Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

DOI 10.1007/s11069-017-2786-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Interpretation of slope displacement obtained from

inclinometers and simulation of calibration tests

Ching-Jiang Jeng1 • Yo-Yo Yo1 • Kai-Lan Zhong1

Received: 8 December 2015 / Accepted: 15 February 2017 / Published online: 24 February 2017
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract An inclinometer is a high-precision instrument used to detect displacement

along sliding zones. From the time the inclinometer pipe is embedded to inclinometer
calibration and to measured data collection and processing, many errors or misjudgments
can occur that affect the measurement data. The most important objective for correctly
using the observation results is the accurate interpretation of the horizontal displacement
profiles obtained from the observation. This study combines existing inclusive data
accumulated by a monitoring system on a test sloping site in a campus. It focuses on a
comprehensive interpretation of the displacement relationships among different monitoring
instruments. This study uses data interpretation principles, categorizes different mecha-
nisms, and performs quantitative analysis and discussion in order to determine the sig-
nificance presented by various types of monitored information in terms of slope sliding. In
addition, in this study, stairwells in a campus building are used, an inclinometer is set up,
and calibration equipment for the experiment is added in order to simulate various con-
figurations and observe patterns for displacement curves. The examples for the various
conditions include empty holes in the backfill around the pipe, connection points falling
off, pipe torsion, relative sliding between layers reaching an extreme condition and leading
to stuck pipes, multi-layered sliding, and different thicknesses in sliding zones. The
experiment illustrates changes in behavior in terms of environmental factors. The results
can be used for instrument calibration and measurement, and as a reference for disaster
warning and prevention in hazardous areas with slopes.

Keywords Inclinometer displacement  Calibration test simulation  Monitoring system 

Slope sliding  Displacement mechanisms

& Ching-Jiang Jeng

jcjhf@cc.hfu.edu.tw
1
Department of Environmental and Hazards-Resistant Design, Huafan University,
Shihding District, New Taipei City, Taiwan

123
624 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

1 Introduction

In recent years, when typhoons or heavy rain have occurred, many places in Taiwan have
suffered disasters such as landslides, causing significant direct damage to lives and
property; the indirect social cost is difficult to estimate. Since advance signs are likely to
appear before a disaster involving a slope occurs, a system for monitoring these signs is
considered the most powerful tool for disaster prevention. However, to realize an effective
monitoring system, the monitoring instrument needs to be sufficiently precise and accu-
rately installed, measurements need to be taken carefully, and, most importantly, the
measured data need to be correctly interpreted. Incorrect interpretation of the data can
cause the monitoring system to malfunction and result in misinterpretation of subsequent
data that may be used in preventive measures. In addition, during the installation of an
inclinometer, an instrument used in the monitoring system, if the backfill around its pipe is
not fully intact, or in the event of any other problem, the observation data may result in
inaccurate curves.
Deformation is the response of a slope when forces are applied. Usually, there is a
deformation period before a landslide occurs. Thus, understanding the monitored data on
displacement and interpreting the data accurately is a very important task for achieving
effective disaster warnings. An inclinometer is an instrument commonly employed for
measuring displacement in slopes. The observed data are often referenced for safety
warning purposes. Sometimes, when disputes occur over damages, the data are also
regarded as important evidence.
The inclinometer’s high precision depends on the accuracy with which it is embedded.
From the stage of embedding the inclinometer pipe, to calibrating the inclinometer, and to
collecting and sorting the measured data, errors or misjudgments can occur which affect
the results. Some examples are conditions such as the bottom depth not fixed, backfill
around the pipe not fully intact, pipe torsion, shifting of the zero point of the instrument,
incorrect depth of the measuring point, empty holes in the backfill around the pipe, con-
nection points falling off, relative sliding between layers exceed the limit and result in a
stuck pipe, multi-layered sliding, and various thicknesses of sliding zones.
Therefore, the measured data must first be categorized by their pattern, analyzed, and
studied. For the interpretation of the observed values from an inclinometer, in addition to
verifying the displacement, we need to determine the speed and type of displacement.
Correct interpretation of cracks on the ground, and the information on displacement
obtained from inclinometers beneath the ground surface, can help provide a three-di-
mensional (3D) representation of the mechanical behavior of the landslide, yielding the
most direct full-scale test results.
When a slope slides, the mechanism and type of sliding can vary depending on the
terrain, geological structure, size of slope area, and other environmental conditions. For
slope masses that undergo sliding within a specific range, the damage and displacement
conditions may be dissimilar if the locations of the sliding are different. For example, the
crown often exhibits tension cracks and collapse, while the foot part often exhibits com-
pression cracks and bumps in a radiating pattern. Diagonal shear cracks are distributed on
both sides of the slope. These on-site macroscopic signs also display variations that are
different from those of the data from a monitoring system. As a result, it is important to
make a comprehensive interpretation and explanation from data collected from various
monitoring instruments in order to confirm the sliding mass and its failure mechanism in a

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 625

3D representation. This is essential for the monitored data to play a role in warning and
disaster prevention.
Doo (2003) studied an example of Province Road 18 (Mt. Ali Road) in Taiwan and
discussed the results of inclinometer data based on individual displacements in A and B
directions (shown in Fig. 1), as well as possible distortions of the inclinometer tubes. In
addition, an indoor simulation test was used to examine and verify the patterns of on-site
measurement. Machan and Bennett (2008) presented diagnostics for systematic errors of
inclinometers and pointed out that graphs of cumulative displacement versus depth and
time change plots can be affected by the systematic errors. The possible types of systematic
errors are described by Mikkelsen (2003), Green and Mikkelsen (1988), and Cornforth
(2005). Systematic errors can be significant when data are combined to display the
cumulative displacement. Other sources of errors include operational variances by
instrumentation monitoring technicians.

Fig. 1 A probe inclinometer (modified from Slope indicator 1998; 2000). In the transection, symbols A?,
A-, B?, and B- indicate different directions: A? for downslope, A- for upslope, B? for right-hand side
normal to the downslope, and B- for left-hand side normal to the downslope

123
626 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

This study combines existing inclusive data accumulated by a monitoring system on a

test sloping site of Huafan University campus in Taiwan. A comprehensive interpretation
of the slope displacement relationships from different monitoring instruments is focused.
We use data interpretation principles and standards for monitored displacement data,
categorize different mechanisms, and perform quantitative analysis and discussion in order
to determine the significance presented by various types of monitoring information in
terms of slope sliding. In addition, using the stairwells in a campus building, we set up an
inclinometer, lay out calibration equipment for an experiment to simulate various con-
figurations, and observe the patterns of the displacement curves obtained. The patterns
include empty holes in the backfill around the pipe, connection points falling off, pipe
torsion, relative sliding between layers reaching an extreme condition and resulting in
stuck pipes, multi-layered sliding, and different thicknesses of sliding zones. The findings
help determine the essential configurations for setting up and calibrating instruments to
take accurate measurements. In summary, the study results provide a comprehensive set of
principles and standards for monitoring data analysis, so that they can serve as a reference
for disaster warning and prevention in hazardous areas with slopes.

2 Measurement principles and methods for the instrument system

2.1 Instrument system and specifications of the inclinometer pipe

The main instruments of an inclinometer system, as shown in Fig. 1 (Slope indicator 1998;
2000), are (a) Digitilt biaxial sensor, which is used to measure the inclination of the
embedded casings at every 0.5 m depth; (b) Digitilt indicator to record and indicate the
measured values; (c) cable to transfer the sensor data to the indicator; and (d) plastic

Fig. 2 Principles of inclinometer measurement (modified from Slope indicator 1998; 2000)

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 627

telescoping casing, which is embedded in a hole drilled in the ground to reveal the slope
deformation, on the basis of its deformation with the slope [Figs. 1 and 2 (Slope indicator
1998; 2000)].

2.2 Methods of observation

When a measurement is taken, the Digitilt biaxial sensor with a pulley assembly and cable
plug (e), as shown in Fig. 1, is inserted into the inclinometer pipe (i.e., plastic telescoping
casing). Cables are used to connect the Digitilt biaxial sensor and the Digitilt indicator. The
inclination of the inclinometer pipe can thus be measured. By comparing the current
measurement data with previous data, we can determine the amount and direction of soil
displacement, as detailed in Fig. 2.

2.3 Principles and calculation method for inclinometer measurement

When taking a measurement using an inclinometer, we insert the inclinometer device,

which has four rotational wheels, into the inclinometer pipe embedded in the ground or
inside a building structure. The inclinometer pipe has mutual orthogonal guide grooves (as
shown in Figs. 1, 2), which enable measurement of the horizontal displacement of the
ground. The relative horizontal displacement to a perpendicular line is obtained by cal-
culating the angles at each depth of the inclinometer and at every 0.5 m measured distance.
Considering the deepest part of the fixed point as the base, the horizontal displacement of
the ground is obtained through cumulative calculation. The initial condition of the incli-
nometer (the initial value) when it is embedded can affect the measurement accuracy of the
horizontal displacement. Therefore, it is best to embed the inclinometer vertically. This can
be confirmed by the description stated later in Sect. 5.2 (4).
As shown in the measuring steps in Fig. 2, the inclination angle (h) of the casing along
the length (L) is measured once every 0.5 m. The corresponding horizontal displacement is
L 9 sin h. The total horizontal displacement accumulated from different depths, as shown
in Fig. 2, is obtained by gradually integrating the horizontal displacement at each depth,
from bottom to top.

2.4 Interpretation of results from inclinometers

The measurement results of inclinometers are usually used to determine the possible
sliding surface at the site where sliding occurs or to study the slope stability. When the
instruments function normally, the patterns measured by the inclinometers can be
explained and summarized into four types, as shown in Fig. 3 (Liao and Liao 2000; Liao
1999). Figure 4 shows examples of measurement results of various sections of the incli-
nometer under normal conditions (a) and (b) and when the embedded pipes are not suf-
ficiently deep (c) and (d).
1. In most cases, the sliding of a slope is concentrated in a single narrow discontinuity
surface. When there are multiple sliding surfaces, there will be multiple sliding depths
in the profile with obvious displacements, as shown in Figs. 3a and 4b, for example
sliding between discontinuous planes within the rock formation.
2. Figure 3b shows the case of thick shear zone. This type of sliding surface will occur in
the backfill soil layer or general soil layers.

123
628 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 3 Typical interpretations of

the horizontal displacement
profile for an inclinometer
(redrawn from Liao and Liao
2000)

Fig. 4 Examples of measurement results of various sections of the inclinometer a, b under normal
conditions, and c, d when the embedded tubes do not penetrate the sliding surface (purple dashed line).
a Being embedded in the crown part of the slope, the tube assumes an S-shape and is exposed because of
ground settlement when the slope slides. b The part of the tube above the sliding plane slides with the sliding
mass. c The entire tube is embedded within the sliding mass, so no displacement is recorded. d Being
embedded at the toe of the slope, the displacement pattern recorded displays a clockwise rotation

3. When the inclinometer significantly displaces from the bottom, the bottom of the
inclinometer can be inside the sliding mass. The true depth of the sliding surface
should be lower than the bottom of the inclinometer pipe, as shown in Figs. 3c and 4c,
d. However, when such a condition occurs, we should pay special attention and check
whether the alternate displacement pattern is due to large instrument errors.
4. The inclinometer gets compressed mostly with a large amount of backfill. Because the
backfill soil and underlying soil will settle, the inclinometer pipe will experience

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 629

negative friction. Consequently, an irregular S-shaped profile is displayed. This

condition is also easily observed in the collapsed area at the crown of the slide, as
shown in Figs. 3d and 4a.

2.5 Sources of error for inclinometers

Generally, some of the sources of error in inclinometers are as follows:

1. Poor mounting of the pipe leading to conditions including (a) pipe torsion (Fig. 5),
(b) excessive borehole inclination, and (c) settlement of the backfill and possibly of the
underlying soil (Fig. 3d);
2. Instrument errors caused by factors such as (a) equipment changes from one reading
cable to another, (b) different instruments, and (c) irregular instrument calibration;
3. Measurement errors affected by factors including (a) time of the initial measurement
(which cannot be too early after installation of the embedded casing); (b) cumulated
errors affected by measuring depth and the amount of pipe deformation; (c) depth
positioning error (Mikkelsen 2003), which can occur when the probe’s vertical
positions are shifted between data sets or there is a change in the axial length of the
casing, cable length, or top reference mark for the inclinometer survey; (d) insufficient
warm-up time for system operation; and (e) reading numbers not stable at each
measuring depth.

2.6 Poor data observed by an inclinometer

Poor data reveal that the horizontal displacements occurring at certain depths or in certain
directions make it difficult to estimate the sliding surface (Public Works Research Institute,
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., and Sakata Electric Co., Ltd., 2012). A poor inclinometer data
curve can have an ‘‘S-shape’’ or can exhibit a ‘‘negative displacement’’ or ‘‘torsion in the
displacement direction.’’ These types of poor data can occur independently or together in a
complex form, as seen in practice. They are explained below:
1. S-shaped data
As shown in Fig. 6, horizontal displacements repeatedly occur in positive and negative
directions to the perpendicular line. In a chart of the distribution of cumulative
displacements, as a result of changes in depth, an S-shaped curve is displayed.

Fig. 5 Torsion of the pipe (modified from Slope indicator 1998; 2000)

123
630 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 6 Poor displacement data showing an S-shaped curve in the inclinometer (modified from Public
Works Research Institute, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., and Sakata Electric Co., Ltd., 2012)

2. Negative displacement
In this case, the horizontal displacement changes with time and the changes are in the
negative direction. Due to gravity, the slope displacement is generally toward
downslope. However, except for an upslope force, such as that exerted by tieback
anchors or a strut structure, as shown in the figure described later in Sect. 5.1, a
negative displacement should not happen. In addition, backward rotational sliding or
multiple sliding of displaced material may also result in negative displacement. In
other words, special data are observed when the slope deflects upslope. The negative
displacement would lead to misjudging the direction of the slope movement and the
actual amount of sliding.
3. Torsion in the displacement direction
As shown in Fig. 7, there can be significant changes in the displacement direction as a
result of torsion in the pipe accompanied with the changes in the axial length of the
casing. As shown in Fig. 7, the main sliding direction should be toward the lower left
corner. This is the displacement direction for depths 20 m and 40 m. For other depths,
such 60, 80, and 100 m, the sliding direction is to the lower right-hand side, upward,
and to the right, respectively. If the casing is twisted during installation, the orientation
of the probe will vary, and the resulting data will indicate an incorrect magnitude of
movement in the A and B directions. Therefore, the inclinometer readings would
indicate movement in an unlikely direction. The torsion in the displacement direction,
described above, may be caused by system errors, multi-directional sliding of
displaced layer material, or spiraling of the casing in the manufacturing or installation

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 631

Fig. 7 Poor displacement data

showing torsional displacement
directions from the inclinometer
(modified from Public Works
Research Institute, Nippon Koei
Co., Ltd., and Sakata Electric
Co., Ltd., 2012)

stage. The tolerance limit for the spiraling of the casing in manufacturing is
approximately 0.4° for every 3 m, and the torsion caused by installation can be
minimized by drilling a vertical hole with high accuracy.

2.7 Poor data with regard to the rising of the inclinometer

In relation to the ground surface, the inclinometer appears to be upraised. This can occur
because the ground surface settles, as is the case shown in Fig. 4a, or the inclinometer
casing is exposed. The inclinometer rising would lead to misjudging the slope movement
and actual amount of sliding.

3 Basic information on the research case study

3.1 Monitoring system and geological conditions in the Huafan University

study site

Huafan University is located on a slope. With funding from the university and the National
Science Council to support the observations, over the past years, more than 40 incli-
nometers have been installed within the campus area (Fig. 8), along with two surface
extensometers, concrete strain gauges in the bored piles, 30 sets of tiltmeters for the
structures, and over 300 settlement and displacement marks set up on the ground surface or
buildings. In addition, observations of cracks in the ground and structures, measurements
of the water level, and rainfall data from a weather station are available. All of these types
of monitoring equipment are regularly read (Jeng 2003; Jeng et al. 2007; Jeng and Lin
2011; Jeng and Jiang 2013). Some of the inclinometer pipes have excessive displacement
or have been damaged over time. Currently, there are 31 inclinometer pipes that function
normally, and 28 tiltmeters, 36 concrete strain gauges, and 48 rebar strain gauges. The
inclinometer casings are installed into the borehole after the borehole has been drilled to
the required depth; then, the clearance between the casings and boreholes is filled with
sandy soil or gravel mixed with water, by shaking the casing and tamping with a steel rod
during the filling process. The geological condition of the study site is characterized by a
dip-slope covered by colluvium soil of variable thickness. The dip-slope consists of
sandstone (SS) and thin alternating layers of sandstone and shale (SS–SH), and is overlain

123
632 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 8 Configuration of inclinometers and buildings in the Huafan University campus. The inclinometer
numbers with ‘‘A’’ indicate those inclinometers with a second pipe drilled adjacent to the first pipe, because
the first pipe is over-deformed (normally[0.1 m) and is stuck. The inclinometer numbers with ‘‘B’’ indicate
those inclinometers with a third pipe, as the second pipe is over-deformed and is stuck. Lines a–a0 , b–b0 , c–
c0 , and d–d0 represent cross-sectional profiles shown in Figs. 12, 14, 16, and 21, respectively

by a 10–20-m-thick colluvium. According to the site investigation, two small-scale faults

exist: first, the Nanshihkeng Fault (Fig. 8), found during the early period of the investi-
gations, dipping 60°–70° to the southeast; and second, the A Fault, which is probably a
normal fault with a left-lateral slip component. Boring logs reveal that the bedrock near the
faults is more fractured than in the other areas. In addition, two-dimensional (2D) resis-
tivity image profiling was performed to investigate the dimension and attitude of the shear
zone. These facts indicate that a thick shear zone in which bedding slip occurred (i.e., slip
occurs on the bedding planes), to the north of the A Fault lies below the main campus (Jeng
and Sue 2016).

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 633

3.2 Summary of results from the existing monitoring system in the study site

The slope movements in the study site are monitored from the data on the A and B
directions of the inclinometers. Furthermore, we can use the changes in the combined
angles for the displacements to determine whether the inclinometer pipe is embedded
sufficiently deep. Based on the existing data for the A and B directions of the inclinometer,
we can examine the direction of the displacement on the basis of the observation time. In
the plan view, shown in Fig. 9, we mark the displacement directions as green arrows
denoted in Fig. 9. In the figure, the directions of the displacement are toward the bottom of
the slope and can be divided into three main areas. These characteristics are used along
with the results from other monitoring equipment as references for investigating sliding
surfaces.

Fig. 9 Directions of displacements from the top of inclinometer pipes (Jeng and Hsieh 2010). The blue bars
with the red circles denote A? direction of the inclinometers

123
634 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

4 Research methods

4.1 Categorizing failure pattern, analyzing, and interpreting case study data

This study interprets the principles and standards of the observed data on slope dis-
placement, and it discusses warnings for slope sliding, as well as systematic preventive
measures. The study involves collecting, screening, sorting, analyzing, interpreting, and
determining slide patterns of a whole slope of observation data for the case study, as well
as conducting simulations and calibration tests.
During the initial stage, various types of displacement are observed in some incli-
nometer pipes, including displacements without any certain trend; slope without any rel-
ative sliding, with only creep deformations; and one or more sets of potential sliding
surfaces passing by. When evaluating risks of slope sliding, it is necessary to consider the
relationships between displacement and time. In addition, environmental conditions may
affect the results observed from the curve of the displacement profile derived from the
inclinometers. These conditions include whether the inclinometers are embedded in bored
pile or only in the strata, set in the slope with or without a ground anchor, and whether they
are located near a sliding zone. When performing detailed analyses, observations from
other monitoring equipment are included. The individual influential factors are isolated and
discussed in order to summarize and explain the principles and standards for accurate
interpretation.

4.2 Simulation calibration test

Figure 10 shows details of the simulation of inclinometer calibration for the test equipment
and a photograph of the completed installation. The actual materials of the inclinometer
pipe were used, and at various distances, adjustable points with sliding carriages (No. 1,
No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and No. 3), as shown in Fig. 10, were installed. These points were used
for managing the calibration test of the inclinometer and for simulating various possible
conditions for displacement. Actual observations and measurements were taken at the pipe
opening, and the data were compared with known conditions in order to understand the
meanings of the various plots of data from observation and measurement.

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Analysis and discussion of various types of displacement of inclinometer

pipes

We obtained basic information from the research site, as mentioned in Sect. 3. On various
slopes around the campus, inclinometer pipes, tiltmeters, water-level gauges, settlement
and displacement marks, crack investigations, and other system data from the monitoring
equipment were used along with geological, topographical, and hydrological data to per-
form a comprehensive analysis. The inclinometer pipes on the campus with various dis-
placements are analyzed and discussed below:
1. Single shear zone (single slip): Fig. 11 shows an example of the horizontal
displacement profile with the depth for an inclinometer pipe with a single shear
zone, at points marked SIS-3A, SIS-8A, SIS-15B, and SIS-18. Their details are listed

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 635

Fig. 10 Completed installation of the inclinometer calibration equipment in the stairwell of Chih-An
building

in Table 1. SIS-3A is located on Bodhi Avenue (Fig. 8, in front of the Ni-Hong

Building). The sliding depth is approximately 17.5–18.5 m (1.0 m thick) below the
ground surface. The displacement along the shear zone is approximately 0.06 m. After
conversion, tan-1(0.06/1), the vertical inclination angle is approximately 3.4°. For a
stratum displacement above 17.5 m, a gradual relative accumulative displacement is
observed as the depth increases.
SIS-8A is located in front of the Er-Shi Building. The sliding depth is approximately
20–21 m. The displacement for the shear zone is approximately 0.075 m. After
conversion, tan-1(0.075/1), the vertical inclination angle is approximately 4.3°. At
20–20.5 m below the ground surface, the displacement is up to 0.065 m. After
conversion, tan-1(0.065/0.5), the vertical inclination angle is approximately 7.4°.
Unlike the SIS-3A hole mentioned previously, for stratum displacement above 20 m,
no gradual relative accumulative displacement is observed as the depth increases, and,
instead, it tends to slide as a whole.
SIS-14B is located on University Avenue below the Basketball court near the Virya
Room, and SIS-15B is located on the slope below the Chea-Chau Building. Their

123
636 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 11 Horizontal displacement profiles for inclinometer pipes with a single-layered sliding surface.
a SIS-3A b SIS-8A c SIS-15B d SIS-18

Table 1 Interpretations of shear zone data for single-layered sliding surfaces

Hole Location Depth of Thickness of Total Vertical inclination Explanation for
the shear the shear sliding angle for the shear soil mass
zone (m) zone (m) (10-2 m) zone (°) displacement

SIS-3A Bodhi 17.5–18.7 1.2 6 3.4 Gradually

Avenue accumulated
with depth
SIS-8A In front of 20–21 1.0 7.5 4.3–7.4 Sliding as a whole
the Er-Shi
building
SIS-14B Below the 10–11 1.0 10 5.7–9 Sliding as a whole
Virya
room
SIS-15B Below the 15–16 1.0 4.5 5.1 Sliding as a whole
Chea-
Chau
Building
SIS-18 Lotus 8–9 1.0 2.3 2.6 Sliding as a whole,
Garden with negative
displacement
Average – 14.62 1.04 6.06 4.86 –

detail observation data are listed in Table 1. SIS-18 is located in the garden beside the
pathway near Lotus Garden outside of the campus. The sliding depth is approximately
8–9 m. The main shear zone is located at 8–8.5 m. The displacement along the shear
zone is approximately 0.023 m. After conversion, tan-1(0.023/0.5), the vertical
inclination angle is approximately 2.6°. For stratum displacement above 8 m, no
gradual relative accumulative displacement is observed as the depth increases; instead,
it tends to slide as a whole. This hole also exhibits another notable effect: For any

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 637

depth below 9 m to the bottom of the hole, the displacement changes in the negative
direction. It is thought that this may result from the presence of a second sliding
surface that is deeper than the bottom of the hole, as shown in Fig. 4d, and the
displacement in the shallow layer is greater than that in the deeper layer. Figure 12
shows the profile a–a’ and the potential sliding surfaces. The resulting curves are
shown in Fig. 11d.
All five holes mentioned above show that the thicknesses of the shear zone are all
approximately 1 m. The average displacement of the shear zone is approximately
0.06 m. The average vertical inclination angles are between 2.6° and 5.7°. The
maximum vertical inclination angles are between 7.4° and 9°, with an average of 5°.
The detailed information is summarized in Table 1. This means that the shear strain of
the shear zone is between approximately 13 and 16% (with an average of 8.7%). The
total sliding amount is from 2.3 9 10-2 m to 10 9 10-2 m, with an average of
6.06 9 10-2 m, although there are some uncertainties in estimating shear displace-
ment of the shear zone by inclinometer displacement profile due to the soil-casing
interaction. This effect may be omitted when the shearing displacement is obviously
significant. Machan and Bennett (2008) suggested that, in practice, the general
threshold for verifying the presence of landslide shear movement is at least
2.5 9 10-2 m at the shear zone. As the data are shown in Table 1, almost all the
shearing displacement in this study is larger than the threshold value. In addition,
according to the direct shear test results of the core sample drilled from this site (Jeng
and Yang 2016), the shearing displacement, with respect to peak shear strength, is
about 3 9 10-2 m. It reveals that for single sliding surface cases, most of the shear
zones have reached their residue strength condition.

Fig. 12 Profile a–a’ showing

that in SIS-18, for a depth from
below 9 m to the bottom of the
hole, the displacement changes in
the negative direction. This is due
to the presence of a sliding
surface deeper than the bottom of
the hole, and because the
displacement in the shallow layer
is greater than that in the deeper
layer. In SIS-25A, owing to it
being close to the sliding crown,
and owing to ground settlement
and downward sliding, S-shaped
compression and deformation are
observed. The displacement
profile and stratigraphy shown in
this figure indicate that the
shallow sliding surface is mainly
occurring in the backfill layer,
while the deeper sliding surface
may pass through the shear zone
between the sandstone and the
interbedded sandstone and shale
layers

123
638 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

2. Multi-sliding: Fig. 13 shows horizontal displacement profiles for inclinometer pipes

with multi-sliding (SIS-10 and SIS-21). SIS-10 is located down the slope of the
Library and Information (L&I) Building, with approximately three sliding surfaces
located at depths of approximately 2 m, 12.5–13 m, and 16.5–19 m. The displace-
ments for the sliding zones are approximately 0.0225 m, 0.01, and 0.015, respectively.
After conversion, the vertical inclination angles are approximately 0.64°, 1.15°, and
0.34°, respectively. For the section underneath the ground surface, the displacements
for the stratum located at 2 m and above tend to gradually accumulate as the depth
increases. For a sliding depth of 12.5–13 m, the sliding tends to occur as a whole. For a
sliding depth of 16.5–19 m, the sliding tends to occur as gradually accumulated
displacements.
SIS-13 is located in front of the Ming-Gin Building; the detailed observation data are
listed in Table 2. SIS-21 is located near the Vegetarian Restaurant, with approximately
two sliding zones at depths 7–9 m and 19–20 m, respectively. The displacements for
the sliding zones are approximately 4 m and 2.5 m, respectively. After conversion, the
vertical inclination angles are approximately 1.15° and 1.43°, respectively. The
shallow layer sliding tends to gradually accumulate toward the deeper layer. The
deeper layer sliding tends to occur as a whole. Like SIS-18, SIS-21 exhibits the
following notable effect: For any depth below 19 m to the bottom of the hole, the
displacement changes in the negative direction. This is because of the presence of a
sliding surface that is deeper than the bottom of the hole. Figure 14 shows profile b–b’
and the potential sliding surfaces. The resulting curves are shown in Fig. 13b.
The three holes mentioned above show that the thickness of the sliding zone is
0.5–2.5 m, with an average of 1.64 m. The displacement for the sliding zone is
approximately 1–4 9 10-2 m, with an average of 2.18 9 10-2 m. On average, the

Fig. 13 Horizontal displacement profiles for inclinometer pipes with multi-sliding planes. a SIS-10 b SIS-
21

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 639

Table 2 Interpretations of shear zone data for multi-sliding planes

Hole Location Depth of Thickness Total Vertical Explanation
the shear of the shear sliding inclination angle for soil mass
zone (m) zone (m) amount for the shear displacement
(10-2m) zone (°)

SIS-10 Library and 2, 2, 2.25, 0.64, GA,

information 12.5–13, 1.5, 1, 1.15, Sliding as a
building, 16.5–19 2.5 1.5 0.34 whole,
downhill slope Sliding as a
whole
SIS-13 In front of the 7–9 and 2.0 and 1.0 4 and 2.5 1.15 and 1.43 Sliding as a
Ming-Gin 19–20 whole,
Building Sliding as a
whole
SIS-21 Beside the 10–12 and 2.0 and 0.5 1.5 and 2.5 0.43 and 2.86 GA,
vegetarian 19–19.5 Sliding as a
restaurant whole
Average – 8.4, 18.4 1.64 2.18 1.13 –

GA means gradually accumulated displacement with depth

Fig. 14 Profile b–b0 showing that in SIS-21, for a depth from below 19 m to the bottom of the hole, the
displacement changes in the negative direction. This is due to the presence of a sliding surface deeper than
the bottom of the hole and because the displacement in the shallow layer is greater than that in the deeper
layer. The displacement profile and stratigraphy shown in this figure indicate that the shallow sliding surface
is mainly occurring in the backfill or colluvium layer, while the deeper sliding surface may pass through the
shear zone between the sandstone and the interbedded sandstone and shale layers

123
640 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

vertical inclination angles are between 0.34° [tan-1(0.015/2.50)] and 2.86°

[tan-1(0.025/0.5)], with an average of 1.13°. Table 2 shows a detailed summary.
3. Cantilever-type inclination and displacement: Fig. 15 shows example results of
displacement versus depth for a cantilever-type inclinometer pipe for SIS-5, SIS-7, and
SIS-19. The first two holes are embedded in the bored piles located on the slope
downhill of the Sport Ground (Fig. 16), and the third is located on the slope uphill of
the Sport Ground (Fig. 14). The horizontal displacement profiles do not display
concentrated displacements, but, as the depth increases, the relative displacement
gradually accumulates. The maximum displacements on the ground surface are
approximately 0.077, 0.155, and 0.035 m, respectively. After conversion, the vertical
inclination angles are approximately 0.21° (tan-1(7.7/2100)), 0.42° (tan-1(15.5/
2100)), and 0.1° (tan-1(3.5/2000)), respectively. The accumulated relative ground
surface displacement of SIS-5 is almost half that of SIS-7. The horizontal
displacement profiles display a concave upward pattern. Conversely, the horizontal
displacement profile displays an overall gradual inclination with increased pattern. The
patterns for the horizontal displacement profiles of SIS-5 and SIS-7 result from the fact
that the bored piles experience a thrust from the soil mass located upslope, and thus
exhibit cantilever-type bending and deformation. Consequently, the inclinometer pipe
embedded in the bored piles also exhibits cantilever-type bending and displacement.
The bored piles penetrate at least 4 m into the underground rock formation, and are
approximately 10 m above the ground surface on the downhill side.
A row of ground anchor is configured on the bored pile wall, as shown in Fig. 16. The
prestress of the ground anchor is approximately 50 t, and its anchor length is
approximately 10 m. In 2011, when the Formosa Freeway in northern Taiwan slumped
(Jeng and Chen 2013), the school commissioned professionals to conduct anchor
testing. Results showed that the majority of the anchors suffered corrosion, and some of
the ground anchors were broken. Near SIS-7, the ground surface layer even showed that
the PC (poor concrete) pavement had collapsed (Fig. 17). This is the reason SIS-7 has a
larger displacement and produces the special curves mentioned above. Hole SIS-19 is

Fig. 15 Horizontal displacement profiles for cantilever-type inclinometer pipes. a SIS-5, b SIS-7, c SIS-19

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 641

Fig. 16 Profile c–c0 showing ground anchor design for the tied-back retaining piles on the slope downhill of
the stadium. The inclinometers of No. SIS-5 and SIS-7 are installed in the retaining piles. According to the
stratigraphy shown in this figure, the cantilever displacements of the inclinometer casings are mainly
occurring because of the sliding of the thick backfill layer and the colluvium layer on the upslope

Fig. 17 Tied-back retaining piles on the slope downhill of the stadium, where the top PC pavement has
collapsed

not in the bored piles, but rather in the soil. The ground surface has backfill; therefore,
SIS-19 exhibits S-shaped compression and deformation as the backfill settles.
The three holes mentioned above show that the average thickness of the siding layer is
approximately 20.7 m. The average sliding displacement is approximately 0.089 m.
The average vertical inclination angle is 0.24°. The detailed data are summarized in

123
642 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Table 3 Interpretations of shear zone data for cantilever-type inclination and displacement
Hole Location Depth of Thickness Total Vertical Explanation
the shear of the shear sliding inclination angle for soil mass
zone (m) zone (m) amount for the shear displacement
(10-2m) zone (°)

SIS-5 Bored pile on the 0–21 21 7.7 0.21 Gradually

slope downhill accumulated
of the sport with depth
ground
SIS-7 Bored pile on the 0–21 21 15.5 0.42 Gradually
slope downhill accumulated
of the sport with depth
ground
SIS-19 Bored pile on the 0–20 20 3.5 0.1 Gradually
slope downhill accumulated
of the sport with depth
ground
Average – 20.7 20.7 8.9 0.24 –

Fig. 18 Horizontal displacement profiles for inclinometer pipes experiencing S-shaped deflection. a SIS-
25A and b SIS-43

Table 3. Comparing these results with those presented in Tables 1 and 2, the vertical
inclination angle resulting from cantilever-type bending and deformation is observed to
be significantly smaller than that from other forms of deformation. This is perhaps due

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 643

to the nature of deformation for inclinometer pipes that are in slopes consisting mostly
of backfill soil, or are constrained by bored piles.
4. Ground settlement causing S-shaped pipe displacement curve: Fig. 18 shows example
horizontal displacement profiles for an inclinometer pipe experiencing S-shaped
displacement versus depth for holes SIS-25A and SIS-43. SIS-25A is located on the
slope uphill of the Lotus Garden Kitchen. SIS-25A’s profile may due to it being close
to the sliding crown (Fig. 12), and at the slide top, the prevailing displacement
component is vertical; thus, the casing is compressed. The maximum displacement is
approximately 0.03 m. SIS-43 is located near the eco-pool beside the entrance road at
the back of the mountain. It is also close to the sliding crown, and the displacement
component is vertical; thus, the casing is compressed. The maximum displacement is
approximately 1.3 cm.
5. Sliding surface immediately beyond the bottom of the pipe: Fig. 19 shows two
examples of horizontal displacement profiles versus depth for the case where the
thickness of sliding is beyond the bottom of the pipe for holes SIS-12A and SIS-38.
SIS-12A is located on Bodhi Avenue in front of the Ni-Hong Building. The depth of
the hole is 21 m. Inclination occurs at the first segment at the bottom of the hole,
indicating, in other words, that the bottom of the pipe does not penetrate into a
stable ground. Surface displacement is approximately 0.1 m. The stratum near the
bottom of the hole exhibits gradually accumulating displacement as the depth
increases. The depth of the sliding is located 17 to 21 m below the surface. After
conversion, the vertical inclination angle is approximately 1.07° (tan-1(7.5/400)). SIS-
38 is located in front of the Hui-Tsui Building. The depth of the hole is 32 m. The
results show that the bottom of the pipe does not penetrate into the fixed layer. The
surface displacement is approximately 0.11 m. The stratum near the bottom of the hole
shows overall displacement. The thickness of the shear zone is greater than 1.5 m, and
the relative extent of sliding is greater than 0.085 m. After conversion, the vertical
inclination angle is approximately 3.24° (tan-1(8.5/150)). For the two holes mentioned

Fig. 19 Horizontal displacement

profiles of the inclinometer when
the sliding thickness is beyond
the bottom of the pipe. These
profiles are different from those
of SIS-18 and SIS-21 in that the
displacement does not change in
the negative direction. a SIS-12A
and b SIS-38A

123
644 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

above, the average depth of the sliding zones can be up to 19–31 m, and the average
thickness of the shear zone is approximately 2.75 m. The average sliding displacement
is approximately 0.085 m, and the average vertical inclination angle is 2.16°. Details
of the data are shown in Table 4. It is noteworthy that the profiles of SIS-12A and SIS-
38 are different from those of SIS-18 and SIS-21 in that the sliding surface is
immediately below the inclinometers in 12A and 38, while the sliding surface is much
deeper than the bottom of the inclinometers in 18 and 21.
6. Sliding and rotation of pipes at different depths: As described above in Sect. 2.6 (3),
the problem of rotation of inclinometer pipes may exist. Figure 20a–d shows
distributions of cross-axis rotation of pipes versus depths. Figure 20a shows the
distribution of displacement of SIS-1A. The number inside the brackets is its total
displacement, and the units are millimeters. The figure shows that a maximum
displacement of 83.2 mm occurs at a depth of 6 m. The direction of the displacement
is toward A? at 7.8° in the clockwise direction. The displacements for other depths
are within 28.4° in the counterclockwise direction, and the total cross-axis rotation is
around 36°. After conversion, the average rotational angle per meter of depth is
approximately 6.5°. In Fig. 20a, the directions for each deep sliding are mostly toward
the bottom of the slope. The difference in angular distribution may imply that the
inclinometer pipes are twisted. It is also possible that the stratum layer slides at
differing depths and receives different forces from different sliding masses, and the
disparity in angular distribution may be due to the variations in such mechanisms. The
torsion angles of the pipe accumulate and increase as the depth of the pipe increases.
For all other pipes, in terms of the maximum depth for displacement, the cross-axis
rotation, as well as the average rotational angle per meter, is consolidated and
summarized in Table 5. In terms of the direction and angle, the clockwise direction is
regarded as positive and the counterclockwise direction is regarded as negative. The
units are degrees. As shown in Table 5, the statistical results show that, in terms of the
direction of the maximum displacement, only hole SIS-10 deflects in the southeast
direction as it is close to the valley, while all other holes deflect toward the bottom of
the slope. Overall, the distribution of maximum deflection direction is -5.1° to ?15°,
with an average of approximately ?4.81°. The total angle of rotation is between 5° and
36°, with an average of approximately 12.38°, and the rotation angle per meter of
depth is between 0.49° and 6.5°, with an average of approximately 1.04°.

Table 4 Interpretations of shear zone data when the sliding depth is beyond the bottom of the pipe
Hole Location Depth of Thickness Total Vertical Explanation
the shear of the shear sliding inclination angle for soil mass
zone (m) zone (m) amount for the shear zone displacement
(10-2m) (°)

SIS-12A Bodhi Ave, [17–21 [4 8.5 1.07 Gradually

Ni-Hong accumulated
Building with depth
SIS-38 Road in front [30–32 [1.5 8.5 3.24 Gradually
of the Hui- accumulated
Tsui with depth
Building
Average – [19–31 2.75 8.5 2.16 –

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 645

Fig. 20 Distribution maps for pipes sliding at different depths and rotating in the direction of total
displacement. a SIS-1A, b SIS-3A, c SIS-7, d SIS-10

7. Other special circumstances: Fig. 21 shows the case where the shallow layer for a hole
at the surface of the ground, namely SIS-9, has a negative displacement. This hole is
located on the surface of the slope connecting the L&I Building and University
Avenue. It was embedded during the foundation excavation construction period of the
L&I Building. When the structure of the L&I Building was completed, an entrance for
the building was constructed against very rigid reinforced concrete floors (Fig. 21),
and the side of the building close to this entrance had a deep pile foundation. As a
result, this building forms a rigid strutting structure at the toe of the sliding slope.
When the upslope surface slid afterward, the rigid concrete floors at the entrance
actually acted as a passive force against the upslope where inclinometer SIS-9 is
located, and caused the top layer of the inclinometer to behave in a manner that
generated displacement toward the upslope. This can explain why in Fig. 21 the
displacement curves indicate a displacement in the negative direction at around 2.5 m
depth below the ground surface after the L&I Building was completed. In addition, the
displacement profile of inclinometer SIS-38 shown in Fig. 19 indicates that a deep
sliding surface exists in the upslope of SIS-9. Similar sliding phenomenon along the
thick shear zone (Fig. 21) can be detected by SIS-36 and SIS-39 in the downslope of
SIS-9. The estimated shallow sliding block (No. S1) is indicated in Fig. 9. Its crown is
located between the buildings No. 8 and No. 9 shown in Fig. 8, and the toe of sliding
block is located at the Da-Lun Road in the downslope of building No. 4.

123
646 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Table 5 Directions of maximum displacement and distributions of all rotational angles

Hole Direction angle Sum of the Rotational angle Notes
of maximum rotational (°) per meter of depth
displacement (°) (°/m)

SIS-1A ?7.8 36 6.5

SIS-3A -1.3 11.9 1.3
SIS-5 -5.1 5.1 0.49
SIS-7 -2.7 6 0.55
SIS-8A ?2.9 14.2 2.18
SIS-10 -83.2 15.3 1.06 Sliding toward southeast
valley
SIS-11 ?15 6.3 0.66
SIS-12A ?7.7 6.7 1.67
SIS-13 ?14.6 7.5 1.36
SIS-14 -0.8 5 0.53
SIS-15A ?2.5 15.4 1.03
SIS-17 ?12.3 19.1 4.78
Average ?4.81 12.38 1.04

The maximum displacement derives from the largest vector addition of the displacements in both A and B
directions at all depths. The direction angle of maximum displacement in the clockwise direction off A? is
regarded as positive, while that in the counterclockwise direction off A? is negative

5.2 Simulated experimental test results for displacement of inclinometer

pipes

In order to verify whether the displacement of the inclinometer pipe and changes in the
stratum are truly reflected in the displacement curve, this study used stairwells in campus
buildings to set up a simulated inclinometer as test equipment in order to simulate various
possible displacements. Systematic measurements of errors in the inclinometer pipes were
made and are discussed here. A simulation analysis is performed to determine the
cumulative error distribution with depth, the effect of the initial vertical angle of the pipe,
the measurement errors by different experimenters, the effect of inclinometer casing
connection on the error, and the inflection around the sliding zones as a result of the
stiffness of the pipe.
1. Experimental inclinometer: repeated tests (single segment)
Multiple testers performed repeated initial measurements on a single-segment (3 m
long) inclinometer in the case of no displacement. The results of this experiment show
that the obtained range of error is between -0.04 and 0.02 mm. This indicates that,
under normal circumstances, the measured error from the inclinometer in the pipes is
extremely small. We used the principle of measuring the horizontal displacement of
the inclinometer pipe, considering the bottom of the pipe as a fixed point. Then, we
gradually superimposed the changes in the vertical inclination angle measured at every
0.5 m before we performed conversion to find the horizontal displacement. The result

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 647

Fig. 21 Profile d–d0 showing the distribution of the case in which the shallow layer of the SIS-9 hole in the
surface of the ground has trending toward an upslope displacement caused by rigid concrete floor passive
force. Numerical analysis model is revised after Jeng and Li (2007). According to the stratigraphy shown in
this figure, the sliding surface is mainly passing through the shear zone between the sandstone and the
interbedded sandstone and shale layers

shows that the closer the distance to the ground, the greater the amount of accumulated
error.
2. Repeated tests (connecting casing)
In this experiment, couplings were added to the experimental inclinometer and
repeated measurements were taken with no displacement. The length of the coupling is
0.15 m. The results presented in Fig. 22 show that, compared with the single-segment
inclinometer pipe without any connecting casing, the error is increased by a maximum
0.06 mm. Therefore, adding a coupling can slightly increase the error.
3. Repeated tests (complete inclinometer pipe with three segments)
In this experiment, we performed repeated initial readings, with no displacement.
Figure 23 shows the results. The errors have significant changes between 0.93 and
2.79 mm. The corresponding change in vertical inclination is approximately 0.014°
(i.e., approximately 5000 ). After discussion and assessment, it was concluded that the
carrier points along the inclinometer pipe were not fixed and had clearance, and that
the initial pipe was not aligned vertically. Improvements were made in the subsequent
experiment.
4. Repeated tests (alignment calibrations using theodolite)
In this experiment, the inclinometer casing was placed vertically and verticality was
checked through theodolite measurements, the casing was fixed by a displacement
sliding carriage. When the displacement sliding carriage showed no displacement and
the casing was not subjected to any rotation, repeated measurements of the initial
values were taken multiple times. Figure 24 presents the results. The errors show that
between 0 and 0.17 mm, the changes are significantly smaller. The corresponding

123
648 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 22 Results of repeated

displacement tests for a
connected casing inclinometer.
The displacement amounts of
tests 2 through 5 are calculated
by subtracting that of test 1,
which was used as an initial value
for comparison

Fig. 23 Displacement results

from the repeated tests in a
complete inclinometer pipe. The
dashed rectangles shown in the
figure indicate the installation
locations of the connected
casings. The displacement
amounts of tests from T2 to T5
are calculated by subtracting that
of test T1, which was used as an
initial value for comparison

change in the vertical inclination angle is approximately 0.00085° (i.e., around 300 ). It
reveals that maintaining the drilled hole as vertical as possible can minimize the
measuring error.
5. Repeated tests on maximum vertical inclination angle
An objective of this research is to obtain the maximum deviation from vertical
(curvature point) of the inclinometer casing in the shear zone. An angle beyond this
threshold will cause pipe breakage, hindering the measurement. Figure 25 shows the
results for the case of maximum threshold angle. In this experiment, four plots of data
were obtained from four repeated tests, and all four curves are almost overlapping each

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 649

Fig. 24 Displacement results

obtained after improving the
inclinometer pipe by alignment
with a theodolite. The
displacement amounts of tests
from T2 to T3 are calculated by
subtracting that of test T1, which
was used as an initial value for
comparison

Fig. 25 Four repeated

displacement results obtained
from measurement at maximum
inclination

other. From the curves in Fig. 25, the maximum threshold angle h at the intersection of
the tangents from two end points is approximately 12.19°.
6. Relative sliding (cantilever-type displacement)
Cantilever-type displacement results are shown in Figs. 26 and 27. The simulated
inclinometer pipe has a fixed point around 9 m (2.5 m above the bottom of the pipe).
Therefore, there is a vertical line section above the bottom of the pipe that does not
move. The displacement of the casing is imposed by the sliding carriages as shown in
Fig. 28. Only one direction of sliding is allowable and is controlled using a screwed
shaft driven by a hand crank. The cantilever-type displacement is achieved by moving

123
650 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 26 Cantilever displacement

in hole SIS-7

Fig. 27 Cumulative
displacement results for
cantilever-type displacement
after a relative slip. The sliding
carriages of No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and
No. 3 are moving gradually
increasing in proportional to
depth with respect to No. 1,
which is fixed. T0 is the initial
value; T1 and T2 are repeated
measurements after the slide

the sliding carriages, gradually increasing in proportion to the depth. This is slightly
different from what was shown by the cantilever-type displacement in hole SIS-7 on
the campus (Fig. 26), which begins to incline immediately above the bottom of the
pipe. However, the maximum displacement and the shape of the curve are largely the
same. As this inflection gradually increases and accumulates with the depth, it does not
show issues of excessive bending and the pipe does not break. The corresponding
vertical inclination angle is approximately 0.91°.
7. Relative sliding (one relative displacement)
In this experiment, a new fixture of adjustable U-bolts, as shown in Figs. 10 and 29,
was installed between the No. 1 and No. 2 sliding carriages. The displacement curves

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 651

Fig. 28 Horizontal displacement

profiles for measurement data
after one relative slide

Fig. 29 Horizontal displacement profiles for improved measurement data after one relative slide

for a depth of 6–7 m now display a significant improvement in terms of inflection, as

shown in Fig. 29. However, between sliding carriage No. 2-2 and sliding carriage No.
3, the harness was not implemented as a part of the fixture; therefore, some bending is

123
652 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

still exhibited due to inertia. After performing the analysis, we plotted graphs of the
relationship between displacement of the sliding carriage and the maximum bending of
the lower inflection point (Fig. 30); errors between actual measurement and
operational displacement (Fig. 31); and the relationship between displacement of
the sliding carriage and the maximum bending of the upper inflection point (Fig. 32).
8. Data on the maximum limit of inclination measurement
In this experiment, a new fixture of adjustable U-bolts, as shown in Figs. 10 and 29,
was installed between the No. 1 and No. 2 sliding carriages. The displacement curves
for a depth of 6–7 m now display a significant improvement in terms of inflection, as
shown in Fig. 29. However, between sliding carriage No. 2-2 and sliding carriage No.
3, the harness was not implemented as a part of the fixture; therefore, some bending is
still exhibited due to inertia. After performing the analysis, we plotted graphs of the
relationship between displacement of the sliding carriage and the maximum bending of
the lower inflection point (Fig. 30); errors between actual measurement and
operational displacement (Fig. 31); and the relationship between displacement of
the sliding carriage and the maximum bending of the upper inflection point (Fig. 32).
In Fig. 30, the horizontal axis is the operational displacement of the sliding carriage
and the vertical axis is the inflection displacement. From the figure, it can be observed
that when the inflection is greater than 0.05 m, the extent of inflection increases
significantly.
From Fig. 31, it can be observed that when the operating displacement is less than
0.05 m, the error is 15 mm/m (i.e., 1.5%), and when it is greater than 0.05 m, the
error is 50 mm/m (i.e., 5%). From Fig. 32, it can be observed that, in terms of
sliding carriage No. 2-2, for every 0.01 m of displacement, the hanging section
between sliding carriage No. 2-2 and sliding carriage No. 3 exhibits a maximum
bending of 0.014 m at the inflection point. In other words, in the upper area there
will be an extra 0.004 m of displacement for inflection point bending. Such a
phenomenon can also be observed inside the actual on-site measuring pipe, as
shown in Figs. 11c and 13b. Above the corresponding sliding point, there is a
small segment with an additional increase of 0.005–0.010 m, in terms of inflection
deformation. Lastly, the horizontal displacement for the simulated inclinometer
pipe gradually increases until the pipe becomes stuck and the instrument is unable
to perform any measurements. The maximum bending limit is then obtained. The
results are detailed in Fig. 33, which shows that the maximum measured
inclination angle is approximately 12°. In other words, between 3 and 4.5 m, the
displacement decreases from 0.3211 to 0.0 m. After conversion, the vertical
inclination angle is approximately 12.03°.

Fig. 30 Relationship between

displacement of the sliding
carriage and the maximum
bending of the lower inflection
point

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 653

Fig. 31 Errors for measurement

and actual operational
displacement

Fig. 32 Relationship between

displacement of the sliding
carriage and the maximum
bending of the upper inflection
point

Fig. 33 Plots of maximum bending limits

9. The effect of torsion in the pipes: Fig. 34 shows the reading errors in the horizontal
displacement for different depths when a new pipe with no displacement has torsion
angles of 15° and 30°. The torque was applied to the top of the pipe and the bottom end
remained fixed. The figure shows a sine curve deflection with inflection in half the
length of the pipe. The upper half and lower half deflect in opposite values. It is
concluded that if a new pipe experiences torsion, the average reading error for
horizontal displacement is 1.13–2.54 mm; after conversion, each degree of torsion can

123
654 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

Fig. 34 Reading errors in the

horizontal displacement for a
new pipe with no displacement
and having torsion angles 15° and
30°

cause 0.075–0.085 mm of reading error in horizontal displacement. Within the range

of torsion that can be exerted using a human hand, the maximum torsion angle of the
pipe is approximately 30°. If the actual consolidated case presented in Table 5 is used,
then the average rotational angle is approximately 12.38°, and after conversion,
relatively speaking, it causes only approximately 1 mm of error in terms of horizontal
displacement.

6 Conclusions and recommendations

In this study, we combined existing inclusive data accumulated by a monitoring system on

a test sloping site at Huafan University. We focused on a comprehensive interpretation of
the displacement relationships for different monitoring instruments. We used data inter-
pretation principles and standards for the monitored data on displacement, categorized
different mechanisms, and performed quantitative analysis and discussion in order to
clarify the significance and interpretations presented by each kind of monitored incli-
nometer casing displacement, in terms of slope sliding. In addition, we used stairwells in a
campus building, set up an inclinometer, and laid out calibration equipment for conducting
an experiment to simulate various configurations and observe patterns for displacement
curves (e.g., empty holes in backfill around the pipe, connection points falling off, pipe
torsion, relative sliding zone reaching an extreme condition and resulting in pipes
becoming stuck, multi-sliding, and different thicknesses in sliding zones). The experiment
helped in creating the essential configurations for setting up the inclinometer and illus-
trating the mechanism of slope displacement and response of behavior, in terms of envi-
ronmental change. The results can be used for instrument calibration and measurement.
The following are the conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the
study:

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 655

1. For the case study, the results of observation of a single shear zone show that, for
sliding along the whole slope site, the thickness of the single shear zone is around 1 m
or less. The average displacement along the shear zone is approximately 0.06 m. The
average vertical inclination angle is between 2.6° and 5.7°. The maximum vertical
inclination angle is between 7.4° and 9°, with an average of around 5°. The total
sliding amount is between 2.3 9 10-2 m and 10 9 10-2 m, with an average of
6.06 9 10-2 m. The shearing displacement, with respect to peak shear strength, in a
direct shear test is about 3 9 10-2 m. It reveals that, for single sliding surface cases,
most of the shear zones have reached their residue strength condition.
2. The displacements of the inclinometer pipes in the bored piles show that they all
experience cantilever-type deformation. The average thickness of the sliding zone is
approximately 20.7 m, while the average sliding displacement is approximately
0.089 m and the average vertical inclination angle is 0.24°.
3. The measurement results for relative multi-sliding for an inclinometer pipe show that
the slope sites on the campus have both shallow and deep sliding surfaces. For the
shallow sliding surface, the depth is approximately 8–11 m. For the deep sliding
surface, the depth is approximately 15–30 m (with an average of 20 m). The thickness
of the sliding zone is between 1 and 2.75 m (with an average of 1.8 m). In terms of the
overall sliding displacement, the average thickness of the sliding zone is approxi-
mately 1.2 m. The accumulated amount of sliding is between 0.02 and 0.09 m (with an
average of 0.064 m). After conversion, the vertical inclination angle of the sliding
zone is between 0.24° and 4.86° (with an average of approximately 2.1°). This means
that the shear strain of the sliding zone is between approximately 4 and 8.5% (with an
average of 3.7%).
4. In the case where pipes with different depths have different values of sliding
displacement and torsion, the statistical results (Table 5) show that the maximum
displacement occurs at -5.1° to ?15°, with an average of approximately ?4.81°. The
total angle of rotation is between 5° and 36°, with an average of approximately 12.38°,
and the angle of rotation per meter is between 0.49° and 6.5°, with an average of
approximately 1.04°.
5. The test results from the simulated displacement experiment for the inclinometer pipe
show the following:
1. In the case where there is no displacement, we used multiple testers’
measurements with repeated initial value on a single-segment inclinometer pipe
and the obtained range of error was between -0.04 and 0.02 mm. This indicates
that under normal circumstances, the measurement error by the inclinometer in the
pipes is extremely small. However, we adopted the principle of measuring the
horizontal displacement of the inclinometer pipe where the bottom of the pipe is
regarded as a fixed point and then gradually superimposed the changes in the
vertical inclination angle, measured every 0.5 m, before we performed a
conversion to find the horizontal displacement. The resulting graph shows that
the closer the distance is to the ground, the greater the amount of error
accumulated.
2. In addition, the couplings can slightly increase the impact of error. For an
inclinometer pipe with a total length of 11.5 m without any special alignment
calibration, under such initial conditions, repeated tests on the initial values were
performed multiple times. The error values exhibit significant changes between

123
656 Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657

2.79 and 0.93 mm. After conversion, the change in the vertical inclination angle is
approximately 0.014° (i.e., approximately 5000 ).
3. After performing an alignment calibration using a theodolite with a fixed
displacement carriage, in the case where there was no displacement, repeated
measurements of the initial values were taken multiple times. The resulting errors
show that between 0.0 and 0.17 mm, the changes are significantly smaller. After
conversion, the change in the vertical inclination angle is approximately 0.00085°
(i.e., around 300 ). This result reveals that controlling the drilling hole as vertical as
possible can minimize the measuring error.
4. The threshold of maximum deviation from the vertical inclination of the
inclinometer casing in the shear zone is 12.19°. Owing to the maximum bending
of the inflection point that occurred in the inclinometer casing, there existed some
errors between measurement and actual displacement. When the displacement is
smaller than 0.05 m, the error is 15 mm/m (approximately 1.5%). When the
displacement is greater than 0.05 m, the error is 50 mm/m (approximately 5%).
5. Since the cantilever deformation accumulates gradually with depth, it is unlikely
to have the problems of over bending or stuck pipes.
6. Within the range of torsion that can be exerted using a human hand, the maximum
torsion angle for the pipe is approximately 30°. In the case for a new pipe with no
displacement, every degree of the angle of torsion will only cause up to
0.075–0.085 mm of error in the horizontal displacement. In Table 5, after actual
consolidation, the average torsion angle for the pipes in our case is approximately
12.38°; thus, after conversion, the relative error that can be caused in the
horizontal displacement is only approximately 1 mm.

References
Cornforth DH (2005) Landslides in practice: investigation, analysis, and remedial/preventative options in
soils. John Wiley, New York
Doo GC (2003) A study on monitoring and interpretation of slope movement. Dissertation, National Yunlin
University of Science and Technology (in Chinese)
Green GE, Mikkelsen PE (1988) Deformation measurements with inclinometers. Transportation Research
Record 1169, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp 1–15
Jeng CJ (2003) Study on slope stability mechanism of Huafan University by using of inclinometer dis-
placement and limiting equilibrium stability analysis. Huafan Annu J 9:115–127 (in Chinese)
Jeng CJ, Chen YC (2013) Investigating the performance of ground anchor through the failure slope disaster
in Taiwan. In: Seventh international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, vol 3.
Chicago, pp 1–10
Jeng CJ, Hsieh TY (2010) Case study on the sliding surface judgment for the monitoring slope. J Huafan Art
Des 6:1–14 (in Chinese)
Jeng CJ, Jiang JR (2013) Serial behavior of colluviums slope from rainfall infiltration to the slope stability
and displacements. J Huafan Art Des 8:17–31 (in Chinese)
Jeng CJ, Li CT (2007) Study on the numerical analysis of the building foundation excavation on the slope.
In: Proceedings of the 13th asian regional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering,
1- II: pp 248–251
Jeng CJ, Lin TA (2011) A case study on the in situ matrix suction monitoring and undisturbed-sample
laboratory test for the unsaturated colluvium slope. Soils Found 51–2:321–331
Jeng CJ, Sue DZ (2016) Characteristics of ground motion and threshold values for colluvium slope dis-
placement induced by heavy rainfall: a case study in northern Taiwan. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
(NHESS) 16:1309–1321

123
Nat Hazards (2017) 87:623–657 657

Jeng CJ, Yang CY (2016) Preliminary results of shearing test and slope stability analysis of the dip-slope
shearing zone. In: Proceedings of the conference of Huafan University, college of arts and design.
D-5:1-10 (in Chinese)
Jeng CJ, Chu BL, Tsao SP, Lin TA (2007) Matrix suction of unsaturated colluvium slope influenced by
rainfall and plant condition: a case of Taiwan Huafan University. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 12(4):689–694
(EI)
Liao RT (1999) Hillside slope protection engineering design. Taiwan Professional Civil Engineering
Association (in Chinese)
Liao HJ, Liao RT (2000) Safety monitoring manual for slope community development. Construction and
Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior (CPAMI), Construction Automation Research Report (in
Chinese)
Machan G, Bennett VG (2008) Use of inclinometers for geotechnical Instrumentation on transportation
projects, state of the practice. Transportation Research Circular, Number E-C129, The National
Academies Press, p 37
Mikkelsen PE, (2003) Advances in inclinometer data analysis. Field measurements in geomechanics. In:
Proceedings of the 6th international symposium, Oslo, Norway
Public Works Research Institute, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd, and Sakata Electric Co., Ltd. (2012) The joint
research report of improving and developing for measurement technology and fact-finding survey on
defective data of inclinometers No. 430 (in Japanese)
Slope indicator (1998) Geotechnical & structural instrumentation. Sinco, Co., Mukilteo, Washington, USA
Slope indicator (2000) Digitilt inclinometer probe. Slope Indicator Co., Mukilteo, Washington, USA

123