KNE773 – Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Project Phase III: Slope Stability Analysis on Lawrence Vale

Landslide

Harf J. Miranda
498296

Professor: Dr. Hong Liu

1. Introduction

Vertical and horizontal structures derive their stability from the soil they are built on. Due to the weight and
additional loads the structure exerts on the soil, the safety of these structures depends on the strength of the
soil to resist failure such as shear and bearing. Since gravity is always the governing force that makes
everything fall to the ground, it is the major factor that would promote mass movement or landslide of soil
on slopes. This would possess potential catastrophic event waiting to happen, especially on a region with
significant population. That is why some critical areas are worth the engineering attention and geotechnical
investigation. Depending on the type of soil, steepness of slope and number of inhabitants in a particular
area would outline its degree of importance for focus of study. In this paper, such focus shall be given to
the Lawrence Vale landslide in Launceston.

2. The Lawrence Vale landslide

Lawrence Vale is located south of Launceston and western side the three-kilometre long NNW-SSE to N-
S Talbot Ridge. It is part of a highly concentrated landslide region around Tamar river (see figure 1) which
can be found at the southernmost part of the river. In this area, the soil composition is made mostly of
Launceston group which are fluvial and lacustrine sediments such as sand, clay and gravel.

Figure 1. Landslide point around Tamar river.

(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au)

The study area has three active landslides as shown in figure 2. In this area, the elevation is ranging from
40 m to 110 m mASL and majority of the slope is ranging from 5 to 25 degrees. It can also be seen from
figure 2.c that the landslide areas are sorrounded by clay units. Alluvium can be found around and at lower
parts of the area. Sattelite view of the area in figure 2.b. shows the affected about 44 residential units in the
areas of landslides represented by the red hatch.
 Figure 2.a. Three active Lawrence Vale landslides as shown in MRT landslide database.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrt_maps)

Figure 2.b. Satellite view of the study area with the three landslides in red hatch and elevation contours
are represented by blue lines.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)
 Figure 2.c. Map showing slope categories in Lawrence Vale, important geological units and the three
landslides.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)

Based on historical reports, landslides where initially triggered after majority of house constructions during
1929 to 1950. According to Carey (1958), the landslides are typically slip circle failures that had moved
retrogressively up-slope and laterally. The movement is impacted by the presence of clay units combined
with groundwater seepage and slope steepness.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) undertook an extensive
diamond drilling program in 1959 which was followed by resistivity (Polak, 1964) and seismic (Wiebenga,
1964) surveys. However, the details of the survey data, particularly drilling components, were not published
in public domain. Nevertheless, copies of some cross-section details are held by Mineral Resources
Tasmania (MRT). The MRT performed its own investigation in 1969 resulting to a conclusion that the slip
was caused by house construction over pre-existing landslide. In addition, heavy rainfall and other ground
water sources permeates water seepage through slip planes via surface cracks.

The three landslides in figure 2.b. are specifically known as Lawrence Vale, Effingham and Powena
landslide. Their properties are summarised in table 1 taken from MRT website. The Lawrence Vale
landslide is the largest in terms of both land surface area and volume, and has steepest failure angle.
Effingham landslide is the next in terms of surface area. But since its depth only ranges up to a quarter of
the other two landslides, its material volume is the fewest.
 Failure Mean surface Mean
Area Depth Volume
Landslide Name Type angle slope aspect
(m2) (m) (m3)
(°) (°) (°)
Lawrence Vale Earth slide 35,737 12 214,422 13 13 288
Effingham Earth slide 12,950 3 19,425 12 12 285
Powena Earth slide 4,652 12 27,912 10.5 9 273
Table 1. Detailed significant properties of three landslides in the Lawrence Vale study area.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)

Based on the size of the head scarp and the tow mound, the Lawrence Vale landslide may have
approximately displaced at least 20 m. Since the Effingham and Powena landslides are smaller, MRT
concludes that their displacements could be much smaller. Using the Cruden and Varnes scale (1996), the
rate of movement is classified as ‘extremely slow’ with less than 15-mm annual movement. Through
evaluation of house damage distribution, it has been concluded that surface deformations such as warping
and faulting has mostly occurred over the area.

3. Geotechnical Model

In order to analyse the stability of the Lawrence Vale landslide, soil profile has been established through
previous studies. There are six types of lithofacies found the area of study categorised as follows:
(a) LF1 – Medium to high plastic clays with banded silt, fine clayey sand and ironstone (dominant
colours greys and reds-streaked appearance) belonging to the Launceston Group.
(b) LF2 – Dominantly clayey sand layers with banded gravel, ironstone, clay, and silt (dominant
colours greys and yellowish brown) belonging to the Launceston Group.
(c) LF3 – Claystone and sandstone with banded coal, silty sand and clay (dominant colours greys and
black) belonging to the Launceston Group.
(d) LF4 – Conglomerate and sandstone with banded claystone (dominant colours greenish grey and
red) belonging to the Launceston Group.
(e) LF5 (Jurassic dolerite) – Weathered and fresh dolerite basement rock.
(f) LF6 – Clay, gravel and sand deposited in an alluvial valley floor setting during the Holocene.

Lithofacies (a) to (d) belong to the Launceston group and are the soils relevant to this study. They are
arranged in order in terms of age where LF1 is the youngest and typically found at the surface. Based on
soil explorations, the Launceston groups have slope ranging between 10 to 20 degrees to the west and noted
that the older strata (LF3 and LF4) have generally steeper slopes. The interface between LF1 and LF2 has
been reported to be more intricate in the Lawrence Vale landslide. Regardless of these vagueness and
complexities, the base of upper clay layer LF1 has been modelled in a geographical information system
(GIS) with the assumption that the surface is relatively simple.

Groundwater seepage has been impactful in many landslides and it has been accounted that Lawrence Vale
landslide has similar factor. Integration of water from heavy rainfall or other sources leads to higher
probability of slip plane failure. Previous studies (Jennings, 1971), (Knights, 1977), (Moore, 1996) have
led to such conclusion that Lawrence Vale landslide is triggered by water infiltration. However, an
improvement on details of the mechanism of failure and geometry of the landslide should be further
established.
 Figure 3.a. Interpretative cross-section based on drill hole data in Lawrence Vale Landslide.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)

In the effort to understand the groundwater in the tudy area, MRT has utilised modern data recorders. The
objective is to identify the hydraulic conductivity and monitor groundwater levels at different time. The
resulting hydropgraphs for obtained from such method are shown in figure 4.a. This is linked to the rainfall
events in the area as shown in figure 4.b and depicts direct correlation.

Figure 4.a. Hydrographs of standing water level in the study area.

(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)
Figure 4.b. Comparison of winter 2005 Launceston rainfall record to hydrograph.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)

Figure 3.b. Modelled extent and depth of upper clay layer (LF1).
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)
After such intricate measurements of in hydraulic conductivity through a series of slug tests and
interpretation of results, a conceptual model has been generated as shown in figure 5.a. In this paper, the
conceptual model produced by MRT is analysed using computer software Slide2. The model created in
Slide2 is shown in figure 5.b and made to scale in reference to figure 3.a.

Figure 5.a. Hydrogeological conceptual model for the western side of Talbot Ridge.
(source: http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc)

Figure 5.b. Stratigraphical model created using Slide2 software.

The properties of lithofacies from MRT was defined in the software – such geotechnical parameters are
summarised in table 2 with their respective colour coding in the software model. The groundwater surface
was defined in accordance to the critical level shown in figure 3.a.

Cohesion Friction Angle Density Colour

Material
(kPa) (degrees) (kN/m3) coding
LF1 2 11 16
LF2 5 34 18
LF3 50 30 20
LF4 50 35 22
LF5 200 40 28
LF6 0 30 20
Table 2. Summary of material properties in study area

The factor of safety of the slope is analysed using Bishop’s method. There were two identified critical slip
planes – one on the upper portion (figure 6.a) and the other at the lower part of the slope (figure 6.b). The
calculated factor of safety in the upper portion is lower than that of lower portion. Based from the software,
the upper portion has a factor of safety of 0.593, while the lower portion has 0.886 which are both lower
than the general required limit of 1.0. It can be noted that the upper portion can be more of rotational
landslide since it has smaller radius and greater curvature. On the lower portion, since it has greater radius
then its curvature is smaller – almost a straight line. This could transpire into a more translational landslide.

In Bishop’s model, the soils above the slip plane are divided into 50 slices. Each slice differs in parameters
such as base length, frictional strength, shear stresses and normal forces but all has the same factor of safety.
A general detail of important parameters in the soil above the slip plane is shown in figure 6.c.

Figure 6.a. Upper critical portion of the slope.

 Figure 6.b. Lower critical portion of the slope.

Figure 6.c. General details of the critical upper portion failure of the slope.
4. Probabilistic and Sensitive Limit Equilibrium Analyses

In order to provide an analytical prediction of the potential landslide, uncertainty analysis is carried out
using the same software. The sampling method used was the Latin-Hypercube and the chosen type of
analyses was global minimum. Statistical data were provided in the software for the strength parameters of
each material. Standard deviation was set to 10% of the mean and relative maximum and minimum were
calculate as thrice the standard deviation value.

After generating the calculation, statistical interpretation is shown in figure 7. The lower portion has a
93.3% probability of failure – a value which almost guarantees failure in the slope.

Figure 7. Interpretation of probabilistic analysis.

In order to understand which strength parameters are more sensitive and highly impact the landslide,
sensitive limit equilibrium was performed. Figure 8 was generated in the software and depicts that the
friction angle highly influences the factor of safety of the slope in LF1. As can be seen, the slope of the
friction angle is larger than the other two parameters. This means that slight changes to the friction angle
will yield relatively significant changes to the factor of safety of the slope. Other lithofacies share the same
trend as shown in figure 8.b.

The critical (minimum) values of these strength parameters may be determined in this analysis by projecting
the relative percent range corresponding to a factor of safety equals to 1.0. It could also be calculated by
performing regression analysis and defining the equation of each linear sensitivity curves.
 Figure 8.a. Sensitivity graph of LF1 strength parameters.

Figure 8.b. Sensitivity graph of all six lithofacies’ strength parameters.

5. Finite Element Analysis

The created model in Slide2 software was replicated to Rocscience Phase2 in order to perform finite element
analysis. Default mesh was used in the model and the pin supports were used in the vertical and bottom
boundaries of the model. The finite element model is shown in figure 9.a. Using this model, porewater
pressure was calculated as shown in figure 9.b. The porewater pressure at the surface is up to 116.67 kPa
with value extending to 1400 kPa at the bottom (LF6).

The mean stress was also generated as shown in figure 9.c. The figure illustrates that the mean stress
distribution is maximum at the bottom of the slope profile. This make sense since it is proportional to
deviatoric stress that is a function of the vertical stress induced by the overburden pressure of the soil. On
the surface where slippage occur, the mean stress ranges from -100 kPa to 365 kPa.

Figure 9.a. Finite element model generated in Rocscience Phase2 software.

Figure 9.b. Porewater pressure distribution in the slope.

 Figure 9.c. Mean stress distribution in the slope

6. Slope Reinforcement Design

Eventual failure of the Lawrence Vale slope is conclusive based on probabilistic analysis and calculated
factor of safety using Bishop’s method. In order to provide engineering preventive measures, one possible
reinforcement design is proposed in this paper with a factor of safety greater than 1.50. The proposed
reinforcement uses soil nails with 500 kN tensile capacity. Two of groups of these are to be installed – one
at the upper and one on the lower critical portion (see figure 10). The first group is consist of 10-m long
soil nails spaced at 2 meters along the slope. In this portion, five soil nails are required per meter width of
the cross-section. The second group consists of 18-m long soil nails spaced at 2 meters along the slope thus
requiring 11 nails per meter width of the cross-section.

With this design, the factor of safety of the slope has significantly increased to 1.635 and the probability of
failure is 0.0%. It can also be noticed that the new slip planes have shifted to a different location with
shallower depth.

Soil nails were considered in this design due to the various advantages it holds. Its construction does not
require larger equipment thus making its installation process less disruptive to residents of the area. It is
also flexible in terms of nail location and inclination. As can be seen from the ground cross-section, the
slope of soil surface is not uniform thus require installation at different angles. Its length could also be
adjusted easily, especially when two nails overlap each other since the design requires the penetration to be
normal to the ground surface in order to counteract active forces theoretically parallel to the surface. Soil
nails are also generally cost effective and economical compared to other options. In addition, it also
performs well during seismic activities.
 Figure 10. Proposed slope reinforcement using soil nails.

7. Conclusions

1. The Lawrence Vale landslide is apparent with probability of failure of 93.3% and factor of safety
well below the minimum of 1.0. The slope failure is highly influenced by the groundwater in the
area.

2. Due to the curvature of the slip planes, the upper portion of the landslide is expected to be rotational
while the lower portion can be translational as shown in figure 6.

3. The upper clay layer (LF1) cannot hold its own on based on its strength parameters and the
inclination of the soil surface which is relatively steep. The friction angle of LF1 is the most
sensitive parameter that contributes to the potential failure of the Lawrence Vale slope.

4. There are two initial critical slip planes identified, both have factors of safety less than 1.0. Bishop’s
simplified method provides good approximation of such factor of safety as evaluated in this paper.

5. The proposed soil nail structures provide efficient option to retain the slope and can significantly
increase the factor of safety above the required 1.50. The design also eliminated the chances of
landslide. However, other structures may be further explored and cost analysis should be performed
in order to optimise the decision-making process.
8. References

[1] Mineral Resources Tasmania, Department of State Growth, accessed 20 Mayl 2019, <
http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au>

[2] Knights, C. J. 1977. Investigation of the Lawrence Vale Landslip. Unpublished Report Department of
Mines Tasmania 1977/53.

[3] Jennings, I. B. 1971. Landslip, Lawrence Vale area, Launceston. Technical Report Department of Mines
Tasmania 14:82–84.

[4] Moore, W. R. 1996. South Launceston seepage investigation. Stage 5. Engineering Geology and
geohydrology of the Talbot Rd reservoirs. Unpublished consultants report to Launceston City Council.