Carmel Erika L.

Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018

Environmental Geology

I. Definition of Landslide Hazard

A landslide is the movement of a mass of rock, earth, or debris down a slope. This simple definition
by Cruden (1991) is adopted by Working Party on World Landslide Inventory. USGS describes "landslide"
as a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of slope-forming
materials including rock, soil, artificial fill, or a combination of these. The materials may move by falling,
toppling, sliding, spreading, or flowing.
Landslides, either alone or in association with the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires and
major rainstorm that may trigger landslides, are a major cause of loss of life, injury and property damage
in natural disasters around the world.

II. General Classification of Landslide Hazard

The system of landslide classification devised by the late D.J. Varnes has become the most widely
used system in the world. In this classification, the various types of landslides are differentiated by the kinds
of material (rock, debris, earth) involved and the mode of movement (falling, toppling, sliding, spreading,
or flowing).
Table 1 Types of landslides. Abbreviated version of Varnes' classification of slope movements (Varnes, 1978).

According to types of movements, landslides are categorized as fall, topple, slide, spread, flow, and
complex (see Figure 1).
1. Fall - starts with detachment of soil or rock from a steep slope along a surface on which little or no
shear displacement takes place. The material then descends largely through the air by falling,
saltation, or rolling.
2. Topple – the forward rotation, out of slope, of a mass of soil or rock about a point or axis below
the center of gravity of the displaced mass.
3. Slide – is the downslope movement of a soil or rock mass occurring dominantly on surfaces or
rupture or relatively thin zones of intense shear strain.
4. Spread - an extension of a cohesive soil or rock mass combined with a general subsidence of the
fractured mass of cohesive material into softer underlying material. The rupture surface is not a
surface of intense shear. Spreads may result from liquefaction or flow (and extrusion) of the softer
material.
5. Flow – a spatially continuous movement in which surfaces of shear are short-lived, closely spaced
and not usually preserved. The distribution of velocities in the displacing mass resembles that in a
viscous fluid.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

Figure 1 Types of landslides according to Varnes’ classification

Hungr, et.al. (2013) proposed a revision to the Varnes’ classification. Their primary
recommendation is to modify the definition of landslide-forming materials to provide compatibility with
accepted geotechnical and geological terminology of rocks and soils as a result from recent developments
in landslide science. Geotechnical material terminology is most useful, as it relates best to the mechanical
behavior of the landslide (see Table 2). The modified Varnes classification of landslides has 32 landslide
types (see Table 3), each of which is backed by a formal definition in their paper.
Table 2 Landslide-forming material types (Hungr et.al., 2013)
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

Table 3 Summary of the proposed new version of the Varnes’ classification system.

The words in italics are placeholders (use only one). a Movement types that usually reach extremely rapid velocities. The other
landslide types are most often (but not always) extremely slow to very rapid.

The major differences are summarized as follows:

a. Flexural vs block topple - In flexural, there are no well-defined basal joints, so that rotation of the
strata must be facilitated by bending. The movement is generally slow and tends to self-stabilize. On the
other hand, in block topple, the rock is relatively massive, and rotation occurs on well-defined basal
discontinuities. Movement may begin slowly, but the last stage of failure can be extremely rapid.

Figure 2 (left) block topple in limestone, (upper right) flexural topple, (lower right) schematic cross
section of flexural topple.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

b. Rotational vs planar vs wedge – Rotational (“slump”) is sliding of a mass of weak rock on a

cylindrical or other rotational rupture surface which is not structurally controlled, while in planar
(“translational”) the surface may be stepped forward. The slide head may be separating from stable rock
along a deep, vertical tension crack. Usually extremely rapid. Wedge slides are translational slides
exploiting favorably oriented intersecting discontinuities

Figure 3(left) rotational slide, (upper right) Scars of wedge failures in limestone, (lower right) Mont Granier
translational rock slide.

c. Compound slide vs irregular slide – Compound sliding is sliding of a mass on rupture surface
consisting of several planes, or a surface of uneven curvature, while irregular rock slide (“rock collapse”)
Sliding of a rock mass on an irregular rupture surface consisting of a number of randomly oriented joints,
separated by segments of intact rock (“rock bridges”).

Figure 4 (left) compound slide in glacio-lacustrine deposits, (upper right) rock collapse, (lower right) Schematic
cross-section of compound slide in Cretaceous shale
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

d. Liquefaction spread vs clay spread -Liquefaction spreading is extremely rapid lateral spreading of
a series of soil blocks, floating on a layer of saturated (loose) granular soil, liquefied by earthquake shaking
or spontaneous liquefaction, while clay spreading Extremely rapid lateral spreading of a series of coherent
clay blocks, floating on a layer of remoulded sensitive clay.

Figure 5 (left) Interpreted cross-section of the liquefaction

spread. The dashed line is the original pre-failure surface of
the marine terrace. (right) lateral spreading failure following
rotational sliding in extra-sensitive clay

e. Dry flow vs flowslide – dry flow is a slow or rapid flow-like movement of loose dry, moist or
subaqueous, sorted or unsorted granular material, without excess pore pressure; while flowslide is very
rapid to extremely rapid flow of sorted or unsorted saturated granular material on moderate slopes,
involving excess pore-pressure or liquefaction of material originating from the landslide source.

Figure 6 (left) Dry sand flow on the lee slope of a sand dune, (upper right) The Sale Shan flowslide in the loess
deposits, (lower right) A flowslide caused by multiple retrogressive failure of ice-rich permafrost.

f. Debris flow vs debris flood vs debris avalanche – Debris flow is very rapid to extremely rapid
surging flow of saturated debris in a steep channel. Strong entrainment of material and water from the flow
path. Debris flood is very rapid flow of water, heavily charged with debris, in a steep channel. Peak
discharge comparable to that of a water flood. Debris avalanche is very rapid to extremely rapid shallow
flow of partially or fully saturated debris on a steep slope, without confinement in an established channel.
Occurs at all scales.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

Figure 5 (left) debris avalanche in sandy colluvium. Note sitting person on the right. (upper right) Debris flow surge, (upper left)
The large boulder was rolled by a 2-m deep flow, but the concrete structure on the right was only partly damaged

g. Creep vs solifluction – Soil creep is extremely slow movement of surficial soil layers on a slope
(typically less than 1 m deep), as a result of climate-driven cyclical volume changes (wetting and drying,
frost heave). Solifluction is very slow but intensive shallow soil creep involving the active layer in Alpine
or polar permafrost. Forms characteristic solifluction lobes.

h. Slope deformation – large scale and deep-seated deformation.

Hungr et. al. (2013) do not intend to propose an entirely new landslide classification system but aim to
introduce modifications to the Varnes classification to reflect recent advances in understanding of landslide
phenomena and the materials and mechanisms involved. Using the basic classification by Varnes’ is still
also recommended for simplicity.
III. Landslide Risk Assessment Methods
Natural disasters occurring in larger scale may have a serious impact on society and the economy,
resulting in a significant national loss. Disaster prevention should be one of the most important policies of
the Government of a country. "One who can rule rivers can rule a country, too" – An old theme of
statesmanship. The hazard assessments cannot stop a disastrous phenomenon. But the effective use of
hazard maps can decrease the magnitude of disasters.

There are many methods of assessment introduced by different scientist around the world. Below
is a summary of the more recent and most common methods:
1. Map Analysis – Map analysis is usually one of the first steps in a landslide investigation. Necessary
maps include bedrock and surficial geology, topography, soils, and if available, geomorphology maps.
Using knowledge of geologic materials and processes, a trained person can obtain a general idea of landslide
susceptibility from such maps.

2. Aerial Reconnaissance - Analysis of aerial photography is a quick and valuable technique for
identifying landslides, because it provides a three-dimensional overview of the terrain and indicates human
activities as well as much geologic information to a trained person.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

Figure 6 An example of an aerial photograph of the La Conchita landslide in California, USA, taken in 2005. Blue line
delineates an older landslide, yellow a more recent landslide.

3. Field Reconnaissance - Many of the more subtle signs of slope movement cannot be identified on
maps or photographs. Indeed, if an area is heavily forested or has been urbanized, even major features may
not be evident. Furthermore, landslide features change over time on an active slide. Thus, field
reconnaissance is always mandatory to verify or detect landslide features, and to critically evaluate the
potential instability of vulnerable slopes. Involves field mapping and laboratory testing of terrain through
the sampling of soil and rock.

4. Drilling - At most sites, drilling is necessary to determine the type of earth materials involved in
the slide, the depth to the slip surface, and thus the thickness and geometry of the landslide mass, the water-
table level, and the degree of disruption of the landslide materials. drilling is needed for installation of some
monitoring instruments and hydrologic observation wells.

5. Instrumentation - Sophisticated methods such as electronic distance measurement (EDM),

instruments such as inclinometers, extensometers, strain meters, and piezometers (see Glossary for
definitions of these instruments), and simple techniques, such as establishing control points by using stakes
can all be used to determine the mechanics of landslide movement and to monitor and warn against
impending slope failure.

Figure 7 Example of a network for measurement and transmission of real-time landslide data.

6. Geophysical Studies - Geophysical techniques (measurement of soil’s electrical

conductivity/resistivity, or measurement of induced seismic behavior) can be used to determine some
subsurface characteristics such as the depth to bedrock, stratigraphic layers, zones of saturation, and
sometimes the ground-water table. It can also be used to determine texture, porosity, and degree of
consolidation of subsurface materials and the geometry of the units involved.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

7. Acoustic Imagery and Profiles - Profiles of lakebeds, river bottoms, and the sea floor can be
obtained using acoustic techniques such as side-scan sonar and subbottom seismic profiling. Surveying of
controlled grids, with accurate navigation, can yield three-dimensional perspectives of subaqueous geologic
phenomena. Modern, high-resolution techniques are used routinely in offshore shelf areas to map geologic
hazards for offshore engineering.

8. Computerized Landslide Terrain Analysis – In recent years, computer modeling of landslides has
been used to determine the volume of landslide masses and changes in surface expression and cross section
over time. This information is useful in calculating the potential for stream blockage, cost of landslide
removal (based on volume), and type and mechanism of movement. Very promising methods are being
developed that use digital elevation models (DEMs) to evaluate areas quickly for their susceptibility to
landslide/debris-flow events. Computers also are being used to perform complex stability analyses.
Software programs for these studies are readily available for personal computers.

IV. Landslide Risk Map

Determining the extent of landslide hazard requires identifying those

areas which could be affected by a damaging landslide and assessing the
probability of the landslide occurring within some time period. In general,
however, specifying a time frame for the occurrence of a landslide is difficult to
determine even under ideal conditions.
As a result, landslide hazard is often represented by landslide
susceptibility. Similar to the concept of flood-prone areas, landslide
susceptibility only identifies areas potentially affected and does not imply a time
frame when a landslide might occur.
Comparing the location of an area of proposed development to the
degree of landslide hazard present enables the planner to estimate the landslide
risk. This can be used to define land use capability and identify appropriate
mitigation measures.
Particularly, the danger map must include the landslide (danger)
characterisation (landslide susceptible areas, landslides intensity and further data
sets); the hazard map would take that information and adds frequency of sliding;
and the risk map adds the consequences to the elements at risk by the
characterisation of consequence scenarios (elements at risk and vulnerability of
elements at risk) and temporal probability analyses (see Figure 8).
In Chapter 5, a case study is presented showing the production of a risk
map in Swansea Valley, South Wales. This shows how good historical
Figure 8 Input elements to zoning
maps (Cascini et.al., 2014) analysis and database can produce a useable risk map for landslide
monitoring, engineering mitigation plans, and for land use planning.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

V. Case Study: “Pantteg landslip” Ystalyfera, Swansea Valley, South Wales

The Pantteg landslip is part of a larger landslip system located to the southwest of Ystalyfera in the
Swansea Valley, South Wales. Land movements continue to have significant impacts on the local
population and infrastructure. The assessment by Eynon (2007) established an understanding of the
historical and current Pantteg landslip conditions, hazards and risks, such that options for the future
management of the landslip can be considered. From this, a risk map (see Figure 11) was produced.

Twenty-six landslip events have been recorded in

Pantteg since the earliest records and it is likely that there have
been many more. The form and frequency of these events
varies, however it appears that there is often a link between
high rainfall and instability. The most recent large ground
movement in 2012 blocked the road opposite Pantteg Chapel
and caused disruption for a long period (see Figure 11).

The underlying geology of the area comprise

superficial Glacial Till, Colluvium, Alluvium and rocks of the
Middle and Upper Coal Measures strata which includes the
Llynfi Sandstone, Llynfi Mudstone, various coal seams and
Figure 9 Landslip at Pantteg Chapel, seat earths.
December 2012

Previous investigation and assessment in the 1980’s,

1990’s and most recently in 2013 has considered the likely
link between high rainfall and slope instability. Based on the
geology, hydrology and hydrogeology we concur with this
assessment.

Observations during the autumn of 2015 conclude

the landslip system is the same general condition encountered
during 2013. However, tension cracks appear to have
increased in size, material appears to be falling from the steep
southern slopes, some properties have been reoccupied and
deformation of structures has been noted. A mine tunnel has Figure 10 Tension cracks above Pantteg Chapel
been identified on historical data; the entrance of which has (2015)
been identified close to Clees Lane.

No incidents of loss of life have been recorded over time; however, we believe that this was only
narrowly avoided on a number of occasions. Preliminary quantitative risk assessment has highlighted a
level of risk to life and property which is generally not tolerated. In addition, larger ground movements are
currently unpredictable and have potentially serious consequences to life and property, which increases the
sensitivity of the site.

Previous assessments have concluded that the overall landslip system could not be economically
stabilised and we concur with this opinion. With the absence of a feasible engineering remediation strategy,
the overarching future aim is to create a suitable management system and possible early warning system
that enables decisions and reactions to emerging conditions and environmental factors.
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

Figure 11 Risk Map of Ystalyfera in the Swansea Valley, South Wales (grabbed from Eynon,2007)
Carmel Erika L. Mammag GEO160-2 November 29, 2018
Environmental Geology

VI. Engineering Mitigation Measures

The IUGS Working Group on Landslides has prepared a short checklist of landslide remedial
measures arranged in four practical groups, namely: modification of slope geometry, drainage, retaining
structures, and internal slope reinforcement.

Table 4. A brief list of remedial measures

VII. References

Cascini, L., Bonnard, C., Corominas, J., Jibson, R., & Montero-Olarte, J. (2014). Landslide hazard and risk
zoning for urban planning and development. Proceeding of the International Conference on
Landslide Risk Management, Canada, 199-235.
Cruden, D. M. (1991). A simple definition of landslide. Bulletin of the Internation Association of
Engineering Geology(43).
Eynon, M. R. (2007). Pantteg Landslip Data Review and Management Proposals. Earth Scienve
Partnership.
Highland, L.M., and Bobrowsky, Peter, 2008, The landslide handbook—A guide to understanding
landslides: Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1325, 129 p.
Hungr, O., Leroueil, S., & Picarelli, L. (2013). The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update.
Landslides.
UNESCO Working Party for World Landslide Inventory (WP/WLI). (1993). Multilingual Landslide
Glosarry. The Canadian Geotechnical Society.