Part 1

1)

The 2006 picture shows that a chunk of the access road became unstable and slipped,
smoothed out the benches. Looking forward to 2009, the wall of the mine appears to have
remained unstable, causing more debris to flow down the slope. The 2011 image shows that the
rock just next to the previous slide became unstable and caused mass wasting. It is unknown
whether the first slide had any effect on the slide just beside it. Images from hereon show that
the slope stabilized, as no significant movement is visible.
Based on observations made from google earth photos, the post-2006 landslide in the Bingham
Canyon remained unstable until around 2013, and remained relatively stable until 2016.

2)

There is a small amount of failure beginning above a road in late 2006, becoming visible in
about June. This indicates that a slope failure is imminent, as a slide would begin triggering the
unstable slope nearby.

3)

The miners almost entirely rebuild the mine by 2017, with rebuilding operations commencing
only a few months after the slide occurred in early 2014. By 2015, lots of the mining structures
had been rebuilt and by 2016 evidence of the slide has almost all disappeared.

4)

The 2010 image shows the first signs of an unstable slope. The head of a section of the mine
appears to have collapsed, sending debris downslope and filling the benches below.

5)

Both mass wasting events are directed along the slope of wall sections in the mine from the
head, suggesting that the failures are rockslides. One explanation would be that a weakness in
the rock caused an unbalance of forces being subjected to the rock material of the head and
bench sections of the mine. The rockslide events that occurred at this mine would have been in
the range of 1 km/hr to 5 km/hr, based on accepted values. The material appears to be a large
mass of small rocks, suggesting that, with a higher air content, the slide must have been closer
to 5 km/hr than 1 km/hr.

6)

The variable which changed the value of the factor of safety the most was the angle, and this
would make sense as it not only changes the force of gravity, it also affects the force of friction,
and increases the volume, and thus the weight of the failure plane (~50% change). The next
most affecting variable was the internal friction angle, which will change the value of the force of
friction, a very important stopping force (~5% change) Changing the values of the cohesion and
density had little effect (<5%) as this must have had less effect on the total outcome as
cohesive forces must have a minimal effect and the density (therefore weight) has both terms in
the top and bottom of the factor of safety calculation.

Figure 1 – Aerial view of Bingham Canyon Landslide, 2013 Figure 2 – Aerial view of Bingham Canyon Landslide, 2006

Part 2

2005 2006

Figure 3 – Casselman, South Nation River Slide in 2005

Figure 4 - Casselman, South Nation River Slide in 2006

2016
Figure 5 - Casselman, South Nation River Slide in 2016

1)
Cross sectional area of the slump was measured to be 172 000 m^2, and the gradient was
found to be 12 / 237.
Q = -2.3*10^-6 m/s * 172 000 sq m * (12 m / 237 m) = 0.02 m^3/s

h= 12 m; h/Q = t; 12/0.02 = 600 s or about 10 minutes for the water to permeate the soil to a
depth of 12 m and reach the failure plane. This is a very small time period, especially in
geological time, so both rain and snow had abundant time to infiltrate and decrease the effective
normal stress. The snowmelt would have been saturating the soil gradually as it melted.
Conversely, the thunderstorm would have been a brief, but intense downpour of water that
would have oversaturated the slope and caused the slump.

2)

Δh = -28 m, Δl = 420 m. Hydraulic gradient is, therefore, 28/420 = 1/15 from the edge of the clay
slope (and the farmers’ fields) and the riverbank. The same infiltration calculation, with the
gradient subbed in is Q = -2.6*10^-6 * 172 000 * (1/15) = 0.026 m/s, slightly faster than the
infiltration of rainwater. The time it would take to infiltrate 28 metres of soil is 7 minutes: even
more rapid than the infiltration of precipitation. Therefore rainwater, snowmelt, and runoff
compounded together to cause the landslide.

3)

The water lessens the factor of safety by decreasing the normal stress, which in turn decreases
the friction force that acts to prevent movement. Therefore, the water decreases the factor of
safety.

The volume can be calculated by finding the volume of the right-angle triangle that would be created
including the dotted lines, and by subtracting that from the volume created by the triangle of the empty
space (within the dotted lines). It is assumed that the surface area under the edge is square, therefore
the width is sqr.root(172,000 m2) = 414.73 m. Figure 6, shown below, was referenced for this
calculation.

Therefore, the volume is as shown below:

Vtotal=Vbig triangle−Vsmall triangle
¿ 540∗30∗414.73∗0.5−170∗30∗414.73∗0.5

¿ 2301751.5 m 3

Figure 6 – schematic of the South Nation River Slide area for calculation of volume

0.2 kg/cm^2  2000 kg/m^2

m kg
weight unsaturated =9.8 2∗2301751.5 m 3∗1600 3
s m
= 3.61*10^10 N

2000 kg/m 2∗172000 m 2+(3.61∗10 10 N∗cos ( 2.4 ° )∗tan ( 23° ))

¿
3.61∗1010 N∗sin ⁡( 2.4 °)
= 10.35

weight saturated =weight unsaturated

u=12m∗1m∗172000 m∗9800 N /m3

= 2.02*10^10 N

2000 kg/m 2∗172000 m 2+(( 3.61∗1010 N∗cos ( 2.4 ° )−2.02∗1010 N)∗tan ( 23 ° ) )

¿
3.61∗10 10 N∗sin ⁡(2.4 °)
= 4.68