The treatment of landslides
Instn
E. N. Bromhead, B S c , M S c , P h D , D I C , C E n g , M I C E , F G S
j To most civil engineers, a paper on the
subject of ‘The treatment of landslides’
would conjure up a catalogue of stabilization
systems. However, the size and scope of
slope instability problems lead to a variety of
responses, by no means all of which can be
seen as stabilization. In some cases, the
problem is too large to be addressed
economically, if at all, by engineering works;
in others, it is better avoided rather than
met head on. In this paper, the broad
spectrum of responses to slope instability
phenomena is discussed, and the resulting
approaches are put into a simple, logical,
philosophical framework. Where stabiliza-
tion is necessary, there are a variety of
means by which it can be done. A brief
overview of the range of stabilization options
is given, with an emphasis on identifying
those stabilization options which give rise to
an ongoing maintenance commitment in
contrast to those that provide a once and for
all solution. A comprehensive review is not
intended. The paper is illustrated with
reference to a number of case examples
drawn from the literature, both in the UK
and abroad.
Introduction
There are a number of potentially damaging
natural phenomena which are termed ‘geo-
hazards’ and slope instability is one of these.
Engineers often speak loosely of landslides,
when the mechanics of movement may not be
principally sliding, but may be any one of the
manifestations of slope instability. Geohazards
may operate over a range of time-scales, and
several aspects of their time-scales are impor-
tant. For instance, the rate of onset may affect
the way people are able to respond, and whether
or not early warning systems are of use. Land-
slides normally give a range of warnings, in-
cluding ground cracking and deformation, and
possibly noises. The geohazard may be of
variable duration. Large landslides in mountain-
ous areas tend to move quickly, and then come
to rest, but some landslides may continue to
move for decades. Finally, there may be a period
of variable length in which the geohazard is
inactive following which movements recur. This
is a return period. Landslides with return periods
of a year or less may well be thought of as
continuous. Slope instability tends to be less life-
threatening than economically damaging be-
cause there is usually clear development of
premonitory signs, and people can escape. This
Proc.
Civ. Engrs
Geotech. Engng,
1997, 125, Apr.,
85–96
Paper 11037
is especially the case in southern Britain, where Written discussion
in the main, slopes are low-angled as a con- closes 16 June 1997
sequence of their geology and geological history
(thus causing the onset of movement to be Manuscript received
slow), but are composed of weak rocks highly 19 October 1995; revised
susceptible to mass movements under present manuscript accepted
climatic conditions (so that instability is com- 28 May 1996
monplace). Slow-onset mass movements com-
monly damage the infrastructure, engineering
works under construction, residential areas, etc.,
from which vulnerable people have withdrawn.
However, even a slow-onset mass movement may
cause collapse of dwellings with the burial of
occupants, or the unexpected disruption of roads
or bridges leading to transport accidents, posing
some risk to life. Humans are most at risk from
fast-onset mass movements, for example rock-
1
falls in steep slopes, quick-clay landslides which
occur in recent marine sediments, volcanic
mudslides, and flow-slides in loose natural or
2
artificial accumulations.
2. In addition to the infrastructure and
human population of the unstable area, there
are a wide variety of human activities which are
considered valuable. Should these activities be
terminated or suspended, it would constitute a
further loss to add to the losses of more
tangible assets. Some losses may not easily be
costed purely in financial terms, for example in
the fields of leisure and conservation. The
broad spectrum of assets and facilities which
are potentially subject to loss constitutes the
3
‘elements at risk’ from slope instability.
3. The community faced with any identified
and quantified geohazard such as a landslide
has a range of strategies for dealing with it. The
strategies are
( a) avoidance
( b) correction
( c) desensitization
( d) acceptance
4. The avoidance strategy involves the re-
location of elements at risk to a less hazardous
location. This strategy may be politically difficult
to implement if the perceived risks are small, or
where the hazardous area had significant
attractions for the community, such as scenery,
proximity to a harbour, or agricultural fertility.
In a densely populated and economically devel-
oped country such as Britain, it is also
potentially a very expensive operation, both to Edward Nicholas
abandon a favoured location, and to acquire and B r o m h e a d , P r o f e ss o r
develop a new one. of Geotec hnic al
5. Correction as a strategy for dealing with a E n g i n ee r i n g ,
geohazard is the treatment of the underlying K i n gs to n U n i v ers ity
85
 BROMHEAD
source of danger. Most engineers would recog-
nize it as appropriate in some situations (e.g.
stabilizing a landslide) but impossible or inap-
propriate in others (the source of earthquakes,
for instance). Of course, where the underlying
problem cannot be addressed, and here, the
earthquake example is a good one, it may be
more practical to reduce the susceptibility of the
elements at risk to damage or loss by appro-
priate construction technologies or patterns of
use. Building to codes which cater for seismic
effects (encompassing design and construction)
is a perfect example of item ( c) in the list
above—the desensitization strategy.
6. Finally, a community may need to accept
the risks from a given geohazard. This accep-
tance might be rational acceptance, in which
case the risks are perfectly understood, but are
offset against the benefits that the community
obtains in the particular locality, or it might be
pover ty-led acceptance. It is not always the case,
for instance, that a community with a valuable
set of elements at risk can contemplate the
necessary further expenditure to protect them
fully. An acceptance strategy is made more
palatable by the availability of insurance or
governmental aid in the case of disaster. Risk-
sharing across a threatened community is useful
where the geohazard poses threats at a low
level, for example in helping individuals worst
hit by landslide activity by rehousing at low cost
or reimbursing them for their losses. Care must
be taken that the use of compensation schemes
does not encourage high-risk activity, thus
justifying high-expenditure protection at some
time in the future.
7. All four of these strategies have been
adopted in the treatment of landslide hazards.
This paper describes a number of examples of
each strategy, and discusses the issues arising
from each choice. However, it is essential to
stress that an informed debate about the correct
strategy to adopt can only be made when the
particular geohazard has been fully identified
and is properly quantified. In the landslide
context, it follows that both surface and sub-
surface investigations are required and must be
made before an informed decision can be taken
on the correct strategy to adopt. The final
choice on what to do is often a political one as
well an an economic one, but the politics should
follow on from the understanding, not control
the process of investigation.
8. The total exposure (TE) in financial terms
for a community threatened by a set of
geohazards may be expressed as
n or by the development of new mechanisms.
TE P (i ) N (i ) V (i )
i 1
where n is the number of geohazards (e.g. types
and severities of landslides), P(i ) is the prob-
ability of occurrence within the specified time
period of the i th hazard, N(i ) is the number of
86
elements at risk and their value, and V(i ) is the
vulnerability, or expected proportion of loss from
such a hazard. The avoidance strategy may be
seen as reducing N(i ) , the correction strategy as
reducing P(i ), and the desensitization strategy as
reducing V(i ). The remaining acceptance ap-
proach considers TE as acceptable, or unavoid-
able.
Identification and quantification of
landslide hazard
9. This is an area which cannot be covered
exhaustively in a short review, such as this
paper. The principles, however, are clear. In the
initial stages, an assessment of the surface
morphology of the area must be made. This is
done by topographic and geomorphological
mapping, using whatever techniques are most
appropriate to the scale of the area. This may
range from remote sensing to laborious ground
verification on foot. Excellent examples of field
mapping of landslide area geomorphology are
4
given by Geomorphological Services Ltd or the
earlier mapping of the same area by Chandler
5
and Hutchinson.
10. Terminology for use in landslide recon-
6
naissance has recently been codified in a
multilingual publication. This should bring some
order to an area in which a number of con-
flicting schemes have operated in the past, e.g.
7 8
those of Sharpe, Varnes and Skempton and
9
Hutchinson.
11. Landslide hazard assessment of existing
landslide areas, in which the most probable
patterns and mechanisms of future movements
are the recurrence of past patterns and
mechanisms, is often seen as requiring the
recognition of those patterns. Areas of different
hazard intensity are mapped according to past
activity. Examples of this include the study cited
4 5 10
above, an alternate view of the same area or
11
of another area. Details of the hazard can of
course be better understood following sub-sur-
face investigations in which the mechanics of
the landslides are discovered, but in the cases
cited, this does not appear to have been seen as
necessary, merely desirable. Locating slip sur-
12
faces is an essential part of any such sub-
surface study of slides in clays.
12. The surface hazard mapping approach is
useful as a short-term expedient, but does not
address the problem in an evolving system
where there might be a radical change of
behaviour, either by processes which change
the magnitude, frequency, rate and/or distribu-
tion of movements within existing mechanisms,
New mechanisms typically develop as a result of
the failure of additional masses of previously
unslipped ground. Similarly, where there is a
gradual evolution of the system, the mapping
needs to be continuously revised. The full
picture can only be gained (and then with
 TREATMENT OF
LANDSLIDES

considerable difficulty) following detailed sub-
surface investigation, testing and analysis, and
careful observation over an appropriate period
of time.
Avoidance strategies
13. A full and proper use of the avoidance
strategy, in the sense of choosing ab initio a
location free of hazard, or less subject to it, is
not often available. More frequently, it has to be
relocation, when the particular location initially
selected is shown by experience to be unsui-
table. Examples abound of inappropriate initial
choice of location. One classic example was the
location of the town of Frank, Alberta, de-
stroyed in a landslide from Turtle Mountain in
13
1903. Inappropriate choice of location was also
a principal cause of problems with the Seven-
14
oaks Bypass road scheme. Related problems
arise from inappropriate choice of location for
earthworks, particularly those associated with
mine waste disposal, such as the disastrous
2
Aberfan coal mine waste tip failure. Many
other examples exist in the literature.
14. Perhaps the best example of a town
being completely relocated in a less hazardous
location comes from the town of Valdez, in
15
Alaska, shown in Fig. 1 (after van Rose ). In its
original location, on an outwash delta, the town
was ideally located to service the end of the
Trans-Alaska oil pipeline at Jackson Point.
During the earthquake of 1964, the seaward
strategy may rule it out of contention. This is
particularly the case where no disaster has yet
happened! To provide convincing data on the
degree of hazard, it may well be necessary to
undertake extensive surface and sub-surface
investigations—an investment that is abandoned
along with the site. Some forms of construction,
for example, passing a landslide area in tunnel,
will avoid the problem (Fig. 2), although some
tunnels in a landslide area will simply meet the
problem head-on. Viaducts can avoid landslides
by bridging over them. An interesting variant of
this approach may be seen at the Lago di Fig. 2. The upper
Guardialiera, in southern Italy, where the sketch shows bridging
unstable side slopes of a reservoir are avoided over, and tunnelling
by the road which runs for most of the length under the landslide. In
of the reservoir on a viaduct. Tunnelling to the lower sketch, the
bypass a landslide may be used to reduce bridge has a pier in the
subsidiary hazard, for example to drain a slide area, which must
16
landslide-dammed lake. be designed to resist
forces as the slide
Desensitization moves. Tunnelling in a
16. The vulnerability of a particular landslide is not
development to landslide activity must depend recommended. Moving
both on the nature of the development itself, off the landslide is
and on the nature of the landslide hazard. recommended
Overbridge

edge of the delta was involved in submarine

landsliding, causing extensive damage and loss
of life in the town. As part of the reconstruction,
the town was located to a site where buildings
could be founded on bedrock or on gravel
terraces at Mineral Creek, significantly less
susceptible to coastal landsliding whether or not
this was provoked by earthquakes.
15. When the choice of location is free from Tunnelling to
avoid landslide
constraint, the avoidance strategy is highly cost-
effective, and the location with least hazard can
The UK side channel tunnel portal is
often be found on the basis of a preliminary driven through landslides in this manner
geomorphological mapping. However, where a
location has already been exploited for develop-
Overbridge with piers
ment, the costs of implementing an avoidance located on slip area may
require special foundations

Old
town site
Outwash delta Oil terminal
Submarine
landslide

Relocated site for town

Bedrock Tunnelling in the body

of the landslide has its
own set of hazards
Locating a route outside the landslide
Fig. 1 The relocation strategy in practice: the area may mean constructing a viaduct
town of Valdez, moved from an unstable site to one (Lago Guardialiera)
15
on bedrock (after van Rose )
87
 BROMHEAD
17. A structure in a landslide area may be
designed as an isolated, stable ‘island’, anchored
to stable subsoil or bedrock, and capable of
resisting the forces installed as landslides move
past. All the piers of a bridge, for example, may
17
be similarly designed. There is a growing
literature on this approach, much of it originat-
18 19
ing from outside the UK.
18. Further examples of the approach
include the provision of roller bearings at a
bridge abutment to permit the abutment to
move without damaging the bridge super-
20
structure (Thomson and Hayley describe
one case where the rollers were added as a
repair measure). For this procedure to be
satisfactor y, the movements must be in a
predictable direction, and at a predictable or at
least manageable rate. The bearing is better
able to accommodate regular small
movements than episodic large ones. Facilities
for jacking to restore levels may also be
required. Fig. 3 shows this scheme diagram-
matically.
19. In the UK, planning guidance is issued
by the Department of the Environment. Plan-
21
ning Policy Guidance Note 14, which has
recently been supplemented, counsels against
development in unstable ground. In general, this
is wise advice. However, it is possible to
redevelop existing sites by taking special mea-
sures to accommodate landslide movement.
These measures include building the structure
as a rigid box, supported in such a way as to
enable it to be re-levelled after ground move-
ment. In addition, it is highly desirable that
other measures are taken which ensure that at
worst the development is neutral in respect of
slope stability, for example, by controlling water
discharges.
20. The author has some experience of this
approach, although nothing has been built. One
hurdle which has to be passed is the planning
stage, and since PPG 14 does not recognize the
use of accommodation structures as a suitable
solution to landslide problems, the instability of
the ground may be cited as a factor in refusal to
allow a building to be constructed. Paradoxi-
cally, in a case in the author’s experience, the
Inspector appeared content that the owner
refurbished and reoccupied his damaged pro-
perty, regardless of the enhanced risk relative
to his proposal, since this did not contravene
the Note.
21. A variety of means are used to protect
against the secondary effects of landsliding. For
example, the lowering of a reservoir, to improve
the resistance to overtopping by landslide-
generated waves in the event of landslides from
the valley sides is sometimes undertaken,
although in such cases, it may well be neces-
sary to control the reservoir lowering lest the
very incidents one seeks to resist are provoked
22
by rapid drawdown.
88
Abutment Link span Main bridge spans—truss structure
Roller bearing
Vector direction of movement
parallel to slip surface
Slip surface River
In this area, foundation would
In this area, foundation would
settle as well as move laterally
only move laterally (where slip Fixed pier foundation located in
surface is sub-horizontal) river bed unaffected by slide
Acceptance strategies Fig. 3. Thomson and
20
Hayley describe a
Controlling the movement of slide masses
roller abutment to a
22. A selection of landslide countermeasures
bridge which
used to control the movement of debris slide
accommodates
masses without attempting to stabilize them is
23 24 landslide movements.
shown by Baldwin et al. and Hungr et al.
This sketch, which is
They may be classified as containment or
not to scale, shows how
deflection systems. The check dam is a classic
the slide movements
containment system. It is widely used in the
are catered for. The
Alps, and throughout Italy, both to control run-
movement vector
off erosion, in which case the dam is usually
direction must be
solid, or to trap rockslide debris, in which case
known
it is permeable. Variants of the check dam have
been used in Hong Kong to trap boulders
released from slopes by deep soil erosion. They
may be made from concrete, piling, gabions and
geogrid-reinforced earth or rockfill.
23. Catch fences and trap ditches used in
25
rock slopes also constitute containment sys-
tems. Periodic maintenance is necessary, since
the usefulness of any barrier is reduced when
the storage capacity of the system is full, and
impact damage must be repaired. Small-area
hazardous locations which need to be crossed
can be bridged, allowing, in this instance,
landslides to pass harmlessly beneath, or the
route can be protected by a reinforced concrete
shed to allow the safe passage of landslide
debris above. Deflection systems such as the
shed are also widely used in mountainous areas
of the world where not only is it inappropriate
to try to stabilize the slope, but the volumes of
moving material would too rapidly saturate a
containment system. One such shed is shown in
Fig. 4. Where the shed is to deflect a debris
slide, the roof is left smooth, but where it is
susceptible to impact, it must be protected from
impact loading by a bed of gravel, or old tyres
as illustrated.
24. A novel deflection system is in use at
Lamosano in the Italian Dolomites east of
Belluno. A large mudslide has developed. It is
deflected past Funes by an earth-fill and
concrete-block dam, although Funes is largely
situated on a ridge above the general elevation
of the mudslide, and is therefore at lesser risk
unless the landslide develops to overtop the
ridge or to breach it. The path of the landslide
 TREATMENT OF
LANDSLIDES

takes it through the town of Lamosano, where a

concrete-lined channel has been built, complete
with a water injection system, so that the
encroaching toe of the landslide may be
additionally mobilized, and caused to pass
26
harmlessly through the town (Fig. 5). Perhaps
fortunately, the landslide came to rest before
the system was tested. Water injection is turned
on in advance of the strict necessity when
hazardous conditions, for example heavy rain-
fall, are experienced.
25. Early warning systems reassure the
public in threatened locations. At Lamosano, a
system has been installed with rod sensors
suspended above the landslide, and out of reach
of vandals. A rapid increase in landslide activity
would reach and deflect these rods to the
critical 208 from the vertical for long enough to
sound an alarm. The system is supplemented by
suspended sounding devices to check on the
corresponding levels of landslide debris.
26. A slightly artificial example of early
warning was the system installed for the slide are the slope height, its mean angle, its Fig. 4. A reinforced
27
Selborne controlled slope failure experiment shape and its internal make-up. Most geotech- concrete shed to catch and
where lights and alarms would come on if nical engineers will have an intuitive under- deflect rockfalls. Impact on
computer-logged instrumentation passed standing of these factors, especially after a the roof is lessened by old
thresholds of rate and magnitude of movement period spent analysing slope stability. However, tyres or a layer of gravel.
to alert researchers on the site, or if the site there are cases which seem counter-intuitive, Example from a mountain
was unmanned, would automatically telephone for example the case where, under special highway in Taiwan
them at home. circumstances, flattening a slope may lead to its
17
27. Warning noises such as the familiar sign failure. Hutchinson describes the underlying
warning of falling debris are sometimes used on principles for such a case, where there is a pre-
their own, to put the onus of self-protection on existing failure surface and the slope regrading
bona fide users of the site. Opinions vary as to is, in effect, toe unloading. An example of this is
30
whether or not this constitutes abdication of the given by Allison et al. Other instances could
engineer’s responsibility. It is, however, an be envisaged, for example, by flattening the
essential element of response in relatively
remote areas, where people are only at risk
during short and infrequent visits, or indeed in
the short term while other options are under
consideration (Fig. 6).

Correction of the underlying unstable

slope
28. This strategy is the engineer’s favourite
recourse. Reviews of available methods are
17 28
presented, for example, by Hutchinson and
29
by Bromhead. The methods of slope stabili-
zation fall naturally into three categories
( a) alteration of the slope geometry, either its
profile by cut and/or fill, or its internal
details, for example by digging out and
replacing the landslip mass
( b) improvement of the soil or rock strength
properties, most often by decreasing pore
water pressures
( c) providing force systems to counteract the
tendency to slide.
Fig. 5. The Tessina mudslide for tunately stopped shor t of the town of
Lamosano, but in case it is reactivated, a concrete-lined channel, complete
Slope geometr y with water injection, has been provided to speed it on its way, and prevent it
29. The factors within the general area of bursting out of the stream channel into the town. An account of the slide and
26
slope geometry which affect the tendency to its early warning systems is given by Angelli et al.
89
 BROMHEAD

Fig. 6. A statement of
the obvious: a warning
notice erected near a
landslide at the Nothe
For t, Weymouth

rock-anchored slopes at the toe of the landslide
shown in Fig. 12. As an additional example,
regrading a rock slope would decrease total
stresses on potential slide surfaces, whereas the
water pressures on such surfaces may be
unaffected by the flattening of the slope. The
shear strength in such a case may be reduced
by a greater percentage than the shear stresses.
30. Slope height is a factor which is most
significant where the soil or rock stength has a
high cohesive component, and is less significant
when the strength is dominated by what may
loosely be termed ‘friction’. It is often not under
the control of the geotechnical engineer,
although in the design of, for example, spoil
heaps, a limiting height criterion may be used
to maintain stability. There are also many
situations where the slope angle is not readily
changed, especially where natural slopes of
significant size are involved, or even with
embankments where further land cannot be
acquired for extension of the toe of the slope,
nor may it be lost at the crest. Reducing the
slope height is more effective for deep-seated
modes of failure of the slope, and decreasing
the slope angle is more effective for shallow
modes of failure.
31. The shape of a slope in section may
influence its stability. For example, undercut
toes are obviously adverse. The provision of toe
weighting or a berm (Fig. 7) is often highly
effective in improving the stability of a slope
31 33
against deep-seated failures and often
serves the dual purpose of reducing toe erosion.
permanent solution, it has been used as a
temporary expedient to give stability to a
landslip while other more permanent works are
34
carried out. The reason why head unloading
is less common than toe weighting is that it
inevitably increases the risk of the retrogression
of instability upslope. A useful theory due to
Hutchinson 28 35 helps the designer locate stabi-
lizing cuts and fills on a pre-existing slope. A
29
small refinement to this theory overcomes a
slight paradox. This theory readily accounts for
the case where failure is caused by slope
flattening mentioned above. On slopes without
pre-existing failure surfaces, however, the
36
method is of less use.
32. Toe fills may be classed as being on top Fig. 7. Cut and fill
of the toe of a slide, or in front of it. In the solutions for slope
former case, the weight of the toe fill is the stabilization
Lower slide cannot be stabilized Slide head can be removed, but this leaves Slope crest profiled
by cut, as this would adversely
affect upper slide. Conversely,
a slope to be graded to avoid throwing run-off
onto the slope
fill cannot be used for upper slide.
Piles in rows may be sufficiently close to
Ground surfaces
cause arching, otherwise they must resist
forces as slide moves through them. seeded or planted
to control erosion
Staggered rows of piles may give a
stiffer response if they are tied Pile heads
at their heads. tiled together with
reinforced concrete
Toe fill on top of slide
is immediately effective
and gains in effectiveness
Stepped
contact formed
as the soil mass
consolidates
during dig-out and
replacement gives good key
Surface preparation with steps can
cause instability in critical cases, so
must be done with care
Toe fill placed on
Digging out slide debris and replacing it
with free-draining granular fill is highly effective
drainage blanket, largely
in front of slide. The foundation
for small slides. If the soil is suitable, it may be re-used.

Although head unloading is less often used as a conditions for this fill may need checking.

90

principal stabilizing factor, and comes into play
as it is placed, although may be subject to the
dissipation of load-induced pore water pressure.
The latter case, where the toe fill is ‘in front’ of
a slide, is less effective, both in the short and
long term. This is because it acts in a passive
29
earth pressure mode rather than in a dead
weight mode, and needs continuing movements
of the slide relative to the toe fill to mobilize
this passive resistance. A finite element analysis
37
of the Carsington Dam failure shows how the
late addition of a berm could not prevent the
development of slip surfaces in the main dam
body for essentially the above reason. A larger
berm, or one built as the dam was raised, would
have been more effective. Natural landslides fall
into a less critical category than the brittle
failure of an embankment, in the sense that
they have already lost the slip surface brittle-
ness, and if still in movement, will eventually
respond to the resistance of a toe berm of the
second sort.
33. Toe fills may accidentally be founded on
subsoils different from that of the slope they are
intended to stabilize, and may therefore have
their own special instability problems. Similarly,
head unloading may expose weaker materials to
the risk of local failure (imagine the removal of
the top of the shoulder of an earth dam to
expose the core!).
34. The shape of the slope in plan may also
have a bearing on its stability. All three-
dimensional analyses of essentially plane strain
sections of a slope show higher factors of safety
than the basic two-dimensional case. This is
inevitably the result of what may loosely be
termed ‘side shear’, and is found even in quite
sophisticated analyses. It ought, therefore, to be
the case that failures occur most frequently on
slopes which are convex in plan. However, this
seems rarely to be the case, with many slides
on slopes which are concave instead. Careful
examination of a number of these show that the
essential three-dimensional features are pre-
dicted by the orientation of geological features
in the slope, or three-dimensional variations in
pore water pressure distribution, together with
a subsequent spread of instability laterally from
a site where it is initiated to more stable parts
38
of the slope.
35. Internally, a slope may have some
geometric features that predispose it to in-
stability, as well as controlling the shape of the
resulting slide surface. There are several
examples in artificial embankment dams, ran-
ging from the ‘boot’ on the core of the first
39
Carsington Dam, the layer of ‘yellow clay’ left
40
under the Chingford embankment (a similar
layer was also left in place under parts of the
41
Carsington embankment) and the Acu Dam.
Natural slopes may contain bedding, tectonic
shearing, joints and other smaller-scale discon-
tinuities, solution cavities, and folding or fault-
TREATMENT OF
LANDSLIDES
ing. The designer of an embankment will have
the opportunity to adjust the internal make-up
of the slopes, whereas when faced with a
natural slope, the engineer has fewer options.
Improvement of soil strength
36. The embankment slope designer operat-
ing on a clean sheet of paper has the choice of
what materials to use where, within the overall
constraints of what is available in total, and at
what cost. Treating a natural slope or pre-
existing earthwork is often largely a matter of
accepting what is there and making the best of
it. However, the effective stress and shear
strength properties can be improved by, for
example, digging out slip surfaces and replacing
the soil with the slip surfaces broken up and
the soil recompacted. Slip surfaces in rockslides
have on occasion been broken up in situ by
blasting. The dig-out operation may, for small
landslides, be accompanied by replacement with
better quality material, with or without soil
reinforcement. Digging out the complete slide
mass and replacing it with a fill with some
improved properties is normally only possible
with small earth slides of the sort which affect
highway and railway embankments. The recon-
struction of the Carsington embankment, while
leaving some fill in place, may be seen as an
extreme example of this approach. It may be
too dangerous to attempt in the case of water-
retaining structures such as canal banks unless
the water levels are drawn down. For natural
slopes, the costs of digging out may be pro-
hibitive or may lead to further, retrogressive
failures.
42
37. Some forms of grouting, with cement
or chemicals, may improve the fundamental
properties of the soil or rock. The effect of
natural changes in the soil chemistry is usually
a worsening of strength, for example desaliniz-
ation in quick clays or dissolution of halite or
gypsiferous rocks, and these must be protected
from the damaging effects of water. Grouting or
other techniques for void filling may be used to
counteract mining subsidence, which has the
possible deleterious effects of fracturing the
ground mass and tilting critical discontinuities.
38. Usually, however, the simplest and most
effective way of improving the shear strength of
soil is to reduce the pore pressures in it (joint
water pressures in a rock mass) by some form
of drainage. Water pressures may arise from
ephemeral infiltration, steady or unsteady seep-
age, or they may be induced by stress changes.
Many slopes will have pore water pressure
regimes which are in the process of equalizing
to a new equilibrium from disturbances experi-
43
enced in the past. Often, especially in the
cases of unloaded slopes or those formed from
compacted clay fills, the pore pressure state
immediately after excavation or construction is
a state of pore water suction. Interference in the
91
 BROMHEAD
equilibration process may be good or bad, but
without some understanding of the processes
involved is more likely to be the latter. Shallow
trench drains may increase the rate at which
suctions are lost (bad) in a cut slope in a stiff
clay, but control the final equilibrated level of
groundwater (good).
39. Drainage systems may act to prevent the
ingress of water into a landslide area, or may
attempt to remove it once it is there. These two
alternatives generally correspond to shallow and
deep drainage. Some systems are needed for
only a limited time span (e.g. those that
dissipate stress-induced or construction-induced
pore water pressures), while others may need to
function more or less permanently. Drains in the
latter category are susceptible to blocking by
silting up, or by chemical precipitation, often
assisted by bacteriological action. Vegetation can
also cause some forms of blockage, but a good
vegetation cover on a slope is most usually
beneficial, since it moderates the infiltration
characteristics, controls run-off erosion and
contributes through transpiration to decreasing
the soil moisture.
40. Where drains are thought to be suscep-
tible to blocking, access is needed for main-
tenance. Pipe systems are available where a
filter geofabric liner can be removed for
replacement or cleaning. Since the effectiveness
of a drain is largely invisible (except if the
discharge is carefully monitored) it may be
necessary to instrument and monitor the
drainage system.
41. Figure 8 shows a selection of drainage
measures applied to a landslide. The figure has
been compiled from a number of case records,
and all of the drainage measures adopted in the
figure have been used successfully, either singly
or in combination, to stabilize landslides.
Drainage may be used to prevent surface or
44
sub-surface water reaching the slide area or
45
to remove it from the slide area. Water in the
slide area may be the result of steady seepage
flows, or it may be released from the soil or
rock mass by stress changes or chemical
activity, for example loading or the decomposi-
tion of refuse (Fig. 9) respectively. Contami-
nated leachate may need to be treated before
disposal, and if corrosive, it may attack the
drain systems. Drains to remove ephemeral
sources of water may not need the same
attention to filtration as drains with a longer life
expectancy. Electro-osmotic systems appear to
have been used successfully to decrease soil
moisture at landslide sites.
42. Care should be taken in construction of
drainage measures to ensure that they do not
increase pore water pressures in the ground in
such a way as to affect stability adversely. This
situation can arise in the temporary case as
they are being installed. Drains are very
susceptible to blocking, following which they
92
Overland flow intercepted by cut-off drain
or extensions to main down-slope drains Cut-off drain at
slope crest
Ground surfaces seeded or planted
Collector drains in chevron or herringbone
pattern connect into deeper main drainage
running straight down slope
Overall details need care:
manholes are required at breaks of
slope if pipework is installed in
trenches;
avoid runs
with low
gradients
Drain arrays bored from chamber
at base of shaft, discharging through
a pumping system, or drilled from
Toe fill placed on a tunnel, discharging under gravity
drainage blanket, with
sand drains underneath to
Vertical sand drains may discharge into
underlying higher-permeability stratum
eliminate undrained pore water pressures
continue to act as a collection network, but Fig. 8. Drainage
instead of channelling water safely away, con- measures for slope
centrate it at the blockage. stabilization. This
43. It is sometimes difficult to predict diagram is a composite
accurately the effect of drainage systems, and drawn from a number
hence their impact on slope stability. Shallow- of case records
trench drainage systems, widely used in the
28 46
UK, are an exception. They are, however,
particularly susceptible to blockage, and where-
as in some cses it may merely be inconvenient
and expensive to dig them out and refill them
(Fig. 10), where access is difficult or the drains
have been built over, it may not be possible. An
innovative system of providing drains for the
slide mass to advance over, coming to rest
when its toe is under-drained (Fig. 11), is being
tried out in south Wales. These drains will not
be accessible for maintenance.
Fig. 9. Sub-horizontal
Force systems to resist slope instability drains being drilled
44. Passive systems to stabilize slopes rely under an unstable
on the construction of piles, piers, buttresses or waste tip near Ancona,
52
walls through the slide into the underlying Italy
 TREATMENT OF
LANDSLIDES

bedrock. Further movements of the slide

increase pressures on the obstacle, and their
reaction forces put into the landslide lead to
stabilization.
45. Active systems, or ground anchors, use
pre-loading to put the stabilizing forces into the
47
landslide system ab initio. Anchor loads are
spread into the slide mass by pads (Fig. 12) so
that bearing capacity failures of the ground are
avoided. Pads with a small number of anchors
are preferred. They may be cast in situ or
precast; the latter will often deflect more than
the former when the anchors are stressed.
46. Piling systems for slope stabilization are
30 48
described by Allison et al. and Leadbeater,
among others. The stiffness of a pile system can
be substantially increased by connecting the pile
heads together in an upslope direction. Con-
necting the pile heads of a row of piles along
the contours of a slope, and thus normal to the
slide direction, does not have this beneficial
effect. In the stabilization system for the land- 47. Where the slide mass is not monolithic, Fig. 11. Shallow-
slide in volcanic tuffs affecting the Shorinzen then piling will only control deformations in its trench drains, capped
Temple near Maebashi in Japan the piles are immediate vicinity, especially in the short term. by a drainage blanket.
30
laid out in staggered rows, and the pile heads In the system used by Allison et al., the pile The landslide is
are connected by a triangulated reinforced heads were connected by small walls to control expected to advance
concrete arrangement. At this particular land- soil erosion and shallow mudsliding which took over these drains, and
slide, extensive regrading and drainage works place between the original piles, although as once under-drained, to
have also been carried out, and the piling is not pointed out above, this does not increase the come to rest
49
relied on exclusively. Ellis describes a reticu- stiffness of the system. A stiffening effect can
lated pali radice wall where small diameter piles be obtained by the construction of a shed-like
are used in a three dimensional fan like the structure (similar in appearance to that shown
roots of a tree. in Fig. 5, but without the deflection function), in
effect bracing a retaining wall and lending
rigidity to the piles which are invariably used in
the foundation. This composite structure is
widely used in Italy in clay soils as an alterna-
tive to anchoring a retaining wall, especially Fig. 12. Anchors and
where no suitable stratum can be readily found their bearing pads used
in which to position the fixed lengths of the as par t of a
ground anchors. In the majority of cases, stabilization scheme for
anchoring a wall principally improves the the Zentoku landslide

Fig. 10. Shallow-trench drains being dug out and

replaced after blockage
93
 BROMHEAD
stability of the wall against overturning, so that
the wall can passively resist the slide move-
ment. To gain the full benefit of an anchor it
must react on a pad which can spread the force
into the slide mass, rather than merely counter-
flexing a rigid structure.
48. A variety of materials can be used to
form the pile or shear key. Beles and
50
Stanculescu describe piles formed by burning
clay in situ. Railway practice in Britain in the
19th century included elements of this, although
the hazard from fires in combustible embank-
51
ment fills was a considerable disincentive to
the practice. Ground freezing may operate in a
similar way in the short term.
49. An example of the use of both passive
and active systems in the same landslide comes
form the treatment of the Zentoku landslide on
Shikoku island in southern Japan (Fig. 13).
Here, twenty 5·45 m dia. shafts, between 17 and
44 m in length, have been sunk through a
landslide slip surface in mica schists. The shafts
are filled with heavily reinforced concrete.
Downslope of the concrete-filled shafts, some
280 ground anchors hold the lower slopes in
place (Figs 12 and 13). Upslope of the shafts,
drainage holes radiating from six 3·5 m shafts,
and from the end of a drainage adit, have also
been installed.
50. Soil nails and rock bolts are small-scale
versions of the above, and they are appropriate
only in the treatment of small-scale instability.
Choice of factor of safety
51. Where remedial works are undertaken,
the engineer has to choose a factor of safety.
Guidance in codes of practice intended, one
suspects, for embankments of moderate height
(e.g. ‘the factor of safety shall shall be 1·3’) is
often of little use in natural slopes, where such
a factor of safety may be simply unattainable.
52. A more suitable approach may be to
ensure that the remedial works to a landslide
are capable of surviving any ‘design’ destabiliz-
ing event, or appropriate combinations of
events, in such a way that collapse does not
occur, and the situation can be retrieved. For
example, a coastal landslide stabilized with a toe
weight, armoured against wave attack, must be
able to survive the (say) 1 in 100 year storm
erosion without being so much disrupted that
the slide moves. This then gives the opportunity
to rebuild the defences. It may, in this case, be
necessary to design the toe load so that this
event is survivable also with (say) a 1 in 50 year
return period groundwater level. A drainage
system, not relied on for the main stabilization
works, may be employed to prevent the effects
of rainfull or snow melt adversely interacting
with other destabilizing events. On this ap-
proach, the actual factors of safety achieved
would be immaterial, and the precise conditions
which could cause failure to (re-)occur would
94
10m Typical positions of 6 No,
3.5m dia.
280 No drainage shafts
prestressed 10–24m deep
anchors Slip surface
Erosion
protection (see Fig. 12)
at toe
Inclined bored drain arrays
76mm dia. and approx. 30 m long
Concrete pile wall, 20 No., 5.45m dia.
heavily reinforced piles 17–44m deep
be obvious. It is sadly the case that some Fig. 13. The use of
engineers, as well as most clients, believe that anchoring in
remedial works for slope stabilization are good conjunction with a
for all circumstances, and also for all time, piled barrier and deep
without any maintenance. drainage to stabilize
the Zentoku landslide
Conclusion (after Yoshinogawa
53. Slope stabilization by the construction of Sabo Division 53 )
engineering works may be neither cost-effective
nor strictly necessary. There are a variety of
other methods of dealing with landslides which
may be more appropriate in a given case.
Where engineering works are undertaken, the
engineer has an enormous range of options—a
choice which may seem bewildering at first.
The continual development of new materials and
techniques adds to the list. However, in most
practical situations the list quickly resolves itself
into relatively few techniques. For example, a
wholesale regrading of an unstable slope occu-
pied by a historic monument which it is desired
to preserve would not be an appropriate choice,
and a scheme would be required which sym-
pathetically treated the topography in the
immediate vicinity of the monument.
54. Except in an emergency, engineered
remedial works should only be undertaken
following a full sub-surface investigation which
gives understanding of the internal structure
and mechanics of the landslide in question.
References
1. BJERRUM L. Stability of natural slopes in quick
clay. Proc. Eur. Conf. on stability of ear th slopes,
Stockholm, 1954, 2, 16–40; Géotechnique, 1954, 5,
101–119.
2. BISHOP A. W. The stability of tips and spoil heaps.
Q. J. Engng Geol., 1973, 6, 335–376.
3. VARNES D. J. and COMMISSION ON LANDSLIDES,
OTHER MASS MOVEMENTS. Landslide hazard zona-
tion: a review of the principles and practice. Natural
hazards. UNESCO, 1984, 3.
4. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SERVICES LTD. Coastal land-
slip potential assessment: Isle of Wight Undercliff,
Ventnor. Final Report to the Department of the
Environment, 1991.

5. CHANDLER M. P. and HUTCHINSON J. N. Assess-
ment of relative slide hazard within a large, pre-
existing coastal landslide at Ventnor, Isle of Wight.
Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Toronto, 1984,
2, 517–522.
6. CRUDEN D. and UNESCO WORKING PARTY ON
WORLD LANDSLIDE INVENTORY. The multilingual
landslide glossary. BiTech Publishers, British
Columbia, Canada. 1993.
7. SHARPE C. F. S. Landslides and related phenomena.
Columbia University Press, New York, 1938.
8. VARNES D. J. Landslide types and processes.
Landslides in engineering practice, ed. E. B. Eckel,
US National Academy of Sciences, Highway
Research Board, 1958, Special Report 29, 20–47.
9. SKEMPTON A. W. and HUTCHINSON J. N. Stability of
natural slopes and embankment foundations. Proc.
7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Engng, State of the art volume, 291–340.
10. HUTCHINSON J. N. and CHANDLER M. P. A pre-
liminary landslide hazard zonation of the under-
cliff of the Isle of Wight. Slope stability engineering
developments and applications (Chandler R. J.
(ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, 1991, 197–205.
11. HUTCHINSON J. N. and DEL PRETE M. Landslides
at Calitri, Southern Appennines, reactivated by the
earthquake of 23rd November 1980. Geologia
Applicata e Idrogeologia, 1985, 20, No. 1, 9–38.
12. HUTCHINSON J. N. Methods of locating slip
surfaces in landslides. Bull. Assoc. Engng. Geol.
1983, XX, No. 3, 235–252.
13. MCCONNELL R. G. and BROCK R. W. Report on the
great landslide at Frank, Alberta. Repor t for 1903.
Department of the Interior, Ottawa, Canada, 1904,
Part 8, 1–17.
14. WEEKS A. G. The stability of the Lower Greensand
Escarpment in Kent. Surrey University, PhD thesis,
1969.
15. VAN ROSE S. Ear thquakes. Institute of Geological
Sciences, HMSO, 1983, p. 13.
16. BYCE J. Rapid tunnelling solves Utah’s landslide
crisis. Tunnels & Tunnelling, 1984, Sept., 15–17.
17. HUTCHINSON J. N. Landslides in Britain and their
countermeasures. J. Japan Landslide Soc. 1984,
21, 1–25.
18. POPESCU M. E. Landslide control by means of a
row of piles. Slope stability engineering—applica-
tions and developments. Thomas Telford, London,
1991, 389–394.
19. GINZBURG L. K. Antislide retaining structures.
Stroyizdat, Moscow, 1979 (in Russian).
20. THOMSON S. and HAYLEY D. W. The Little Smoky
landslide. Can. Geotech. J., 1975, 12, 379–392.
21. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Planning
policy guidance: development on unstable land,
PPG14, HMSO, London, 1990.
22. JAEGER, J. C. The stability of partly immersed
fissured rock masses and the Vajont rock slide.
Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, 1969,
1204–1207.
23. BALDWIN J. E., DONLEY H. F. and HOWARD T. R.
On debris flow/avalanche mitigation and control,
San Francisco Bay area, California. Reviews in
Engineering Geology. Geol. Soc. of America, 1987,
VII, 223–236.
24. HUNGR O., MORGAN, G. C., VAN DINE D. F. and
LISTER D. R. Debris flow defenses in British
Columbia. Reviews in Engineering Geology Geol.
Soc. of America, 1987, VII, 201–222.
TREATMENT OF
LANDSLIDES
25. FOOKES P. G. and SWEENEY M. Stabilisation and
control of local rockfalls and degrading rock
slopes. Q. J. Engng Geol., 1976, 9, 37–56.
26. ANGELLI M. G., GASPARETTO P., MENOTTI R. M.,
PASUTO A. and SILVANO S. A system of monitoring
and warning in a complex landslide in North-
eastern Italy. Landslide News, 1994, No. 8., Aug.
12–14.
27. BROMHEAD E. N., COOPER M. R. and PETLEY D. J.
Instrumentation systems for the Selborne Cutting
stability experiment. US National Research Council,
Transportation Research Board. Transportation
Research Record, No. 1343, 1992, 79–86.
28. HUTCHINSON J. N. Assessment of the effectiveness
of corrective measures in relation to geological
conditions and types of slope movement. Bull. Int.
Assoc. Engng Geol. 1977, 16, 131–155.
29. BROMHEAD E. N. Stability of slopes. Blackie, 1991,
2nd edn.
30. ALLISON J. A., MAWDITT J. and WILLIAMS G. T.
The use of bored piles and counterfort drains
to stabilize a major landslip—a comparison of
theoretical and field performance. Slope stability
engineering—applications and developments.
Thomas Telford, London, 1991, 347–354.
31. WILSON R. L. and SMITH A. K. C. The construction
of a trial embankment on the foreshore at
Llandulas. Shoreline protection. Thomas Telford
Ltd., London, 1983, 223–233.
32. VINER-BRADY N. E. V. Folkestone Warren land-
slips: remedial measures 1948–1950. Proc. Instn.
Civ. Engrs, 1955, Railway paper No. 57, 429–441.
33. KELLY J. M. H. and MARTIN P. L. Construction
works on or near landslides. Landslides in the
South Wales Coalfield (Morgan C. S. (ed.)),
Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd, 1985, 85–106.
34. WATSON J. D. Earth movements affecting LTE
railway in deep cutting east of Uxbridge. Proc.
Instn Civ. Engrs. 1956, 11, 320–323.
35. HUTCHINSON J. N. An influence line approach to
the stabilization of slopes by cuts and fills. Can.
Geotech. J. 1984, 21, 363–370.
36. GRECO V. R. Slope stabilization by means of cuts
and fills. Slope stability engineering—applications
and developments. Thomas Telford, London, 1991,
421–426.
37. VAUGHAN P. R., DOUNIAS G. T. and POTTS D. M.
Advances in analytical techniques and the influ-
ence of core geometry on behaviour. Clay barriers
for embankment dams. Thomas Telford, London,
1990, 87–108.
38. VAUGHAN P. R. Mechanics of landslides. Slope
stability engineering—applications and develop-
ments. Thomas Telford, London, 1991, 1–10.
39. SKEMPTON A. W. and COATS D. J. Carsington Dam
failure. Failures in ear thworks. Thomas Telford,
London, 1985, 203–220.
40. SKEMPTON A. W. Historical development of British
embankment dams to 1960. Clay barriers for
embankment dams. Thomas Telford, London. 1990,
15–52.
41. PENMAN A. D. M. The failure of Acu Dam.
Technical Note 6. Failures in ear thworks. Thomas
Telford, London, 1985, 414–416.
42. AYRES D. J. Stabilisation of slips in cohesive soil
by grouting. Technical Note 9, Failures in ear th-
works. Thomas Telford, London, 1985, 421–427.
43. BROMHEAD E. N. and DIXON N. Pore water
pressure observations in the coastal clay cliffs at
95
 BROMHEAD
the Isle of Sheppey, England. Proc. 4th Int. Symp.
on Landslides, Toronto, 1984, 1, 385–390.
44. SIDDLE H. J. South Wales spoil stabilisation
tunnels in sandstone. Tunnels & Tunnelling, Dec.
1984, 17–19.
45. BIANCO B. and BRUCE D. A. Large landslide
stabilization by deep drainage wells. Slope stabil-
ity engineering—applications and developments.
Thomas Telford, London, 1991, 319–326.
46. BROMHEAD E. N. An analytical solution to the
problem of seepage into counterfort drains. Can.
Geotech. J., 1984, 21, 657–662.
47. BARLEY A. D. Slope stabilization by new ground
anchorage systems in rock and soils. Slope stabil-
ity engineering—applications and developments.
Thomas Telford, London, 1991, 335–340.
48. LEADBEATER A. D. A57 Snake Pass, remedial work
to slip near Alport Bridge. Failures in ear thworks.
96
Thomas Telford, London, 1985, 29–38.
49. ELLIS I. W. The use of reticulated pali radice
structures to solve slope stability problems.
Technical Note 11, Failures in Ear thworks.
Thomas Telford, London, 1985, 432–435.
50. BELES A. A. and STANCULESCU I. I. Thermal
treatment as a means of improving the stability of
earth masses. Géotechnique, 1958, 8, 158–165.
51. AYRES D. J. Treatment of shallow underground
fires. Technical Note 23. Failures in ear thworks.
Thomas Telford, London, 1985, 470–472.
52. BROMHEAD E. N., COPPOLA L. and RENDELL H. M.
Stabilization of an urban refuse dump and its
planned extension near Ancona, Marche, Italy.
Engineering Geology of Waste Disposal. Geological
Society Engineering Geology Special Publication
No. 11, 1996, 87–92.
53. YOSHINOGAWA SABO DIV. Publicity pamphlet.