Advertisement

Geomechanical Basis of Landslide Classification and Modelling of Triggering

  • Gianfrancesco Rocchi
  • Giovanni Vaciago
Chapter

Abstract

A proposal to supplement existing landslide classifications with a more detailed description of the geomechanical characteristics of the materials to include the effects of “structure”, stress history and initial state has been developed as part of the EC sponsored SafeLand project. This approach provides a valuable insight into and a rational basis for the modelling of the physical mechanisms that govern landslide triggering and subsequent development. The classification, behaviour and modelling of saturated clays and sands is summarized here. The use of advanced strain hardening plasticity models which, where necessary, include progressive damage to the “structure” of the material helps to replicate mechanical weathering, delayed failure and the triggering of flows or slides, depending on the type of material. A numerical example is presented, illustrating the different response of sensitive clays and mechanically overconsolidated clays to rapid erosion or excavation. More details of the proposed geotechnical classification and other numerical examples may be found in Deliverable 1.1 of the SafeLand project.

Keywords

Classification Clay Sand Modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work summarized here was carried out as part of the SafeLand project, funded by the EC 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement No. 226479). The Authors are grateful to colleagues and partners in the Project for valuable discussion. The numerical models were developed with the assistance of Ing. Maurizio Fontana of Autosoft, whose contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Adachi T, Oka F, Mimura M (1996) Modelling aspects associated with time dependent behaviour of soils. Sheahan TC, Kallakin VN (eds) Geotechnical Special Publication no 61, on measuring and modelling time dependent soil behavior, sponsored by Geo-Institute of ASCE, in conjunction with ASCE Convention in Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Tabbaa A, Wood MD (1989) An experimentally based bubble model for clay. In: Pande GN, Pietruszezak S (eds) Proceedings of numerical models in geomechanics. NUMOG III, Elsevier, London, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  3. Bjerrum L (1967) Engineering geology of Norwegian normally consolidated marine clays as related to settlements of buildings. Géotechnique 17(2):81–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burland JB (1990) On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40(3):329–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabresi G, Scarpelli G (1985) Effects of swelling caused by unloading in overconsolidated clays. In: Proceedings of 11th ICSMFE, vol 2. San Francisco, pp 411–414Google Scholar
  6. Carson MA (1976) Mass-wasting, slope development and climate. In: Derbyshire E (ed) Geomorphology and climate. Wiley, London, pp 101–136Google Scholar
  7. Henkel DJ (1960) The shear strength of saturated remolded clays. In: Proceedings of the ASCE Research conference on shear strength of cohesive soils, Boulder, pp 533–554Google Scholar
  8. Hinchberger SD, Qu G (2009) Viscoplastic costitutive approach for rate-sensitive structured clays. Can Geotech J 46:609–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hutchinson JN (1988) Morphology and geotechnical parameters of landslides in relation to geology and hydrogeology. In: Proceedings 5th international symposium on landslides, Lausanne 1, Balkema, pp 3–35Google Scholar
  10. Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Géotechnique 43(3):351–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jardine RS, St John ND, Hight DW, Potts DM (1991) Some practical applications of a non-linear ground model. In: Proceedings of 10th ECSMFE, vol 1. Florence, pp 223–228Google Scholar
  12. Jefferies M, Been K (2006) Soil liquefaction – a critical state approach. Taylor & Francis, London, 479pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laflamme JF, Leroueil S (1999) Analyse des pressions interstitielles mesurées aux sites d’excavation de Saint-Hilaire et de Riviére-Vachon, Quebec. Report GCT-99-10 prepared for the Ministére des Transports du Quebec, Université LavalGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsson R, Bengtsson PE, Eriksson L (1997) Prediction of settlements of embankments on soft, fine-grained soils- calculation of settlements and their course with time. Information 13E, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  15. Leroueil S (2001) Natural slopes and cuts: movement and failure mechanism. Géotechnique 51(3):197–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leroueil S, Vaunat J, Picarelli L, Locat J, Faure R, Lee H (1996) A geotechnical characterization of slope movements. In: Senneset K (ed) Proceedings of 7th international symposium on landslides. Trondheim 1, Balkema, pp 53–74Google Scholar
  17. Li XS, Dafalias YF (2000) Dilatancy for cohesionless soils. Géotechnique 50(4):449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nagaraj TS, Miura N (2001) Soft clay behaviour: analysis and assessment. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Rocchi G, Fontana M, Da Prat M (2003) Modelling of natural soft clay destruction processes using viscoplasticity theory. Géotechnique 53(8):729–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rocchi G, Vaciago G, Fontana M, Plebani F (2006) Enhanced prediction of settlement in structured clays with examples from Osaka Bay. Geomech Geoeng Int J 1(3), Taylor and Francis, pp 217–237Google Scholar
  21. Rocchi G, Vaciago G, Callerio A, Fontana M, Previtali R (2010) Chapters 2 and 4 in: SafeLand – living with landslide risk in Europe: assessment, effects and global change, and risk management strategies. Crosta GB, Agliardi F, Frattini P, Sosio R (eds) Deliverable 1.1: landslide triggering mechanisms in Europe – overview and state of the Art, Rev. 1 – final, pp 11–81Google Scholar
  22. Skempton AW (1985) Residual strength of clays in landslides, folded strata and the laboratory. Géotechnique 35(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stallebrass SE, Taylor RN (1997) The development and evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of ground movements in overconsolidated clay. Géotechnique 47(2):235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tavenas F, Chagnon JY, La Rochelle P (1971) The Saint-Jean-Vianney landslide: observations and eyewitnesses accounts. Can Geotech J 8:463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslide analysis and control special report 176, Transportation research Board, N.R.C., National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, vol 2, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  26. Wood MD (1990) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianfrancesco Rocchi
    • 1
  • Giovanni Vaciago
    • 1
  1. 1.Studio Geotecnico ItalianoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations