You are on page 1of 13

Index

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1. Motivation .................................................................................................................4
1.2. Description of the problem: creep moving landslides....................................................5
1.3. The role of viscosity ...................................................................................................9

2. State of the art............................................................................................................. 14

3. Description of the test sites considered ......................................................................... 17


3.1. Orvieto.................................................................................................................... 20
3.2. Fosso San Martino................................................................................................... 35
3.3. Vallcebre ................................................................................................................ 47

4. Stability analyses......................................................................................................... 54
4.1. SLOPE program’s results......................................................................................... 55
4.2. Infinite slope method’s results.................................................................................. 58
4.3. Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................. 62
4.3.1. Back–analysis along Orvieto sliding surfaces ....................................................... 62
4.3.2. Back–analysis along Fosso San Martino sliding surfaces....................................... 68
4.3.3. Results of sensitivity analysis in both analyzed cases ............................................ 71

5. Dynamic analyses ....................................................................................................... 76


5.1. General model including viscosity ........................................................................... 76
5.1.1. General equations to visco-plastic model.............................................................. 78
5.1.2. Input parameters models...................................................................................... 80
5.1.3. Viscous models................................................................................................... 81
5.2. Data from the field................................................................................................... 81
5.3. Regression .............................................................................................................. 84
5.4. Results of visco-plastic parameters ........................................................................... 86
5.5. Viscosity................................................................................................................. 93
5.5.1. Orvieto ............................................................................................................... 94
5.5.2. Fosso San Martino .............................................................................................. 96
5.5.3. Vallcebre............................................................................................................ 99

6. Measurements of viscosity in laboratory..................................................................... 101


6.1. Equipment previous measurements......................................................................... 103
6.2. Experiment at UPC................................................................................................ 107

7. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 113

References ................................................................................................................................ 116


102
Tables index

Table 1
Index propreties and strength parameters for Orvieto’s area
soils…………………………………...23
Table 2
Soil properties al soil layers at landslide
site……………………………………………………………………….37
Table 3
Soil properties at landslide
site……………………………………………………………………………………………
51
Table 4
Results of back analysis related node 596 (shallow point of borehole
OR)………………………...64
Table 5
Results of back analysis related others points of borehole
OR…………………………………………...65
Table 6
Results of back analysis related points of borehole
O4…………………………………………………….…68
Table 7.
Results of back analysis related Fosso San Martino sliding
surface…………………………………….71
Table 8
Data collected for different loads imposed to steered
consolidation………………………………..110
newncòqowv
Figure index

Figure 1
Example of the in-situ creep deformation - Tower of Pisa, Italy. Picture from Havel F.
(2001)........................................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2
Primary and secondary consolidation. .............................................................................. 3

Figure 3
Stage in landslides’ life in Leroueil theory. L. Cascini LARAM 2007 .........................….5

Figure 4
Stage in landslides’ life in Leroueil theory. L. Cascini LARAM 2007 ..........................….6

Figure 5
Strain versus time diagram. L. Cascini LARAM 2007 ........................................................ 7

Figure 6– The geotechnical slope model – LARAM 2007 .................................................... 8

Figure 7
Course of velocity in time. L. Cascini – The geotechnical slope model – LARAM 2007
............................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 8
Laminar shear of fluid between two plates. Friction between the fluid and the
moving boundaries causes the fluid to shear. The force required for this action is
a measure of the fluid's viscosity. Bird, R.B., et al.(1979). ........................................... 10

Figure 9
Laminar shear, the non-constant gradient, is a result of the geometry the fluid is
flowing through. Bird, R.B.,et al. (1979). ........................................................................ 10

Figure 10
Velocity’s distribution whit inferior plat moving. Bird, R.B., et al. (1979).. .................... 11

Figure 11
Non – Newtonian fluid’s models; comparison between Newtonian fluid and
Bingham’s law. Modified from Bird, R.B., et al. (1979)................................................ 12

Figure 12
Idealisation of the sliding on the base and decomposition of velocity vector into
sliding and shearing deformations. Vulliet L., et al. (1987). ....................................... 13

Figure 13
Possible framework for creep displacement modeling. L. Cascini LARAM
2007………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………….…….15

Figure 14
Geological map of the Orvieto hill and main landslides. Calvello, M., et al. (2007).
............................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 15
View of the northern slope of the Orvieto hill (triangles indicate the boundary of the
1900 Porta Cassia slide, whilst dots refer to the crown scarp of a smaller roto-
translational slide; squares correspond to the location of instrumented boreholes
like OM, OR, etc.). Tommasi, P., et al. (2004)............................................................... 20

Figure 16
Map of the northern slope of the Orvieto hill (latitude, 42°43’; longitude, 12°7’): (1)
slide scarp, (2) limit of the area affected by minor deformations of the 1900 Porta
Cassia slide, (3) limit of kinematically independent portions inside the 1900 Porta
Cassia slide body, (4) geotechnical section, (5) instrumented borehole. Tommasi,
P., et al. (2004)................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 17
Geotechnical section parallel to the slope with log of the physical-mechanical
properties material. Tommasi, P., et al. (2004). ........................................................... 22

Figure 18
Geotechnical section normal to the slope with log of the physical-mechanical
properties material. Tommasi, P., et al.(2004).............................................................. 22

Figure 19
Typical oscillations of piezometer levels in the different materials (borehole O6). The
abrupt rise of piezometric levels produced by the inflow from a borehole drilled
at some 5 m of distance can be noticed. Tommasi, P., et al. (2004) ..................... 25

Figure 20
Displacements within the softened clay detected by inclinometers OM, OR, OV,
and O5 (section 1–1’). Tommasi, P., et al. (2004)........................................................ 26

Figure 21
The Porta Cassia landslide according to the classification systems proposed by
Varnes (1978) and Cruden & Varnes (1996)................................................................ 27

Figure 22
Schematic of the finite element transient groundwater model of the Porta Cassia
landslide and rainfall utilized for the transient model. Calvello, M., et al. (2007). 28

Figure 23
Comparison between modeled and measured ground water level for OV
borehole. Calvello, M., et al. (2007). ............................................................................. 29

Figure 24
Comparison between modeled and measured ground water level for O4
borehole. Calvello, M., et al. (2007) .............................................................................. 29

Figure 25
Section 1-1’ of Porta Cassia landslide in SEEP of GeoStudio. ....................................... 30
Figure 26
Characteristic points of boreholes OR, OV and O4....................................................... 30

Figure 27
Scheme of total head conditions with maximum ground water level (PF1) and
minimum one (PF2). .......................................................................................................... 31

Figure 28
Graph of Total Head for OR regarding five points of the same borehole. ................ 32

Figure 29
Graph of Total Head for OV regarding five points of the same borehole................. 33

Figure 30
Graph of Total Head for O4 regarding six points of the same borehole.................... 33

Figure 31
The hilly piedmont zone in the regional geological map. Bertini, T., et al. (1984) .... 35

Figure 32
Fosso S. Martino landslide: geological sketch map and instrumented slope sector.
Bertini, T., et al. (1984). ..................................................................................................... 36

Figure 33
Fosso S. Martino landslide: cross section of landslide with location of installed
instruments (modified after Bertini et al.)...................................................................... 37

Figure 34
a) Daily rainfall; b) Piezometric levels. Bertini, T., et al. (1984) ...................................... 38

Figure 35
Displacements of inclinometers B and C at different times. Bertini, T.,et al. (1984).. 39

Figure 36
Inclinometer results from station B. Bertini, T., et al. (1986) ............................................ 40

Figure 37
Station B: (a) piezometric level vs. time; (b) displacement rate vs. time. Bertini, T.,et
al. (1986)............................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 38
Fosso San Martino landslides in SEEP GeoStudio for pore water pressure model.
Calvello, M., et al. (2007).. .............................................................................................. 41

Figure 39
Results of pore water pressure model. Calvello, M., et al. (2007)................................ 42

Figure 40
Section of Fosso San Martino landslide in GeoStudio mesh. ........................................ 43
Figure 41
Localizations of points in borehole D8 and course oh total head in the same points.
............................................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 42
Localizations of points in borehole A1 – A2 and course oh total head in the same
points. ................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 43
Localizations of points in borehole F9 – F10 and course oh total head in the same
points. ................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 44
Localizations of points in borehole B3 – B4 – B5 and course oh total head in the
same points. ...................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 45
Localizations of points in borehole C6 – C7 and course oh total head in the same
points. ................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 46
Localizations of points in borehole G11 – G12 and course oh total head in the same
points. ................................................................................................................................. 46

Figure 47
Schematic ground water flow system in a hill cross section......................................... 46

Figure 48
General view of Vallcebre translational slide. Picture taken 24 October 2007. ....... 47

Figure 49
A geomorphological sketch of the Vallcebre landslide. Corominas J., et al. (1999)
............................................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 50
Geological cross section (in the previous figure there is the locations of profiles) of
the Vallcebre landslide. Corominas J., et al. (1999) .................................................. 48

Figure 51
Photograph of the toe of the Vallcebre landslide which is being continuously
undermined and eroded by the Vallcebre torrent. Local slope failures are
observable in the front. Corominas J., et al. (1999) ................................................... 49

Figure 52
Signs on ground surface of the slide. Pictures taken 24 October 2007. ..................... 49

Figure 53
Direction of movement for the upper and the intermediate units. Picture taken 24
October 2007. ................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 54
Piezometers, wire extensometer and inclinometers in boreholes. Pictures taken 24
October 2007. ................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 55
GPS point control in Vallcebre area. Picture taken 24 October 2007........................ 52

Figure 56
Wire displacements at boreholes S-2, S-5, S6, S9 and S-11. Corominas J.,et al. (1999)
............................................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 57
Piezometric record of boreholes S-2, S-5, S6, S9 and S-11. Corominas J., et al. (1999)
............................................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 58
Big slip surface and point in OR borehole in which safety factor has been
calculated in SLOPE. ........................................................................................................ 56

Figure 59
Small slip surface used in next paragraph drawing in SLOPE....................................... 56

Figure 60
Course of F in FEM model releting Orvieto landslide. .................................................... 57

Figure 61
Real slip surface in Fosso San Martino in SLOPE and point in which stability analysis
has been made. ............................................................................................................... 58

Figure 62
Course of F in FEM model relating Fosso San Martino landslide. ................................. 58

Figure 63
Scheme of infinite slope...................................................................................................... 59

Figure 64
Course of safety factor within the hypothesis of infinite slope in Orvieto landslide. 60

Figure 65
Course of safety factor within the hypothesis of infinite slope in Fosso San Martino
landslide. ............................................................................................................................ 61

Figure 66
Point in which infinite slope model has been applied. Corominas, J., et al. (2007). 61

Figure 67
Course of safety factor within the hypothesis of infinite slope in Vallcebre landslide.
............................................................................................................................................. 62

Figure 68
Picks of maximum and minimum value of total head regarding the upper and the
others points of borehole OR.......................................................................................... 64
Figure 69
Linear develop of cohesion – fiction angle for upper node in OR.............................. 65

Figure 70
Linear develop of cohesion – fiction angle some nodes in OR. .................................. 66

Figure 71
Linear develop of cohesion – fiction angle representative of the bigger sliding
surface in Orvieto site. ..................................................................................................... 66

Figure 72
Maximum and minimum value of total head regarding the upper and the others
points of borehole O4...................................................................................................... 67

Figure 73
Linear develop of cohesion – fiction angle representative of the smaller sliding
surface in Orvieto site. ..................................................................................................... 68

Figure 74
Significant steps of time in Fosso San Martino landslide derived from velocity
course. ................................................................................................................................ 69

Figure 75
Significant steps of time in Fosso San Martino landslide derived from safety factor
course. ................................................................................................................................ 70

Figure 76
Linear develop of cohesion – fiction angle representative of the sliding surface in
Fosso San Martino............................................................................................................. 71

Figure 77
Intersection in 24 October 1997 for sensitivity line of both slip surfaces. .................... 72

Figure 78
Intersection in 31 October 1997 for sensitivity line of both slip surfaces. .................... 73

Figure 79
Results of sensitivity analysis for the bigger surface in Orvieto site. ............................. 74

Figure 80
Results of sensitivity analysis for the smaller surface in Orvieto site.............................. 74

Figure 81
Results of sensitivity analysis for the smaller surface in Fosso San Martino site........... 75

Figure 82
Section of infinite slope from Corominas, J., et al. (2007) ............................................. 77

Figure 83
Blue cross indicate point in Orvieto landslide in which visco plastic model have
been applied. ................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 84
Point in B borehole in whitch visco plastic model have been applied...................... 83

Figure 85
Location of point in lower unit of Vallcebre area from a section in Corominas, J., et
al. (2007)............................................................................................................................. 83

Figure 86
Comparison between modeled and monitored displacements for Orvieto area.. 88

Figure 87
Comparison between modeled and monitored velocities for Orvieto area. .......... 89

Figure 88
Comparison between modeled and monitored displacements for Fosso San
Martino area. .................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 89: Comparison between modeled and monitored velocities for Fosso San
Martino area. ........................................................................................................................ 90

Figure 90
Comparison between modeled and monitored displacements for Vallcebre area.
............................................................................................................................................. 91

Figure 91
Comparison between modeled and monitored velocities for Vallcebre area. ...... 91

Figure 92
Displacements results of viscosity index application in visco – plastic model........... 94
Figure 93
Velocities results of viscosity index application in visco – plastic model. ................... 94

Figure 94
Course of viscosity index in time........................................................................................ 95

Figure 95
Course of pore water pressure and correspondent threshold. ................................... 96

Figure 96
Displacements results of viscosity index application in visco – plastic model........... 96

Figure 97
Velocities results of viscosity index application in visco – plastic model. ................... 97

Figure 98
Linear trend of logarithm of velocity with inverse of safety factor.............................. 98

Figure 99
Course of displacements in visco – plastic model taking into account viscosity
index. .................................................................................................................................. 99
Figure 100
Course of velocities in visco – plastic model taking into account viscosity index.. 100

Figure 101
Course of velocities in relation with inverse of safety factor. ..................................... 100

Figure 102
Relationship between the inverse of safety factor and viscosity index. .................. 101

Figure 103
The generate shear zone after failure at shearing speed known under undrained
monotonic stress control. .............................................................................................. 102

Figure 104: Velocities versus Groundwater level (December 1996). González D.A., et
al. (2008). ............................................................................................................................. 104

Figure 105
Velocities versus Groundwater level (January, February and March 1997). González
D.A., et al. (2008) ............................................................................................................ 105

Figure 106
Mathematics model’s results considering viscosity and without them, respectively.
González D.A., et al. (2008) .......................................................................................... 105

Figure 107
Ring shear equipement modified. .................................................................................. 106

Figure 108
Ring shear apparatus modified. ...................................................................................... 108

Figure 109
Preparation of sample for ring shear test....................................................................... 109

Figure 110
Strength criterion. ............................................................................................................... 110

Figure 111
Consolidation curve considering point 3 whit a load of 1kg/cm2. ........................... 111

Figure 112
Results of ordinary ring shear test. ................................................................................... 111

Figure 113
Results of modified ring shear test. .................................................................................. 112
104