Landslides on Gault: geomorphological identification and

qualitative risk assessment

L.A. Ellis1,*, E. Harrison2 & A.J. Bowden3
1
Coffey Geotechnics, 8/12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West, Sydney, NSW 2066, Australia
2
Atkins Ltd., Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom KT18 5BW, UK
3
Mouchel Parkman Services Ltd., Bridge House, Oyster Lane, Byfleet KT14 7JQ, UK
*Corresponding author (e-mail: lucy_ellis@coffey.com)

Abstract: A geomorphological assessment was undertaken to determine the risk of landslide damage
to 38 km of the M25–M26 motorway underlain by the Gault Formation (a stiff clay to weak mudstone).
Conventional methods for geomorphological mapping using stereoscopic aerial photography were
found to be unhelpful, owing to the low topographic expression of landslips in the study area. In
contrast, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)-generated topographic contour maps proved invaluable,
giving the landscape a pseudo-relief and allowing identification of the subtle landslide features. Relict
(inactive) landslides were found to lack a definable backscarp and were mainly discernible by their
indistinct toe lobes. Two types of active landslides were identified within the study area: slow creep
failures barely distinguishable from relict slides, and rapid slides. A specific list of descriptors for
landslides on Gault is presented based on the results of the geomorphological investigation. Four
factors were found to be of particular importance in governing the potential for landsliding: the presence
of relict slips; slopes of 7° or over; an abundant source of water; and close proximity to the top of the
Gault where extremely high-plasticity Upper Gault crops out. The results of this investigation indicated
that the section of motorway most affected by historical landsliding was also most at risk from future
landslides. The similarity in morphology between active creep-type landslides and relict slides has
implications for landslide management on Gault.

This paper presents the relevant findings of a geo-
morphological study commissioned by the Highways
Agency and undertaken by Mouchel Parkman, assessing
the landslide risk for the 38 km stretch of the M25 and
M26 motorways mainly located on side-long ground
(ground that slopes across the line of the motorway) and
underlain by the Gault Formation in Kent and Surrey,
UK (see Fig. 1). The study area included c. 500 m either
side of the motorway; that is, a 1 km wide corridor
was mapped. This was extended to include pertinent
features, where appropriate.
Since the construction of the M25–M26 in the 1970s
and 1980s, a number of shallow landslides within the
Gault Formation have resulted in damage to Highways
Agency assets. These include the highway pavement,
services, earthworks and structures, as recorded by the
Highways Agency in their Geotechnical Asset Database
(GAD), i.e. damage to the infrastructure, but not involv-
ing motorway users. In this area, continuing landslide
movements and the reactivation of historical failures are
a hazard today. The aim of this study was to determine
the factors that govern slope stability using a geomor-
phological approach and to identify the stretches of the
M25–M26 underlain by the Gault Formation that are
most at risk from future landsliding.
The Gault Formation (henceforth referred to as
‘Gault’) is typically of high to extremely high undrained
shear strength in its fresh state, and can weather to a low
to medium shear strength clay. The Gault within the
study area forms a sloping vale between more resistant
strata: the Chalk Group of the North Downs to the
north and the Hythe, Folkestone and Sandgate beds of

N NORTH DOWNS
Junction 3

25 M26
M
NORTH DOWNS Junction 2a
Titsey
Park JJunction 5
M1
Sevenoaks
M1
1

Flint Hall
Farm SOUTH-EAST M40 M25
M23 M2
M25 ENGLAND
Junction 7
Jun
Junc Westerham M4
Junction 6 Limpsf
Limpsfield
Merstham M3
M2 M2
0
M26
Godstone M27
Oxted
Ox 0 5km
Redhill

Fig. 1. Location map of study area.

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 44, 35–48 1470-9236/11 $15.00  2011 Geological Society of London
DOI 10.1144/1470-9236/08-096
36 L. ELLIS ET AL.

N
Cl
Ck
NORTH DOWNS NORTH DOWNS
Cl 25 M26 J3
M
3

Cl UGS
M2

G J2a
J5 LG Cl
Cl Ck Titsey
Park Ck M1
A' Sevenoaks

M1
1
Flint
Cl Hall G
5 SOUTH-EAST M40
Farm M2 Westerham LG
ENGLAND
M25
UGS GREATER
J7 Cl M4
Limpsfield LONDON
Merstham Cl M3 M25
M2 M2
J6

M23
Cl 0
Cl M26
Godstone M27
LG Oxted
Redhill 0 5km
WC
A

A A'
Cl

Ck

WC LG G UGS

Key
Cl Disturbed Blackheath Beds, Clay-with-Flints or Head G Gault Formation
Ck Chalk LG Lower Greensand
UGS Upper Greensand WC Weald Clay

0 Metres 500 1000

Note: Vertical exaggeration of geological cross-section = 3x
Fig. 2. Simplified geological map of the study area, with representative geological cross-section (based on BGS 1:50,000 Sheets 286
and 287, with permission of the British Geological Survey).

the Lower Greensand Formation, which form a low
ridge to the south (see Fig. 2). A narrow outcrop of
Upper Greensand separates the Gault from the Chalk
between Reigate and Westerham. However, in eastern
Kent, Chalk directly overlies the Gault. Typically a
spring-line is present at the interface between the higher
permeability Chalk and Upper Greensand and the lower
permeability Gault. The Gault outcrop is typically
1–2 km wide (Forster et al. 1995).
The geotechnical properties of Gault are such that it
is prone to slope instability, even on slopes as shallow
as 7( (Forster et al. 1995). This is, in part, due to its
extremely high plasticity and the presence of a spring-
line above (Garrett & Wale 1985). In addition, the upper
layers of the Gault are extensively disturbed by solifluc-
tion and cryoturbation, as a result of periglacial climatic
conditions and processes both during and following the
Devensian and Pleistocene glaciations. These processes,
especially solifluction, created shear surfaces throughout
the upper 6 m or so of the Gault (Garret & Barnes 1984;
Garret & Wale 1985; Newman 1985; Forster et al. 1995;
Hutchinson 2001). Deep-seated shear surfaces have also
been found in the Gault, where erosion of the overlying
Chalk has caused denudational unloading and pressure-
release shearing of the clay (Griffiths et al. 1995). Within
the study area, historical recorded landslides were pre-
dominantly shallow, typically between 3 and 5 m deep
(Mouchel & Partners Ltd. 1991). Landslide surface
extents ranged widely from a few square metres to
several hundred square metres.
The Gault Formation can be subdivided into Upper
and Lower Gault on the basis of mineralogy, which has
an important bearing on geotechnical behaviour. The
Upper Gault is dominated by smectite-rich clays,
whereas in the Lower Gault this mineral is present only
in minor amounts. As a result, the Upper Gault tends to
have an extremely high plasticity index, exhibits signifi-
cant volume change (swell and shrinkage) with moisture
content variation, and has low angles of internal friction
and low residual shear strength. The Lower Gault, with
only minor smectite content, has a lower plasticity index
and is consequently far less susceptible to changes in
moisture content, exhibiting relatively higher angles of
internal friction and residual shear strength (Forster
et al. 1995; Davies et al. 2003). Figure 3 indicates the
relationship between the mineralogy and plasticity index.
Typically, peak shear strength values for Gault range
from an effective cohesion (c#) of up to about 10 kPa in
weathered Gault to over 10 kPa in unweathered Gault.
The effective angle of friction (φ#) ranges between about
 IDENTIFICATION OF LANDSLIDES ON GAULT 37

Harwell BH 3+4
Mineral Composition

-80

Upper Greensand

PL LL Very High to
Extremely High
Plasticity
-100
Sm > I minor Ka Opal-CT

Zeolite
Depth (m.b.g.l.)

Sm > I minor Ka Pyrite

-120 Feldspar

Upper Gault

I + Ka minor Sm
-140
Low to High
Plasticity

Key
Lower Gault
Sm Smectite
I Illite
Ka Kaolinite
Lower Greensand PL Plastic Limit
-160 LL Liquid Limit

0 50 100 150 200

Moisture Content (%)
Fig. 3. Variability in plasticity index within the Gault Formation (after Forster et al. 1995).

20–24( for the higher plasticity Upper Gault and 24–29(
for the lower plasticity Lower Gault. Residual strengths
reduce to a c#r value of close to zero and φ#r of about 7(
for the Upper Gault and 12( for the Lower Gault
(Forster et al. 1995; Davies et al. 2003).
Within the study area, previous investigations have
indicated that the highest values of the plasticity index
occur close to the boundary with the Upper Greensand
(DoE 1976). Peak moisture contents were also observed
in the same region (DoE 1976; Mouchel & Partners Ltd.
1991). This is to be expected owing to the proximity of
the spring-line. The motorway is particularly close to the
escarpment and the Upper Greensand between Junction
7 and Titsey Park (as Fig. 2 indicates). This section is
underlain by the higher plasticity Upper Gault and is
located close to the spring-line. Within this section the
majority of historical landslides have been recorded.
Further to the east, the motorway diverges away from
the escarpment onto the lower plasticity Lower Gault.
Geomorphological analysis
techniques
Mapping of surface expressions of past and present
slope instability is a fundamental element of any land-
slide study (Hutchinson 2001; Phipps 2003; Lee & Jones
2004). Geomorphological mapping of the site was,
therefore, a key component of this assessment. Standard
geomorphological mapping techniques (as discussed by,
for example, Cooke & Doornkamp (1990), Griffiths
(2001), Hutchinson (2001) and Brunsden (2002)) were
used to record the local geology, morphology and
geomorphological processes, as well as to locate histori-
cal (relict) and contemporary (active) landslides. When
combined with the other findings, the maps were then
used to examine the preparatory and trigger factors
involved in these past landslide events. Using the
premise that understanding past events and processes is
the key to prediction of future geomorphological change
38 L. ELLIS ET AL.
(Cooke & Doornkamp 1990), these findings were then
used to predict future slope behaviour.
It was initially intended that the identification and
mapping of existing active and relict landslides would be
carried out primarily by a conventional examination and
analysis of aerial photographs. Given the large study
area (c. 38 km2), detailed field mapping was not consid-
ered cost-effective. The subtle nature and shallow relief
of the landslide topography on the Gault made it
virtually impossible to locate known slips, even when
using good quality stereoscopic pairs, at a scale of
between 1:7500 and 1:10 000 (whichever was available).
As Forster et al. (1995, p. 41) observed: ‘Landslides on
Gault clay are often difficult to classify in detail since
the characteristic topographic features which enable the
type of movement to be identified frequently have
degraded to an indistinct hummocky topography of
coalesced slumps and flows with varying degrees of
weathering’.
This difficulty in landslide identification was com-
pounded by the fact that crop growing or gathering and
ploughing had, in places, caused the partial destruction
of the surface expression of slope instability (Forster
et al. 1995). These problems were clearly evident at sites
of known relict landslides (shown in Fig. 4a). However,
LiDAR-generated topographic contours, when used in
conjunction with orthorectified aerial photographs,
proved to be invaluable for this study. The LiDAR data
revealed subtle landforms most clearly, in particular the
presence of hummocky terrain (illustrated in Fig. 4b and
c), which is the main surface expression of landslides on
Gault (Forster et al. 1995), and the orthorectified aerial
photographs formed a base plan showing the location,
surface features and colour. Many of the identified
features were very difficult to identify during the ground-
truthing phase of the project, even with the LiDAR-
based mapping, emphasizing the subtlety of landslide
features on Gault.
LiDAR uses pulsed light emitted in a swathe, gener-
ally from an aerial laser system mounted beneath an
aircraft (Duffell et al. 2003), or mounted on a tripod
(Rowlands et al. 2003; Jones 2006). The laser pulses are
reflected by the ground surface back to a receiver,
allowing topographic data to be calculated by measuring
the time taken for the pulses to return. For the purposes
of this study, helicopter LiDAR was used to map the
carriageway between fence lines, using a density of 10
points per m2. Over the remainder of the study area, less
detailed LiDAR from a fixed-wing aircraft was used (1
point per m2). The density of data points is dependent
on the number of pulses emitted per second by the laser,
the flying height and speed, the swath width, and the
scanning pattern. The accuracy of the LiDAR data used
for this study has been assessed to be 150 mm r.m.s.e.
(root mean square error), considerably less than the
contour spacing of 0.25 m. The high resolution of
LiDAR data makes LiDAR invaluable as a tool for
identifying subtle ground features (Rowlands et al. 2003;
McKean & Roering 2004).
Maps were generated with contours at 5, 1, 0.50 and
0.25 m intervals. A viewing program, UKP GeoViewer
1.0, was used to examine these topographic maps,
overlain onto the corresponding orthorectified aerial
photographs. Other geospatial data processing software
is also commercially available. Some of this software can
be used to generate digital elevation models from the
LiDAR data, which can then be shaded to enhance the
topography. This is a very effective way of viewing
low-relief features. However, this software was not avail-
able to us during this study. The 1 and 0.25 m contours
proved to be the most useful: the 1 m contours were used
to create panels small enough in size for GeoViewer to
manage without significant loss of processing speed (Fig.
4b) and the 0.25 m contours were then brought into each
panel in turn to observe the detailed morphology (Fig.
4c). The 0.25 m contours were sufficiently close that they
produced a shading effect, giving the landscape of the
study area a pseudo-relief. This simple method permit-
ted recognition of subtle landslide features, in particular
the presence of hummocky terrain and distinct toe lobes
(illustrated in Fig. 4). Areas of probable and possible
slope instability and landsliding were marked on the
geomorphological maps (shown in Fig. 4d). Figure 5
shows an area of hummocky morphology with a prelimi-
nary interpretation of the toe lobes of small relict slides
clustering around the foot of the steep Chalk escarp-
ment. Figure 5 demonstrates the shading effect of 0.25 m
contours.
The LiDAR data had been processed to remove
vegetation and other artefacts. However, this was only
partially successful. In some cases local distortion
occurred in areas where fields had been ploughed or
there was impenetrable vegetation, such as dense bushes
or trees. These circumstances created an unrepresenta-
tive image of the landscape surface (shown in Fig. 6).
However, these areas were easy to distinguish and
measures could thus be taken to interpret them accord-
ingly. It was also noted that waterlogging of land
occasionally gave the appearance of lobate features on
the aerial photographs. The LiDAR-generated contours
could easily be used to determine if there was any
corresponding topographic expression in these areas.
Processing algorithms have now improved and this
factor does not tend to pose such a problem when using
more recently developed software.
Landslide identification on Gault
Relevant recent publications regarding geomorphologi-
cal mapping and identification of landslides were
reviewed for this study, most notably those by Cooke &
Doornkamp (1990), Jones & Lee (1994), Forster et al.
(1995), Cruden & Varnes (1996), Dikau et al. (1996),
 IDENTIFICATION OF LANDSLIDES ON GAULT 39

N N

(a) (b)

M25

Key

N Earthworks Geology N
Buildings Gault Formation
Minor Roads Upper Greensand

(c) (d) 0 Metres 100 200 300

Fig. 4. Example of LiDAR-generated imagery, relict landslide SE of Flower Lane. (a) Orthorectified aerial photograph, overlain by:
(b) contour spacing of 1 m; (c) contour spacing of 0.25 m; (d) geomorphological map of relict landslide, S04-R, also showing
hummocky ground, toe lobes and position as recorded by earlier studies (H4, H9 and H14).
40 L. ELLIS ET AL.

.H\ 1
3UHOLPLQDU\LQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI
LQGLVWLQFWUHOLFWVOLSWRHOREHV
,QGLFDWLYHVORSHGLUHFWLRQ
 0HWUHV  

)OLQW+DOO
)DUP

0RWRUZD\

0 &XWWLQJ

Fig. 5. LiDAR imagery showing hummocky terrain of relict slip, west of Flint Hall Farm.

Birch (2001), Lee & Jones (2004) and Griffiths (2005).
These papers provided the basis for a generic list of
landslide descriptors, as summarized in Table 1. The
importance of distinguishing active from inactive land-
slides is emphasized, especially for future management
purposes (Cooke & Doornkamp 1990; Cruden & Varnes
1996; Griffiths 2005). Active landslides are those that
have shown recent movement and that are also expected
to show further movement in the near future. In general,
the sharp, distinct morphological features typical of
active landslides, such as a well-defined backscarp and
toe lobe, are modified over time by weathering and
erosion. As a result, inactive (relict) landslides have
more subdued, rounded morphological features.
A total of 13 landslides were identified by the desk-
based geomorphological mapping, including one active
and 12 relict. All features were confirmed during walk-
over surveys. The vast majority of landslides identified
(both active and relict) were clustered along a 6 km
section of the motorway between Junction 6 of the M25
and Titsey Park (see Fig. 1 for location). The generic
landslide features summarized in Table 1 (left-hand
column) were not entirely consistent with the landslide
features seen within the study area during this investi-
gation. Thus, to provide a more representative sum-
mary, the generic landslide descriptors were amended to
provide a specific description of characteristic landslide
morphology on Gault (given in Table 1, right-hand
column).
Within the study area, inactive or relict landslides
typically lacked a definable backscarp and could be
identified only by their indistinct toe lobes: both major,
at the base of the slide; and minor, hummocky topogra-
phy within the body of the slide. All relict landslides
observed in the study area were assumed to be relict
extremely slow creep failures, as rapid slides had been
remediated previously.
Only one active landslide was observed during the
study, the features of which were barely distinguishable
from the observed relict slides. This active landslide is of
a creep-movement type, moving extremely slowly (using
definitions from Cooke & Doornkamp (1990), Cruden &
 IDENTIFICATION OF LANDSLIDES ON GAULT
(a)
0 Metres 50 100
Fig. 6. Examples of problems associated with LiDAR-generated imagery: (a) contours distorted by agricultural activity, west of
Wrotham; (b) contours distorted by dense vegetation on earthworks, Clacket Lane Services.
Varnes (1996), Dikau et al. (1996) and Griffiths (2005)),
with movements of the order of 10 mm over 6 months.
Creep landslides are defined as flows, as the slide moves
as a plastic deformable mass. This mechanism results in
a very indistinct backscarp and minor scarps (frequently
only shallow surface depressions) and indistinct toe
lobes (forming hummocky ground). At the time of
inspection, the only visible morphological expression of
the active landslide was the indistinct toe lobes. There is
a possibility that other features classified as relict in this
study are moving imperceptibly. This landslide could be
classified as active with any degree of confidence only
because inclinometer monitoring is indicating continu-
ing subsurface movement. This highlights the difficulty
of classifying landslide activity in the Gault.
However, rapid, slide-type failures can also occur
within the Gault of the study area (again using defini-
tions from Cooke & Doornkamp (1990), Cruden &
Varnes (1996), Dikau et al. (1996) and Griffiths (2005)).
A failure of this type, close to Flint Hall Farm, was
triggered by prolonged heavy rain in December 2000
(Davies et al. 2003; Phipps 2003). This landslide caused
heave of the hard shoulder of the anti-clockwise car-
riageway of the M25. The slide was largely translational,
41
N
(b)
with rotational elements at the head (Davies et al. 2003;
Phipps 2003). It is possible that this type of failure
represents an acceleration of the naturally occurring
creep-type landslides, with periods of little or no activity
interrupted by rapid movement. Artificial destabiliza-
tion of slopes, such as through the construction of
cuttings at the slope toe, has historically contributed to
this type of failure.
An example of an active rapid slide within the study
area is shown in Figure 7 (exact location not recorded,
but probably the December 2000 landslide, defined as
H1 during this study). This example displays the typical
features of an active landslide, including a distinct
backscarp and well-defined toe lobe, with a hummocky
main body. However, this description is based only on
the historical photograph shown and this type of land-
slide was not directly observed during this investigation.
The morphological expression of rapid slides within the
study area is not generally long-lasting, as rapid re-
mediation is necessary to avoid further damage to assets.
Hence, there were no active or relict landslides of this
type recorded during this study.
The difficulty in distinguishing active creep-type land-
slides from relict landslides on Gault has significant
42 L. ELLIS ET AL.

Table 1. Comparison between generic landslide descriptors and specific descriptors for landslides on Gault

Generic landslide descriptors Descriptors for landslides on Gault

(after Cooke & Doornkamp 1990; Jones & Lee 1994; Forster (from results of this investigation)
et al. 1995; Cruden & Varnes 1996; Birch 2001; Griffiths 2005)

Active landslides
Arcuate main backscarp, with fresh shear surface, sharp edges Rapid slide landslides (generally artificially destabilized) have:
and secondary movement
Tension cracks with little or no secondary infilling Distinct major backscarp, with exposed bare rock or soil, often
with multiple minor scarplets within the body of the slip
Water ponded in depressions on slip surface owing to Tension cracks associated with the backscarps
disrupted drainage
Hummocky ground surface, with ridges, benches, minor Distinct steeper toe lobe, often with multiple minor lobes
scarplets and hollows arranged roughly as a staircase within the body of the slip
Tilted trees with no new vertical growth Extremely slow creep landslides (generally naturally occurring)
have:
Disturbed field boundaries Less obvious, generally non-existent, major and minor
backscarps, without tension cracks
Vegetation differences on and off slip surface Hummocky slip topography, often owing to minor slumps
within the body of the slip
Distinct toe lobe of accumulated failure material Soil creep causing small-scale hummocking and minor
terracing
All features are vegetated, with no bare rock or soil
Features are virtually indistinguishable from relict landslide
features; monitoring is required to assess if movement is
continuing
Both types result in:
Ground surface disturbances, such as leaning trees and
disturbed fencelines, the amount depending on the rate of
movement
Relict landslides
Rounding of backscarp edge and tension crack edges owing to Indistinct toe lobes, both major, for the entire slip, and minor,
weathering within the body of the slip. An arcuate toe lobe was often
the main distinguishing feature of the identified relict slips
Secondary infilling of tension cracks Less obvious, generally non-existent, major and minor
backscarps
Tilted trees with vertical growth above inclined trunk Hummocky slip topography, owing to minor toe lobes within
the slip body
Indistinct hummocky topography of coalesced slumps and All features are vegetated, with no bare rock or soil
flows
Homogeneous and slow-growing vegetation

Arcuate
Backscarp

Hummocky
Ground Surface

Distinct
M25 Fenceline Distorted by
Toe Lobe

Ground Movement
at Landslide Toe
Note: Date of photograph unknown but scanned from 1991 report. 0 Metres 25 50
Although poor quality, this is the only known rapid slide-type
landslide example within the study area.

Fig. 7. Historical aerial photograph of active landslide near Flint Hall Farm (after Mouchel & Partners Ltd. 1991).
 IDENTIFICATION OF LANDSLIDES ON GAULT
implications for determining appropriate management
strategies. Movement within active slides can be inter-
mittent. Destabilizing factors, such as heavy rainfall or
toe excavation (e.g. cutting construction) may trigger
movement of previously imperceptibly creeping land-
slides, and possibly even relict landslides. This move-
ment can range from extremely slow creep to rapid,
visible failure, depending on the degree of destabiliza-
tion. However, to conclusively determine whether a
creep-type landslide in Gault is active, monitoring may,
in many cases, be necessary. Where landslides, whether
active or relict, are located in close proximity to physical
assets, continuous inclinometer monitoring is recom-
mended as part of any risk management strategy.
Factors governing slope stability on
Gault
Information on a range of factors either thought to
influence landsliding (such as slope gradients and drain-
age conditions) or that provide an indication of slope
stability (such as slope monitoring data and motorway
earthworks inspection records) was gathered for the
38 km section of motorway within the study area. These
landslide hazard factors (F1–F15) and the rationale
behind their choice are summarized in Table 2. The most
suitable method of assessing the relative contribution of
the various hazard factors was considered to be a bar
chart summary. Highways are linear structures and
therefore lend themselves to this form of 1D simplifica-
tion. This style of presentation is also familiar to high-
ways engineers. The presence of each hazard factor at
any given location on the geomorphological map was
shown within the corresponding bar beneath the site
map, with a descriptor if applicable (shown in sample
map extract, Fig. 8).
Analysis of the bar chart in conjunction with the
results of the geomorphological mapping indicated that
four hazard factors had the most significant influence on
the occurrence and magnitude of landslides in Gault.
Landslides were found to occur predominantly where
there was a combination of some, or all, of the follow-
ing: (1) where landslides had previously been recorded
(Factors F2–F4); (2) where natural slopes in Gault are
7( or more (Factor F5); (3) close to spring-lines or
streams (Factor F6); (4) close to the boundary between
the top of the Gault and the Upper Greensand or Chalk,
where Upper Gault with an extremely high plasticity
index is present (Factor F8).
The most significant landsliding was recorded where
all four factors were in operation. These key factors were
prevalent along the 6 km section of the M25 between
Junction 6 and Titsey Park (see Fig. 1 for location),
where, as mentioned above, the majority of historical
landslides were recorded.
43
Qualitative risk assessment
A qualitative risk assessment was undertaken to identify
sections of the motorways most likely to be damaged by
landsliding. After reviewing standard approaches to
landslide risk assessment, as discussed in detail by Lee
& Jones (2004) and Australian Geomechanics Society
(2000, 2007), it was decided that a quantitative risk
assessment would prove too time consuming and costly
within the scope of the project. The large study area
(c. 38 km2) required a simplified approach and therefore
the project adopted a qualitative risk assessment
approach. The method used is not described in detail
here, although the general approach is outlined below
and summarized in Figure 9 and Tables 3 and 4.
The hazard factors were used to determine the worst
possible scenario, or potential maximum consequence,
expressed as a maximum consequence index, ranging
from one (negligible damage to Highways Agency infra-
structure) to four (severe damage to Highways Agency
infrastructure). The potential maximum consequence
was assessed to be proportional to the likely severity of
future landslides: the greater the potential magnitude of
the slip, the greater the potential for damage to the
motorway. This approach assumes that the location of
the landslide along the length of motorway does not
influence the potential consequences, a reasonable
assumption in this case, given that the construction and
conditions adjacent to the motorways were fairly homo-
geneous within the study area. Only hazard factors that
are likely to affect the magnitude of a landslide and their
proximity to the motorway were used to determine the
maximum consequence index value.
The probability of occurrence of new landslides was
determined by assigning a probability index, ranging
from A (unlikely) to D (almost certain), based on the
frequency of factors that indicated areas that were
potentially more unstable (see Fig. 9). This assessment
could only be subjective, as a statistical analysis of the
precursors to active landsliding was not feasible owing
to the lack of appropriate historical data and active
landslides in the area.
The maximum consequence and probability indices
were then combined to give a risk level (see Tables 3 and
4). These values were plotted on the bar chart beneath
the site map, to show the risk of landsliding at any given
location along the length of the motorway (see Fig. 8).
This simple approach allowed subsequent, more detailed
investigations (possibly including quantitative risk
assessments) to focus on the high-risk areas identified in
this investigation.
The findings of the qualitative risk assessment indi-
cated that the sections of the motorway that were found
to have the highest risk of damage owing to future
instability were predominantly coincident with areas of
relict landsides in close proximity to the motorway. Risk
levels were found to be less severe where earthworks’
44
Table 2. Landslide hazard factors on Gault
Hazard factor
Motorway earthworks
Natural factors contributing to
slope instability (2005 recorded
condition)
Landslide crossing motorway
Landslide upslope (north)
Landslide downslope (south)
Slope angle
Natural drainage
Geology: lithology
Geology: surface distance to
upper boundary of Gault
Other evidence of slope
instability
Indirect evidence of slope
instability
GAD2 records of earthworks’
instability
L. ELLIS ET AL.
Ref. Description Assessment criteria1
F1 The construction of the motorway has a significant Presence of cuttings or
influence on the stability of the adjacent natural embankments,
slopes. Earthworks may cut through already unstable particularly if
areas or may cause toe unloading and over- over-steepened
steepening. Failure in earthworks is more likely if they
are over-steepened (Perry 1989)
F2 Where the motorway cuts through existing landslides, Present?
there is a possibility of reactivation, especially on the
upslope side
F3 Existing landslides close to the upslope (north) side of Present?
motorway have the potential to become reactivated,
creating obvious concerns if they are close enough to
the motorway to cause damage or encroach onto the
motorway
F4 Landslides downslope (south) of the motorway are of Present?
potential concern because, if reactivated, they may
initiate retrogressive instability further upslope, which
may impinge on the motorway
F5 A limiting angle of stability of 7( was noted for Gault 7( or over?
(Forster et al. 1995). The identification of steeper
slopes is thus significant in determining likely failure
areas. This factor excludes earthworks
F6 Gault is susceptible to swelling and softening as the Present?
moisture content increases. Saturation levels were
found to be the triggering factor causing failure.
Levels vary significantly as a result of single
precipitation events (in perched water tables),
seasonally (in main water table) and through
long-term aquifer fluctuations (Garret & Wale 1985).
Identification of water sources or other drainage
features that augment groundwater conditions is thus
appropriate
F7 The M25–M26 study area is predominantly underlain by Motorway located on
Gault. However, localized areas of Head, Alluvium Gault or Head
and River Terrace Gravels are encountered. Gault Deposits?
and Head derived from Gault are considered
susceptible to instability (Newman 1985; Forster et al.
1995). The Alluvium and River Terrace Gravels are
more granular in nature and are therefore less
susceptible to slope instability
F8 Geotechnical investigations of Gault have shown that Within 300 m of top of
plasticity and moisture content are at a maximum in Gault (surface, not
Upper Gault, close to boundary with Upper depth)?
Greensand (DoE 1976; Mouchel & Partners Ltd.
1991; Forster et al. 1995). These decrease with depth,
down the stratigraphic sequence away from the Upper
Greensand. Landsliding and slope instability are thus
more likely to occur close to the Upper Greensand.
Also, a spring-line exists at the interface between the
Gault and Upper Greensand, providing a potential
groundwater source
F9 Factors such as soil creep, hummocky ground and Present?
leaning trees are all indicators of slope instability
(Birch 2001). Thus, areas where these features are
observed have a higher probability of landsliding
F10 Records of earthworks’ defects that indicate potential 1A–1D present? 1A more
slope instability, such as motorway cracking, soil significant
creep and leaning trees
 IDENTIFICATION OF LANDSLIDES ON GAULT 45

Hazard factor Ref. Description Assessment criteria1

Pavement subsidence repairs
Culvert cracking
Records of previous landslides
Landslides recorded in previous
studies
Large-scale remedial works
Continuing landslide movement
monitoring
1
The assessment criteria column indicates the conditions that, if present, are a contributing factor to landslide hazard. 2GAD Records are Highways
Agency Geotechnical Asset Database records of earthworks’ instability and distress, in accordance with HD41/03 (Highways Agency 2003).
F11 These records indicate sections of the motorway that Present?
have required patching owing to subsidence, indicat-
ing sites of potential instability
F12 Cracked culverts may indicate sites of potential instabil- Significant cracking
ity recorded?
F13 The position and character of landslides that have Present?
occurred in the past are important indicators of the
possibility of future slope instability. These historical
landslides records should be treated with some cau-
tion, as inconsistencies occur in the records
F14 Past landslides have necessitated large-scale remedial Present, no evidence of
works in some areas to maintain a satisfactory degree further movement indi-
of future stability, reducing future landslide hazards. cating hazard mitigation
Without remediation, these sites would have a high and risk reduction
potential for landsliding. Smaller remedial works have
not been recorded with any degree of consistency and
could not be summarized here
F15 Areas that are currently being monitored for potential See F14
instability are shown in order to highlight known
locations of continuing landslide movement or where
stabilization has been achieved

failure alone was likely. However, the presence of earth-
works cutting into slopes in areas with relict slips
increased the level of risk.
Historical landslides in Gault that have previously
affected the M25–M26 motorways have occurred only
between Junction 6 and Titsey Park, where Upper Gault
with a extremely high plasticity index crops out on
relatively steep-angled slopes close to the motorway. The
sections of motorway identified by this investigation as
being at the highest risk from future landsliding are also
within this problematic area. The only exception to this
is at the location of the 2000 Flint Hall Farm landslide,
where remediation has lowered the likelihood of future
failure (Davies et al. 2003). Although relict landslides
were identified along other sections of the study area, the
risk of reactivation was significantly lower, owing to the
absence of other hazard factors, with minimal damage if
reactivation were to occur.
Conclusions
The geomorphological assessment proved a valuable
method of determining the risk of landsliding along the
stretch of M25–M26 underlain by Gault. The key find-
ings of this study are summarized as follows.
(1) Conventional analysis of stereoscopic aerial pho-
tography, at a scale of between 1:7500 and
1:10 000, proved limited for the purposes of geo-
morphological mapping and identification of
active and relict landslides on Gault.
(2) A far more effective method of landslide identifi-
cation proved to be the analysis of LiDAR-
generated topographic maps, with 0.25 m contours
superimposed onto orthorectified aerial photo-
graphs. The closely-spaced contours produced a
pseudo-relief effect, with distinct shading, which
allowed identification of the subtle features charac-
teristic of landslides on Gault. More recent devel-
opments in spatial data processing software have
produced even more effective visualization tools
for low-relief landforms.
(3) Two types of active landslide were identified on
Gault: rapid and creep-type. Rapidly moving
slides were generally triggered by artificial destabi-
lization, such as through removal of material
during cutting construction. Very slow creep-type
and relict failures were found to exhibit a specific
morphology, requiring modification of more
generic landslide descriptors. Both relict and active
creep-type landslides can lack a definable back-
scarp and were mainly discernible by their indis-
tinct toe lobes. The lack of distinction between
active and relict landslide morphology has signifi-
cant implications for those managing landslide risk
in Gault, possibly requiring monitoring to deter-
mine the status of the slide.
(4) Four key hazard factors were found to be most
important in governing the potential for landslid-
ing in Gault, in particular: (a) the presence of relict
landslides; (b) natural slopes of 7( or greater; (c)
a source of water: either at a spring-line or streams
or rivers; (d) proximity to the boundary of the top
of the Gault, where Upper Gault with an
extremely high plasticity index crops out.
46 L. ELLIS ET AL.

Ck
Ck

B
UGS

Ck

UGS

UGS

F F

Ck B

UGS F

Base mapping: Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. Geological mapping: Interpreted from BGS 1:50,000 Sheets 286 and 287, with permission of the British Geological Survey

Fig. 8. Geomorphological mapping extract showing bar chart hazard and risk assessment (reproduced here in black and white from
an original colour drawing).
 IDENTIFICATION OF LANDSLIDES ON GAULT 47

Maximum Consequence Index Probability Index

NEGLIGIBLE

UNLIKELY
Natural factors Evidence of Landslide Ground

DAMAGE*
Earthworks + contributing to + previous Trigger + Movement
1= slope instability instability A=
F1 OR F5 OR F6 OR F8 + F9-F12
F1 + F2-F9 + F13
Landslide Ground
Natural factors Evidence of Trigger + Movement
+

DAMAGE*
( ) ( )
+ i.

LIMITED
Earthworks contributing to previous

CONCIEVABLE
OR slope instability instability
2= F1 + F5 OR F6 + F8 + F9-F12*
F1 + F2-F9 + F13 B
OR OR
*F10 NOT 1A or 1A(F)
OR
Remedial Landslide
Measures + Monitoring

MODERATE
Large, over- Natural factors

DAMAGE*
steepened OR contributing to (+) Landsliding ii.
3= earthworks slope instability F14 + F15* *F15=No movement recorded

F1 OR F2-F9 + F2-F4
(+) F13 OR Landslide Ground
Trigger + Movement

( ) ( )
i.
F1 + F5 OR F6 OR F8 + F9-F12*
4 = Deterioration of SEVERE DAMAGE*
*F10 NOT 1A or 1A(F)
3 Landslide Ground

LIKELY
Trigger Movement

( ) ( )
* Damage to Highways Agency infrastructure
C ii.
F1 + F5 OR F6 + F8 + F9-F12*
OR OR
*F10 NOT 1A or 1A(F)
Remedial Landslide
Risk Level Measures + Monitoring
Matrix iii.
KEY
(see Table 3) F14 + F15
F1 Factor Present
Landslide
+
Ground + Landslide
F2-F9 Only a Few Factors Recorded Trigger Movement OR Monitoring

( ) ( )
i.
RISK LEVEL + + +
F1 Factor Absent (see Table 4) F1 OR
F5 OR F6 OR
F8 + F9-F12 OR F15
D
(+) Generally (but not Necessarily)
Ground
Movement
ii. ALMOST
F10* *F10=1A or 1A(F) CERTAIN

Fig. 9. Flow chart summarizing qualitative risk assessment method (after Lee & Jones 2004; Australian Geomechanics Society
2007).

Table 3. Risk level matrix (after Lee & Jones 2004; Australian Table 4. Risk level descriptions and recommended actions (after
Geomechanics Society 2000, 2007) Lee & Jones 2004; Australian Geomechanics Society 2000,
2007)
Consequence index Probability index
Risk level Description Recommended action
A B C D
1 N N A H N Negligible No action required.
2 N A H H Re-inspections on a
3 N A H S medium- or long-term
4 A H S S (bi-decadal) basis
A Acceptable Remedial action not
required. Re-inspections
(5) The qualitative risk assessment indicated that the on a short-term (1–2 year)
basis
section of motorway most affected by historical H High Further investigation
landsliding was also most at risk from future required. Depending on
landslides. The section between Junction 6 and the findings of these
Titsey Park (especially close to Flint Hall Farm) studies, low-intensity
was at severe risk owing to the presence of key monitoring, or remedial or
preventative action may be
hazards close to the M25, except where stabiliza- required
tion measures had already been implemented. S Severe Detailed investigation and
This study was specifically concerned with landsliding research required.
in Gault. However, the relatively simple assessment Monitoring must be
techniques, especially the use of LiDAR-generated topo- undertaken. Preventative
or remedial action
graphic contour maps, are readily applicable to other required
environments, particularly in areas of low relief.
48 L. ELLIS ET AL.
Acknowledgements. The Highways Agency and Mouchel Park-
man Services Ltd are thanked for giving permission to publish
this paper. Ove Arup, which is researching the use of LiDAR
in highway maintenance, is thanked for assistance with the
supply and manipulation of the LiDAR images.
References
A G S 2000. Landslide risk
management concepts and guidelines. Australian Geo-
mechanics, 35, 49–92.
A G S 2007. Practice note
guidelines for landslide risk management 2007. Australian
Geomechanics, 42, 63–114.
B, G.P. 2001. Mapping high pressure gas pipelines in
South Wales. In: G, J.S. (ed.) Land Surface
Evaluation for Engineering Practice. Geological Society,
London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 18,
73–82.
B, D. 2002. Geomorphological roulette for engineers
and planners: some insights into an old game. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 35,
101–142.
C, R.U. & D, J.C. 1990. Geomorphology in
Environmental Management, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
C, D.M. & V, D.J. 1996. Landslide types and
processes. In: T, A.K. & S, R.L. (eds)
Landslides Investigation and Mitigation. Transportation
Research Board Special Report, 247, 36–75.
D, J.P., L, F.A., P, J., P, D. &
C, D. 2003. Stabilization of a landslide on the M25
highway, London’s main artery. World Wide Web
Address: www.hatch.ca/Infrastructure/Stabilization_of_
a_Landslide.pdf.
D, R., B, D., S, L. & I, M.L. (eds)
1996. Landslide Recognition. Report No. 1 of the Euro-
pean Commission Environment Programme Contract No.
EV5V-Ct94-0454. Wiley, Chichester.
DE 1976. M25 South Orbital Motorway, Godstone to West-
erham, Soil and Materials Engineer’s Report. Department
of the Environment, South East Road Construction Unit,
Soils and Materials Group Report, 7/76.
D, C., R, D.M. & W, M.R. 2003. Earth-
works asset assessment using remote sensing. In: Railway
Engineering, 5th International Conference, London, July
2003.
F, A.H, P.R.N.  . 1995. Engineering geology of
British rocks and soils: Gault Clay. British Geological
Survey, Engineering Geology and Geophysics Group,
Technical Report, WN/94/3.
Received 7 October 2008; accepted 13 March 2010.
G, C. & B, S.J. 1984. The design and performance
of the Dunton Green retaining wall. Géotechnique, 34,
533–548.
G, C. & W, J.H. 1985. Performance of embankments
and cuttings in Gault Clay in Kent. In: Failures in
Earthworks, Proceedings of the Symposium of Failures
in Earthworks, Institution of Civil Engineers. Thomas
Telford, London.
G, J.S. (ed.) 2001. Land Surface Evaluation for Engi-
neering Practice. Geological Society, London, Engineer-
ing Geology Special Publications, 18.
G, J.S. 2005. Landslides. In: F, P.G, L, E.M.
& M, G. (eds) Geomorphology for Engineers.
Whittles, Caithness, 173–217.
G, J.S, B, D., L, E.M. & J, D.K.C.
1995. Geomorphological investigations for the Channel
Tunnel terminal and portal. Geographical Journal, 161,
275–284.
H A 2003. Maintenance of highway geotechni-
cal assets. In: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol.
4, Section 1, Part 3, HD41/03. Highways Agency,
London.
H, J.N. 2001. Reading the ground: morphology and
geology in site appraisal. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology and Hydrogeology, 34, 7–50.
J, D.K.C. & L, E.M. 1994. Landsliding in Great Britain.
HMSO, London.
J, L.D. 2006. Monitoring landslides in hazardous terrain
using terrestrial LiDAR: an example from Montserrat.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeo-
logy, 39, 371–373.
L, E.M. & J, D.K.C. 2004. Landslide Risk Assessment.
Thomas Telford, London.
MK, J. & R, J. 2004. Objective landslide detection
and surface morphology mapping using high-resolution
airborne laser altimetry. Geomorphology, 57, 331–351.
M & P L. 1991. M25 Improvements between
Junction 2 and Junction 8, Geotechnical desk study. High-
ways Agency Report, 27153G/001/C.
N, R.L. 1985. Geological and geotechnical considera-
tions associated with some sections of the M25 construc-
tion. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
Hydrogeology, 18, 149–160.
P, J. 1989. A survey of slope construction on motorway
earthworks in England and Wales. Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, Research Report, 199.
P, P.J. 2003. Geomorphological assessments for transport
infrastructure projects. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Transport, 156, 131–143.
R, K.A., J, L.D. & W, M. 2003.
Landslide laser scanning: a new look at an old problem.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeo-
logy, 36, 155–157.