2 views

Uploaded by Deepak Raj Bhat

coped

- Rheology.pdf
- Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Earth Dams and Embankments
- ADA374718 (1).pdf
- 01 CRSP-3D Users Manual Entire Report
- 1 Tutor 1 Fluid Properties
- b22395738_ir
- EVALUATION OF I-WALLS
- Slope Stabilization With Platepiles
- Flat Rheology
- paper
- Dynamic, Absolute and Kinem..
- Combined & Strap Footing - Geotechnical Engineering Questions and Answers - Sanfoundry
- 1997-Otsuki-Numerical Simulations of Annular Extrudate Swell of Polymer Melts
- Viscosity
- Rheological Properties and Surface Tension of Acacia Tortuosa Gum Exudate Aqueous Dispersions
- Non Newtonian Flows
- Basics of Hydromechanics - Fluid Properties
- Ch7 Lateral Earth Pressure Theories (407-440)
- npd5050_visc
- Squeeze Flow JNNFM 2007-1

You are on page 1of 11

European Geosciences Union and Earth

2006 Author(s). This work is licensed System Sciences

under a Creative Commons License.

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

lated by the following equation:

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

(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]

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

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

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

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

Table 3. Input Parameters for ReoMod applications. 0.11

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

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

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

(a)

-20

(b)

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).

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

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

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.

- Rheology.pdfUploaded byraulmdiaz
- Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Earth Dams and EmbankmentsUploaded bypabulumzeng
- ADA374718 (1).pdfUploaded bygp
- 01 CRSP-3D Users Manual Entire ReportUploaded byAnthony Fu
- 1 Tutor 1 Fluid PropertiesUploaded bySachin Giroh
- b22395738_irUploaded byggsachary
- EVALUATION OF I-WALLSUploaded bydyc123
- Slope Stabilization With PlatepilesUploaded byAamir Tauqeer
- Flat RheologyUploaded byAnonymous JMuM0E5YO
- paperUploaded byHarold Mantilla
- Dynamic, Absolute and Kinem..Uploaded byjerryhal
- Combined & Strap Footing - Geotechnical Engineering Questions and Answers - SanfoundryUploaded bygokulcivilions
- 1997-Otsuki-Numerical Simulations of Annular Extrudate Swell of Polymer MeltsUploaded byVinod Kumar Konaganti
- ViscosityUploaded bySandeep Kumar
- Rheological Properties and Surface Tension of Acacia Tortuosa Gum Exudate Aqueous DispersionsUploaded byDiego Aires
- Non Newtonian FlowsUploaded bytapanpatni
- Basics of Hydromechanics - Fluid PropertiesUploaded byseia3a
- Ch7 Lateral Earth Pressure Theories (407-440)Uploaded byRafi Sulaiman
- npd5050_viscUploaded byamancivil
- Squeeze Flow JNNFM 2007-1Uploaded byYazhou Zhou
- Control n3Uploaded byIgnacioCuevas
- Pdklp Interpre.depth of Soil Waters by Method Geoel.Uploaded byWiyono Yosomishastro
- Memoria de Calculo Analisis Parametrico Km 132+734Uploaded bySalvador Xoqui
- Paper Clay Shale-PUUploaded byputera agung maha agung
- remotesensing-05-04319Uploaded byPamela Rizky
- lab6_team51bUploaded byAlexLin
- Exam Set 06Uploaded byallovid
- 1 Temporary Structures Set7Uploaded byPatrick Pato
- 3.-Traduccion de ArticuloUploaded byLizEvelynHuamanJunco
- Borowiec_1_2014Uploaded byjojomarbun

- 05_01_Limit_equilibrium_slope_stabilityUploaded byDani Darma Putra
- Soil Creep and Related PhenomenonUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- Effects of Water on Slope StabilityUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- Slope Stability BookUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- Earthquake Engineering BookUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- Slope Stability BookUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- GroundwaterUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- L21Uploaded byJulius Ogowewo
- slope stabilityUploaded byzakko
- 11 LandslideUploaded byJayraj Singh
- 3786Uploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- Tlkou123EST FILE.pdfUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat
- TEST FILEUploaded byDeepak Raj Bhat

- Visual Basic Language Specification 9.0Uploaded bynemrakm
- econUploaded byKianna Sabala
- Basic SurveyingUploaded byAntonio Villena Martín
- FE18Bd01Uploaded byFustei Bogdan
- Applications MATH 24 II.docxUploaded bythirt13teen
- GE Student Handbook 2015Uploaded byAngelie Lape
- Bayes NetsUploaded byFouad Tachi
- ClassUploaded bySourabh Bhandari
- maple_intro.pdfUploaded byLara Mariz Gatbonton
- ExcelUploaded bymahboobiqbal09
- Methods to Determine Pore PressureUploaded byAdam Bachtiar Sa'ban
- Research Methodology and Statistical AnalysisUploaded bySahibzadi Ayesha Aziz
- Test Estimation TechniquesUploaded byarlei34
- Computer Predictions With Quantified UncertaintyUploaded bypasaitow
- trigonometryUploaded bysanjivtis
- 7 - Serial IOUploaded byapi-3721164
- CCS-C-output-input-functions-lecture1.pdfUploaded byandyli2008
- The Canine Ball ThrowerUploaded byyoeyoe
- IAI Exam Form November 2011Uploaded byNitin Verma
- Lua ProgrammingUploaded byMikhail Miguel
- Biopython Tutorial and CookbookUploaded byRangerTalon
- 041SCF13Uploaded byujnzaq
- aristotle-prior-analytics-hackett-1989.pdfUploaded byHumpt Vivacqua
- Gunnar Hornig- Magnetic Reconnection: Basic Concepts IUploaded byPelaggio
- Lab2(1)Uploaded bySanjay Balwani
- Aieee Detailed Notes With Illustrative Examples Physics Gravitation-1 DecryptedUploaded byVishal Kalra
- The Estimation of Peak Ground Motion Parameters From Spectral OrdinatesUploaded byHaider Shah
- Acrostic Dictionary of Wordplay TermsUploaded byd-fbuser-41605158
- 2006_Book_IWA-STR18_Wanner-Et-Al Ada Model Biofilm OkUploaded byRiysan Octy
- Energetic Particle RadiationUploaded byKaza Ali