200

1300
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1400
0

0.02

t [days] Shiffmann Schwedoff


Shiffmann
0.01
Vyalov -20
Figure 10: Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time sequence measured in S17 borehole and
0
-25 Lo
Vyalov
the calculated ones with the one-layer scheme, with the models listed in legend.
Fig. 10. Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time Shiffmann
1000

1100

1200

1300
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1400
0

sequence measured in S17 t [days]


borehole and the calculated ones with -25 Vyalov
0.11
-30
Figure 10: Comparison between theLandslide
inclinometric displacement-time sequence measured in S17 borehole and
the one-layer scheme,
Gagliano Castelferrato with the models
the calculated ones with the one-layer scheme, with the listed
models listed in legend.
in legend.
0.1
-30
0.09
Figure 12: Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide: displacement profiles. Comparison between the inclin
0.11
0.08
Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide profile measured in S17 borehole and the calculated ones with the one-layer scheme, with the models
0.1
0.07
5 layer scheme
legend.
Figure Fig. 12. Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide: displacement profiles.
disp [m] 12: Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide: displacement profiles. Comparison between the incli
0.09
0.06 profile
Maxwell Comparison
measured in S17 borehole between the inclinometric
and the calculated ones with profile measured
the one-layer in S17
scheme, with the models
disp [m]

Burgers
0.08
0.05 legend.
Lethersich borehole and the calculated ones with the one-layer scheme, with
5 layer scheme
Jeffreys
0.07
0.04 disp [m]
Bingham
the models listed in legend.
Maxwell
0.06 Modified Bingham
disp [m]

0.03 Burgers
Schwedoff
Lethersich
0.05
0.02 Lo

0.04
0.01
Jeffreys
Shiffmann
Bingham
displ [mm]
Vyalov
Modified Bingham
0.030
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Schwedoff
Lo
displ [mm]
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400
0

0.02

0.01
t [days] Shiffmann
Vyalov
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Figure 11: Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time sequence measured in S17 borehole and
0
the calculated ones with the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers), with the models listed in legend. Displacement Profiles
0
-5
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Inclinometric disp
0

t [days]
Maxwell
Displacement Profiles
Figure 11: Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time sequence measured in S17 borehole and
the calculated ones with the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers), with the models listed in legend. -5 Inclinometric disp
Burgers
Fig. 11. Comparison between the inclinometric displacement-time -10
Maxwell
Lethersich
[m] [m]

sequence measured in S17 borehole and the calculated ones with the Jeffreys
Burgers
20 -10
multilayer scheme (with 5 layers), with the models listed in legend. -15 Bingham
Lethersich
depthdepth

Modified
Jeffreys Bingham
-15 Schwedoff
Bingham
20 -20 Lo
Modified Bingham
5 Conclusions Shiffmann
Schwedoff
-20
-25 Vyalov
Lo
A numerical model based on the elastoviscoplastic behaviour Shiffmann
of the landslide body and on the influence of the piezometric -25 Vyalov
-30
level on the movement rates has been presented.
As in many cases of slow slope movements a close corre- Fig. -30
13. Gagliano Castelferrato Landslide: displacement profiles.
lation between rising in the piezometric levels and displace- Comparison between the inclinometric profile measured in S17
Figure 13: Gaglianoborehole
Castelferrato
and theLandslide:
calculateddisplacement
ones with theprofiles. Comparison
multilayer between the inclin
scheme (with
ment rates of the slope can be observed, it seemed appropri-
profile measured in S17 borehole and the calculated ones with the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers),
ate to assume that the change in effective stressFigure
due tolisted
pore 5 layers), with the models listed in legend.
models 13: Gagliano
in legend.Castelferrato Landslide: displacement profiles. Comparison between the incli
pressure variations can be one of the main causesprofileofmeasured
slope in S17 borehole and the calculated ones with the multilayer scheme (with 5 layers),
deformations. The piezometric level variationsmodels
duringlisted
timein legend.
can be obtained introducing a time dependence of piezomet- to represent the soil behaviour: the applications presented
ric level, respectively, in Eq. (6) and in Eq. (15), accord- in this paper are those based on Maxwell, Lethersich, Jef-
ing to experimental measurements. This allows to perform freys, Burger, Bingham, modified Bingham, Lo, Shiffmann
a deformation-time-dependent analysis. and Vyalov rheological models.
A single-layer and a multilayer mechanical scheme have The viscosity of the landslide body has been evaluated by
been presented to predict the deformation evolution of a hy- Somiglianas equation. This equation, in the original form,
pothetical vertical line inside a slope due to increasing of usually fits best with shallow landslides, as it takes into ac-
instabilising forces and/or reducing shear strengths for pore count just the soil mass rate at the sliding surface and at
pressure rising. A computer code based on a FDM devel- the ground surface. To obtain a better evaluation of the de-
opment of Eq. (15), valid both for the one-layer and for the formation of an hypothetical vertical line, in the multilayer
multy layer scheme, was compiled to this aim. Several con- model, Somiglianas equation has been adapted calculating
stitutive laws have been implemented in the numerical code a different viscosity value for each layer of discretisation,
142 M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide

substituting the soil rates at the sliding surface and at the References
ground level, respectively with those of the lower and the up-
per boundary of the i-layer, of discretisation. The displace- Alonso, E. E., Lloret, A., and Romero, E.: Rainfall induced de-
ment profiles calculated with this assumption fit best with the formations of road embankments, Italian Geotechnical Journal
inclinometric one: this confirm that more reliable results can XXXIII, 1, 7176, 1999.
be obtained in this way. Bertini, T., Cugusi, E., DElia, B., and Rossi-Doria, M.: Lenti
Movimenti di Versante nellAbruzzo Adriatico: caratteri e criteri
In this paper, the presented numerical model has been ap-
di stabilizzazione, Proc. XVI Convegno Nazionale Di Geotec-
plied to the case of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide (Sicily nica, Bologna, 1, 91100, 1986.
Italy). The change in effective stress due to pore pressure Bertini, T., DElia, B., Grisolia, M., Oliviero, S., and Rossi-Doria,
variations was assumed as the main cause of deformation- M.: Lenti Movimenti di Coltri Colluviali sulle Argille Marnose
time evolutions, as the monitoring results evidenced a close della Formazione della Laga, Proc XIV Conv. Naz. di Geotec-
correlation between the piezometric levels time evolution and nica, Firenze, II, 207218, 1980.
the displacement rates of the slope. A time dependence of Bozzano, F. and Floris, M.: An Interpretation of Slope Dynamics
piezometric level was introduced, respectively, in Eq. (6) and in Pisticci (Southern Italy), Landslides in research, theory and
in Eq. (15), according to experimental measurements. This practice, Thomas Telford, London, 2000.
allowed to perform a deformation-time-dependent analysis. Butterfield, R.: A Dynamic Model Of Shallow Slope Motion Driven
by Fluctuating Ground Water Level, Department of Civil and En-
The analysis on Gagliano Castelferrato landslide was
vironmental Engineering, University of Southampton, UK, VIII
firstly carried out discretising the landslide body into one Int. Symp. On Landslide (1), pp. 203208, Cardiff (UK), 2000.
layer, then into 5 layers and a depth depending viscosity Cartier, G. and Pouget, P.: Etude Du Comportement Avent Rup-
was evaluated, basing on Eq. (14). Among the implemented ture Dun Remblai Construit Construit Sur Un Versant Instable:
constitutive models, Maxwell, Lethersich, Burger, Jeffreys Le Remblai De Salledes (Puy-De-Dome), Rapport De Recherche
Bingham, modified Bingham, Lo models provide results in a LCPC N 153, Paris, France, 1988.
very close agreement with the experimental measures, while Cascini, L. and Versace, P.: Eventi pluviometrici e Movimenti Fra-
Shiffmann and Vyalov models, give higher displacement val- nosi, Atti del XVI Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica, Bologna,
ues. 1986.
The results of the analysis show that the hypotheses of Cazacu, O. and Cristescu, N. D.: Constitutive Model And Analysis
of Creep Flow of Natural Slopes, Italian Geotechnical Journal,
the elasto-visco-plastic behaviour of the landslide body and
XXXIV, N. 3, pp. 4454, 2000.
of the influence of the piezometric level on the movements Crosta, G. B. and Agliardi, F.: Failure forecast for large rock slides
rates were reasonable and that,if the soil parameters are cho- by surface displacement measurements, Can. Geotech. J., 40,
sen properly, a simple single layer scheme, based on the soil 176191, 2003.
elastoviscoplastic behaviour, can be satisfactory for a previ- Davis, R. O., Desai, C. S., and Smith, N. R.: Stability Of Motions
sion of the evolution of displacements at the ground surface Of Translational Landslides, J. Geotechn. Eng., ASCE vol. 119,
but, obviously, a multylayer analysis fits best in representing n 3, pp. 420432, 1993.
both the ground level displacements and the vertical profiles Deganutti, A. and Gasparetto, P.: Some aspects of mudslide in
deformation evolutions, and this would be even more evident Cortina, Italy, Proc. VI Int. Symp. on Landslides, vol. 1, pp. 373
if a non-homogeneous or very thick landslide body should be 378, Chrischurch, NZ, 1992.
modelled. DElia, B.: Deformation Problems In The Italian Structurally Com-
plex Clay Soils, 10th European Conf. On Soil Mechanics And
When analysing a natural slope, it would be advisable to
Found. Engrg., Florence, 4, pp. 11591170, 1991.
investigate not only on its stability, basing on the limit equi- DElia, B., Bertini, T., and Rossi-Doria, M.: Colate e Movimenti
librium method and on a rigid plastic soil behaviour, but also Lenti, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia, vol. XVIII, Parte III,
on its kinematic features, and on the probable evolutions of 1983.
the movements during the landslide lifetime. Such a kind Desai, C. S., Samtani, A., and Vulliet, L.: Constitutive Modeling
of analysis should be based on deformation-time dependent And Analysis Of Creeping Slopes, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE vol.
models, that is on the assumption of an elasto-visco-plastic CXXI, No. 1, January, pp. 4356, 1995.
behaviour of the soil. Feda, J.: Creep Of Soils And Related Phenomena, Developments In
The presented mathematical model, can be applied to pre- Geotechnical Engineering, 68, Elsevier Amsterdam London
dict the future evolution of the slope movement driven on by New York Tokyo, 1992.
Gottardi, G. and Butterfield, R.: Modelling Ten Years Of Downhill
seasonal fluctuating groundwater level, after carrying out a
Creep Data, Proc. XV ICSMFE, Istanbul, 1, 99102, 2000.
proper calibration of soil parameters by a back analysis of Hohenemser, K. and Prager, W.: Fundamental equations and defini-
available field measurements. tions concerning the mechanics of isotropic continua, J. Rheol.,
3, 1932.
Acknowledgements. The Authors wish to thank F. G. L. Paterno Hungr, O. and Morgenstern, N. R.: High velocity ring shear tests
(Eng.) for his help during the surveys in the landslide area and on sand, Geotechnique, 34, 415421, 1984.
S. D. Accardi for his contribution in the numerical applications. Iverson, R. M. and Major, J. J.: Rainfall groundwater flow and
seasonal movements at Minor Creek Landslide, NW California:
Edited by: L. Marchi physical interpretation of empirical relations, Geol. Soc. Am.
Reviewed by: One referee Bull., 99, 1987.
M. Maugeri et al.: Mathematical modelling of Gagliano Castelferrato landslide 143

Jaeger, J. C.: Elasticity, Fracture and Flow, John Wiley and Sons, Pouget, P., Cartier, G., and Pilot, G.: Comportement De Remblais
1964. Construits Sur Versant Instable, Proc. XI International Confer-
Leroueil, S., Vaunat, J., Picarelli, L., Locat, J., Lee, H., and Faure, ence On Soil Machanics And Foundation Engineering, San Fran-
R.: Geotechnical characterisation of slope movements, 7th Int. cisco, vol. 4, pp. 23452348, 1985.
Symp. On Landslides, Trondheim, 1, 5374, 1996. Raciti, E.: Interpretazione delle Caratteristiche Cinematiche dei
Manfredini, G., Martinetti, S., Ribacchi, R., Santoro, V. M., Sciotti, Movimenti Lenti di Versante attraverso lAnalisi Numerica, PhD
M., and Silvestri, T.: An earthflow in the Sinni Valley (Italy), thesis, University of Catania, Italy, 2003.
Proc. X Int. Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer- Reiner, M.: Rheology, in: Handbuch der Physics, Band VI: Elastiz-
ing, Stocholm, vol. 3, pp. 457462, 1981. itat und Plastizitat, edited by: Flugge, S., pp. 434550, 1958.
Maugeri, M., Motta, E., and Raciti, E.: Analisi dei movimenti di Russo, C.: Caratteri Evolutivi Dei Movimenti Traslativi e Loro
versante nella Sicilia Orientale: il caso di Gagliano Castelferrato Interpretazione Meccanica Attraverso Lanalisi Numerica, PhD
Conservazione del suolo 19742004 CNR-GNDCI, 2004. thesis, University La Sapienza, Roma and University Federico
Maugeri, M., Motta, E., and Raciti, E.: Modelling slow slope move- II, Naples, 1997.
ments driven by fluctuating ground water level, Proc. XI Int. Russo, C. and Urciuoli, G.: Influenza della variazione di pressoni
Conf. of IACMAG, Prediction, Analysis and Design in Geome- neuter sugli spostamenti di frane lente, Italian Geotechnical Jour-
chanical Applications, Turin, Italy, 1924 June 2005, vol. 3, pp. nal XXXIII, 1, 7176, 1999.
569576, 2005. Sangrey, D. A., Harrop-Williams, K. O., and Klaiber, J. A.: Predict-
Maxwell, I.: On the Dynamical Theory of gases, Phil. Mag., (4), ing ground-water response to precipitations, J. Geotech. Eng.,
35, 129, 135, 1868. ASCE, 110, n 7, pp. 957975, 1984.
Morgenstern, N. R.: Geotechnical aspects of environmental control, Sirangelo, B. and Versace, P.: Modelli stocastici di precipitazione
Proc. XI Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer- e soglie pluviometriche di innesco dei movimenti franosi, Con-
ing, San Francisco, vol. 1, pp. 155185, 1985. vegno di Idraulica e Costruzioni Idrauliche, Firenze 31 Agosto4
Nakamura, H.: Landslides in silts and sands mainly in Japan, Proc. Settembre, 1992.
IV Int. Symp. On Landslides, Toronto, 155178, 1984. Somigliana, C.: Sul coefficiente di attrito interno del ghiaccio e
Pellegrino, A., Ramondini, M., Russo, C., and Urciuoli, G.: Kine- la determinazione della profondita dei ghiacciai, Bollettino del
matic features of earthflows in Southern Italy, VIII Int. Symp. On Comitato Glaciologico Italiano, No. 6, pp. 1325, 1925.
Landslides, June 2630, Cardiff, (3), 11951202, 2000. Vulliet, L.: Modelisation Des Pentes Naturelles En Mouvement
Pellegrino, A. and Urciuoli, G.: Spostamenti di frane di colata in These N 635, Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne, Su-
argille varicolori, IARG2002, June 1921, Naples, 2002. isse, 1986.
Picarelli, L.: Researches on slow slope movements carried out at the Vulliet, L.: Modelling Creeping Slopes, Italian Geotechnical Jour-
two universities of Naples, Italian Geotechnical Journal XXXI, 2, nal XXXIII, 1, 7176, 1999.
3748, 1997. Urciuoli, G.: Pore pressure in unstable slopes constituted by fis-
Piscitelli, F. and Urciuoli, G.: Regime delle pressioni neutre in frane sured clay shales, The Geotechnics of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks,
di colata in argille varicolori, Proc. IARG 2001, Milan, May 10 October 1114 Naples, (2), 11771185, 1998.
11, 2001.