1

STABILITY AND FAILURE BEHAVIOUR OF NATURAL SLOPES

Oldrich Hungr

Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia,
6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4, Canada


INTRODUCTION

Considerable advances in knowledge related to the stability of natural slopes have been made in
recent decades (Morgenstern, 1992). But engineering concerns with natural slopes do not end
with this issue. In case of natural slopes, the question of whether the slope could fail or not is
often secondary to that concerning the probable character and consequences of a failure
(Morgenstern, 1978). What methods are available for predicting the consequences of slope
failure?

The term failure requires a definition. As reviewed by Skempton and Hutchinson (1969), the
history of a mass movement comprises pre-failure deformations, failure itself and post-failure
displacements. Many slow-moving landslides exhibit a large number of movement episodes,
separated by long or short periods of relative quiescence. The following definition is proposed
for the purposes of this paper:

Failure is the single most significant movement episode in the known or anticipated history of
a landslide and also one which involves the formation of a continuous rupture surface as a
displacement or strain discontinuity.

Landslide engineering lacks a unified scale of destructiveness, such as exists in the Mercalli
scale of earthquake intensity (Morgenstern, 1985). Intensity is a spatial function, defining the
destructive power of an event in terms of certain parameters. Hungr (1981, p.23) argued that
velocity is the most important intensity measure. Other intensity parameters may include depth
of movement, thickness of deposits or strain (Hungr, 1987). Velocity can be related to the
typical human response to landslide occurrence, as shown in Table 1 (see also Cruden and
Varnes, 1996). What is most important is whether failure will lead to very rapid or extreme
velocities (about in excess of 1 m/s), which pose direct risk to human life. It must be noted that
slower landslides may also cause substantial damage, or threaten human life through secondary
effects such as flooding or structural damage. However, in this discussion we concentrate on
primary impact.

The second landslide dimension relevant to destructiveness is the mass of the slide, which is
roughly proportional to volume (magnitude) and the area affected (e.g. Hungr, 1990). The
initial volume of a landslide is the volume contained between the rupture surface and the pre-
failure ground surface. This is referred to here as the source volume. The areal region
affected by a landslide consists of the source area i.e. the plan area of the rupture surface, the
path along which the slide masses move after leaving the source and the deposition area
2
Table 1
Landslide velocity scale (IUGS,WGL , 1995, Cruden and Varnes, 1996, see also Hungr, 1981,).

Class Description Velocity
(m/s)
Typical
velocity
Human response
7 Extremely Rapid Escape impossible
---------------------- 5 5 m/sec
6 Very Rapid Escape possible, but uncertain
---------------------- 5x10
-2
3 m/min
5 Rapid Escape, but limited evacuation
---------------------- 5x10
-4
1.8 m/hr
4 Moderate Evacuation
---------------------- 5x10
-6
13 m/month
3 Slow Removal or maintenance
---------------------- 5x10
-8
1.6 m/year
2 Very Slow Maintenance of structures
---------------------- 5x10
-10
16 mm/year
1 Extremely Slow No serious effects


where they come to rest. (This terminology was first suggested to the writer in an unpublished
letter by J.King of the GEO, Hong Kong).

In case of mobile landslides, there may be a considerable distance between the source and the
deposit. Further, the slide volume, as well as the character of its material, may change during its
motion due to comminution, entrainment of solid material and incorporation or drainage of
water. Many mobile landslides are strongly enlarging. Others behave retrogressively (e.g.
Mitchell and Markell, 1974). Landslides which exhibit extremely rapid motion and significant
impacts in areas outside the source area could be called catastrophic landslides, to recognize
their high hazard potential.

This brief discussion indicates that slope stability analysis is only the first step towards hazard
assessment of catastrophic landslides. The second step, given that a failure is possible, is to
predict whether of not catastrophic motion could develop and what volume of material will
ultimately be involved. The third step, not covered here, is the process of mapping the value and
distribution of intensity parameters over the extent of the hazard area (runout analysis). In a
summary, slope hazard assessment for potentially catastrophic landslides involves the following
steps:

1) Slope stability analysis
2) Assessment of failure behaviour
3) Intensity mapping (runout analysis)

This article deals with Step 2, assessment of failure behaviour. It reviews several different
scenaria, in which unique site characteristics determined the failure behaviour of large landslides
3
in soil and rock. The review is not exhaustive, as undoubtedly many other complex mechanisms
capable of producing catastrophic failures exist.

EXAMPLES

Rock structure and mobility of rock slides and slumps

In the absence of favourably oriented discontinuities, rock fails by rotational shearing (slumping)
as if it were a cohesive soil. However, only the weakest rock masses can fail by shearing
through intact rock material: theoretically, a 100 m high vertical cliff would fail only if the
average cohesion of the rock mass was less than about 0.7 MPa. This is a very low value for
intact rock. Strength reduction due to random discontinuities, fissures and other defects must
also play a role.

Rock slump occurs in weak rocks such as shale, marl or tuff, which are isotropic, or structured so
that the weak direction is horizontal or dips opposite to the slope direction. The failure
mechanism is inherently self-stabilizing, as the rotation of the sliding body brings about a
reduction on the driving forces. This is especially so if the failure surface passes beneath the
slope toe or if the slope angle decreases in the toe region

Slump failures tend to be slow-moving, although they may involve large displacements. An
excellent example is the slumping of several millions m
3
of Cretaceous calcareous shales
(Valanginian), capped by massive limestone (Urgonian) in the Massif de Plat near Chamonix in
the Savoy Alps, France (Figure 1). The moderately folded Alpine Foreland sedimentary
sequence is roughly horizontal at this location. An 18th. century eyewitness description of the
failure scenario was quoted by Eisbacher and Clague (1984, p. 142):

I found myself in the face of a mountain completely enveloped in smoke, from which broke
continuously, day and night, masses of rock, with an astounding noise stronger than thunder or
the battery of a cannon.

This activity continued for over a month (Eisbacher and Clague, 1984). Only localized slide-
head toppling of blocks in the Urgonian limestone cap was of a catastrophic nature, while the
overall failure was slow and gradual. The overall displacement of the large rock slide barely

Figure 1

A profile of a typical rotational slump
in weak calcareous shales overlain by
massive limestone, similar to the
failure at the Massif de Plat
described in the text. (based on an
unpublished sketch by Dr. A.
Malatrait, B.R.G.M., Lyon, France).

100 m
4
reached the toe of the steep valley slope.
No landslide dam formed in the channel of
the Arve River and no effects were felt on
the opposite bank (Figure 2).

An entirely different type of failure
occurred in 1281 in the same rock sequence
some 50 km away, at Mt. Granier.
According to an interpretation due to
Cruden and Antoine (1984), sliding on marl
bedding planes in the Valanginian, inclined
at only 17 towards the valley, took place
under a mass up to 600 m thick (Figure 3).
The resulting block of several hundreds of
millions m
3
moved towards the valley,
disintegrated and covered an area of more
than 15 km
2
by rock avalanche debris in a
matter of minutes. A provincial town was
obliterated, with a loss of possibly as many
as 5,000 persons. This catastrophic slide
occurred in a sequence of Cretaceous strata
identical to that which produced the moderately rapid Massif de Plat slump, mentioned earlier,
and in a slope of similar initial geometry. The sole factor responsible for a dramatically different
behaviour was the bedding orientation, with a modest dip out of the slope in the former case and
into the slope in the latter.

What is the reason for such diverse failure behaviour in two nearly identical slopes? The answer
must lie in the way weak rock masses fail in shear. It appears that once weak, randomly jointed
or fissured rock mass becomes overstressed, it deforms plastically, without a sudden drop of
strength. Triaxial testing of rock samples at high confining stresses (relative to the compressive
strength) shows similar ductile behaviour (e.g. Byerlee, 1968). It should theoretically be
possible to define an upper limit of rock strength, below which ductile rock mass failure can
occur in a given slope. The strength should be normalized to the stress level using the Stability
Number:

N
H
s
c
=
2

Eqn. [1]
Here, ? is the unit weight of the rock material, H is the height of the slope, expressed as the
elevation difference between the crest and toe of the rupture surface and s
c
is the uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock. For a typical large catastrophic rock slide involving strong
rock and a 300 m high slope, N
s
equals 2x26x300/100000, or 0.15. For a small extremely rapid
collapse of a 40 m high portion of a cliff in soft Chalk, with a s
c
of 5 MPa, N
s
equals
2x22x40/5000, or 0.35. For a large slow-moving rock slump in very weak shale or marl, with an
H of 200 m and a s
c
of 2 MPa, it is 2x26x200/2000, or 5.2. It appears that N
s
should be
Figure 2

A geomorphological map of the Masiff de
Plat slope ( after Goguel and Pachoud,
1981). The width of the map is 3.2 km.
5
considerably above 0.5 to allow the occurrence of
a slow ductile rock slump. However, this is a
subject for future research.

The brittle behaviour of the structurally-controlled
translational failure at Mt Granier, on the other
hand, can be explained by the undrained
brittleness of rock joints, sheared through peak to
residual strength. Given the great thickness of the
failed mass, rate-softenning behaviour due to
frictional heating along the controlling bedding
joints is possible (Goguel and Pachoud, 1972).

Catastrophic, structurally-controlled translational
slide movements take place most frequently in
carbonates and less often in other sediments. The
largest rock avalanches of the historical record
(e.g. Goldau, 1806), as well as the largest
catastrophic non-volcanic landslide on Earth, the
Seimareh Slide in Iran (Shoaei and Ghayoumian,
1998) are of this type.


2.2 Rock structure and the failure behaviour of rock topples

Many slopes formed in steeply dipping strength-anisotropic rocks exhibit outward rotation and
reverse shearing of the rock mass, described as flexural toppling (Goodman and Bray, 1976).
The original rock fabric often dips into the slope, but steep cataclinal slopes have also been
affected (e.g. Cruden, 1989). The rock type is predominantly schist, phyllite or slate, less
commonly closely jointed gneiss or sedimentary rocks. A well known example of flexural
toppling is the Clapire slide in Southern France, described by Follaci (1987) and shown in
Figure 4.

Figure 5 shows flexural toppling produced analytically using the Universal Discrete Element
Model (Itasca, 1993, Nichol, 2000, Nichol et al., 2001). The model shows all the characteristic
morphological features typical of this type of slope movement: gradual forward rotation of the
beds, a hinge zone, multiple shallow tension cracks and antislope scarps. The major principal
stress in the model is parallel with the slope surface, except in a relatively thin de-stressed
surficial zone which contains tension cracks. The model stabilized itself at a joint inclination
equal to that predicted by the stability criterion proposed by Goodman and Bray (1976). In order
to produce this behaviour in the model, the strength of the rock comprising the steeply-dipping
layers has to be low and the rock mass quality poor on account of close jointing. This confirms
the general observation that flexural toppling is limited to weak rocks.

The flexural toppling mechanism is self-stabilizing, because the shear stresses on the weak
surfaces decrease as the beds tilt forward. This, in combination with the general low strength of
Figure 3

An isometric sketch of the Mt. Granier
block slide (based on an interpretation by
Cruden and Antoine, 1987).

6



Figure 4

La Clapire slide. Note multiple reverse
scarps caused by flexural toppling.








Figure 6

A view of the source area of the Mystery
Creek rock avalanche in the middle ground
(Nichol et al., 2001).





Figure 5

An analytical model of a flexural topple.
The width of the pictured region is 800 m
(Nichol et al., 2001).



Figure 7

An analytical model of a catastrophic block
topple. The width of the pictured region is
800m (Nichol et al., 2001).
7
the rock mass involved, produces ductile behaviour similar to that of rock slump failures. Highly
developed flexural toppling can transform into a slump, as the strata break in a curved hinge
zone and begin to slide. This is apparent in the crest area of the Clapire slide. There appear to
be few examples of such a mechanism leading to catastrophic velocities, while examples of
ductile behaviour are abundant (e.g. DeFreitas and Watters, 1973).

The second type of toppling mechanism defined by Goodman and Bray (1976) is block toppling.
This is a rotational failure of steeply dipping beds in relatively massive rock, where stability is
derived mostly from the base of the rock columns, rather than from friction along their sides.
Simple catastrophic toppling of a large isolated limestone tower (the "Pulverhorndl") was
described from the Austrian Alps by Terzaghi (1950). Such detachments are limited in volume.

Of greater concern is catastrophic block toppling of series of massive columns separated by
steeply dipping joints. An example of this kind was observed by the writer in a railway cut in
steeply jointed massive quartzite, involving some 10,000 m
3
. The 1928 Motto d'Arbino failure in
Switzerland, involving 30 to 40 million m
3
of gneiss and marble, may have had a similar
mechanism (Heim, 1932). This failure was a small part at the front of a large moving mass.
Heim's description of the 1928 event and the limited runout of the deposits, indicate that the
failure occurred in a piecemeal manner, with a succession of smaller falls continuing over many
hours.

Under certain circumstances, block toppling can produce large-scale catastrophic slope failures,
followed by rock avalanches. The pre-historic Mystery Creek rock avalanche near Whistler,
British Columbia, Canada, involved 40 million m
3
of quartz diorite, containing a well developed
sub-vertical joint set with a modal spacing of 2 to 5m, as well as more widely spaced, but highly
persistent joints dipping at a shallow angle in the slope direction. The failed slope was traversed
obliquely by a vertical cliff over 100m high and this probably provided a kinematic release for
large-scale block toppling. The source scar exhibits a sloping base covered by partially rotated
large blocks and is surrounded by tension cracks and anti-slope scarps (Figure 6). The resulting
rock avalanche travelled 2 km across the valley floor.

An analytical model of the Mystery Creek case is shown in Figure 7 (Nichol et al., 2001). This
model uses rock with high strength. Because this strength inhibits bending of the strata, a set of
discontinuities dipping down slope must exist, which act as a base for rotation. Failure begins by
a forward rotation of three tiers of blocks, forming a kink band. The rotated blocks lining the
base of the rupture surface in Figure 6 probably represent the lower part of this kink band. A
catastrophic general failure and disintegration of the source mass follows. The major principal
stress during the initial stages of failure is oriented parallel with the near-vertical joint set. This
is a different stress state from that observed in the flexural toppling model (Figure 5) and a
totally different failure behaviour results from it.

Thus, recognition of catastrophic failure potential in toppling slopes requires careful search for
structures dipping in the direction of movement. It is uncertain, however, whether strong
earthquake shaking could generate rupture within the toppling hinge, intensive enough to trigger
brittle detachment. Chigira and Kiho (1994) describe five examples of toppling slopes in
Japanese Cretaceous sediments, which developed into highly mobile rock avalanches. It is
8
unclear whether downslope-oriented
structures existed in these cases.
However, two of the landslides occurred
as a result of earthquakes.

2.3 The role of internal strength in a
compound slide in overconsolidated
clay

Slides involving overconsolidated, non-
sensitive clay tend to be slow and ductile
(e.g. Skempton and Hutchinson, 1969).
Many such slides are found along river
valleys of the Canadian Prairies,
exploiting weak surfaces in heavily
overconsolidated glacio-lacustrine clays,
or the underlying argillaceous bedrock
(Thomson and Morgenstern, 1977).

An unusual case is the Attachie Slide,
which occurred in May, 1973 on the Peace
River upstream of Fort St.John, north-
eastern British Columbia. The south side
of the 200 m deep valley had been
unstable for at least 30 years, before the
first airphotos of the area were taken.
Sliding was taking place in a thick and
complex sequence of glacio-lacustrine
clays, clayey silts and silts, covered by
about 30 m of glacial till. The glacio-
lacustrine sequence was underlain by basal
gravels and Cretaceous bedrock, neither of
which participated in the instability.
Displacements totaling several tens of
metres had occurred at several levels in
the slope by 1973, creating several large
scarps (Figure 8a). The instability
occurred in two stages, upper and lower,
separated by an intact intermediate scarp
which can be seen on both in Figures 8a
and b and on the profile, Figure 9.

Precedent from similar locations in prairie
valleys would indicate that a slow, ductile
failure was in progress. However, in May,
a
b
a
b

Figure 8

Vertical airphotos of the Attachie Slide.
a) in 1970 (BC5529,75) b) in 1973
following the rapid flow slide of May,
1973 (BC7279,70). The area covered by
the photographs is approximately 1,800
m wide.
9
0 100 50 150 250 200 300
Unit 2 Pre-glacial laminated clay and silt
Unit 4 Till
Unit 5 Colluvium
Unit 1 Cobble/gravel
Unit 3 Sand
?
550
600 450 350 400 500 550 750 650 700
400
500
450
Post-failure surface
Pre-failure surface
650
600
meters
Unit 6 Post-glacial laminated clay and silt
Upper stage
Lower stage

Figure 9

A central cross-section of the Attachie Slide (Fletcher, 2000)


1973, following a relatively wet year, the lower stage of the slope became suddenly mobile. A
total of 12.4 million m
3
of material moved on both levels. About half of this volume (6.4 million
m
3
) was sufficiently mobile to descend a 60 m scarp at the toe of the slope and move rapidly
across the floodplain of the Peace River. This mobile portion corresponded largely with the
lower stage of the instability, between the toe and the intermediate scarp. The upper stage also
displaced, but with much less mobility. The flow slide had sufficient momentum to raise a wave
and impact the opposite shore. Details of the case history can be found in Evans et al. (1996),
Fletcher (2000) and Fletcher et al. (2001).

The glacio-lacustrine soil, forming the most mobile part of the displacement material, consisted
of approximately 31% of low-plastic silt, 48% plastic clayey silt and 21% sand (Fletcher et al.,
2001). All these materials are complexly interbedded and very stiff or dense, having been
overridden by glacial ice on at least one occasion. There is some evidence that the low plasticity
silt units are cemented by calcium carbonate or gypsum. The flat basal part of the rupture
surface formed in thinly laminated highly plastic illite clay with a clay fraction of 60-70%. The
residual friction angles ranged from 17 to 25, on account of varying silt content. Three
consolidated undrained triaxial tests on this material indicated dilative behaviour with values of
the pore-pressure parameter, A at failure of 0,12 to 0.55, indicating low sensitivity. Liquidity
indices generally below 0.5 also pointed to low sensitivity.

It is not difficult to explain the occurrence of instability at this site, given the existence of pre-
sheared layers of plastic clay and the presence of confined ground water aquifers. However, it is
much more difficult to explain the occurrence of extremely rapid, catastrophic failure as
observed in May, 1973.

10
In order to quantify the strength loss evidenced by the 1973 displacement, a dynamic analysis of
the lower stage source volume was carried out with the program DAN (Hungr, 1995), using
frictional rheology. Used in a back-calculation, the model can give the strength loss required to
obtain the geometry change observed during the failure. In this case, it was first assumed that
undrained pore-pressure increase was the sole source of brittleness. The analysis showed that an
average pore pressure ratio increase from 0.26 to 0.50 was required to deform the sliding body
as observed in Figure 9. The corresponding change in the Factor of Safety is approximately
from 1.0 to 0.5 (Fletcher, 2000, Fletcher et al., 2001).

It is difficult to explain such a dramatic, instant strength loss, given the character of soil materials
at this site. None of the soil descriptions give an indication of the possibility of contractive
behaviour, which could translate into high undrained brittleness. Further, the large ductile pre-
1973 displacements of the slope are hard to reconcile with the behaviour of a sensitive clay.
Alternative explanations of the catastrophic failure are therefore needed. After a detailed
examination of several alternatives, Fletcher (2000) concluded that two failure mechanisms are
possible:

The first hypothesis considered the internal strength of the sliding body. The profile of the
lower stage of the Attachie slide is compound. The rupture surface consists of a long, flat-lying
segment which follows the pre-sheared clay layer and a steep back scarp cutting across layers.
In order to fail, such a geometry requires strong internal distortion on secondary shears
complementary to the back scarp (Hutchinson, 1988). The high internal strength of the unfailed
very stiff, possibly cemented soil, adds considerably to the overall sliding resistance, but reduces
sharply, once the brittle material fails. The quantitative effect can be modeled using a two-block
stability analysis (Fletcher, 2000).

The second hypothesis concentrates on the occurrence of multiple tension cracks in the disturbed
slope, as a result of pre-1973 movements. The cracks divide the silty soil into a network of stiff
blocks separated by discontinuities. Many of the cracks fill over time by loose silty debris,
which may become saturated by surface water. Once such mixture of intact blocks and loose
matrix is forced to move, localized liquefaction may occur, driving the toe portion of the slope
forward. This effect can be referred to as macroscopic brittleness. Analyses by Fletcher
(2000) show that most likely both of the above mechanisms participated in the spectacular failure
of May, 1973. Neither mechanism is normally considered in hazard analyses for slopes in
overconsolidated clays and silts.


2.4 The failure mechanism of a submarine sand flow slide

The main channel of the Fraser River enters the Pacific Ocean at a location on the front of the
Fraser delta called Sandheads, 15 km south of the City of Vancouver. In the past, the river
channel meandered over the surface of the delta, and its mouth migrated laterally across the delta
front (Figure 10). Wherever the channel crossed the delta crest, a submarine canyon formed. In
1932, a permanent jetty was constructed, confining the river outlet permanently to a location just
south of the Sandheads lighthouse. A major canyon developed in front of this location during
the 7 decades following the completion of the jetty.
11



At present, Public Works Canada (PWC) conducts annual dredging of the main channel
immediately to the south of the jetty, to maintain a minimum depth of 10 m, required for
navigation. Submarine landslides occur periodically at the western end of the navigation
channel, just south of the jetty (Mc Kenna et al., 1992). The most significant of the recorded
landslide events occurred on June 30, 1985. A PWC survey crew was engaged in sounding the
depth of the shipping channel. They found that the depth of the channel bottom changed from 10
to 30 metres between morning and afternoon, over an area nearly 300 m long along the river axis
and 250 m wide. Thus, more than 1 million m
3
of sediment vacated the river mouth in course of
several hours and flowed west over the face of the delta and into the submarine canyon (Figure
11). Neither the jetty nor the Sandheads Lighthouse were affected by the adjacent landslide. No




Figure 10

Location plan of the Fraser delta front.
The square frame is 4 km wide . Note
submarine canyons and historic channels
of the Fraser River
Figure 11

Position of the 10 m depth
contour preceding (i) and
following (f) each of the
documented submarine
landslide events (from
McKenna et al., 1992). The
dashed line on the left and
the full line on the right side
of the picture represent the
1985 landslide.
12
0 1 10 100 1000 10000
Rate of sedimentation (cm/ year)
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
g
r
e
e

(
%
)
C
v
(cm
2
/ sec)
0.001 (silt)
0.01 (sand)
0.1 (sand)
Sandheads


Figure 12

A nomogram derived from the theory of coupled consolidation and sedimentation, following the
approach of Morgenstern (1967).


unusual waves, or even turbidity were reported in the shipping channel on that day. The space
emptied by the 1985 landslide contained fresh river sediment, which accumulated during river
freshets since the last preceding failure (Figure 11). Since 1985, the same space infillled again
by new sediment. Thus, the landslides appear to periodically empty the same approximate
location, to be filled anew by river sedimentation.

This periodic cycle of landsliding and
sedimentation suggests a possible explanation for
the occurrence of the large failures. The Fraser
delivers large quantities of fine sand to the delta
front during the freshet (late June-July). Based on
sounding data, as much as 10 m of vertical
aggradation can occur at the slope crest per year.
Considering that much of this occurs during less
than two months, the aggradation rate can be as
high as 5 m per month. Morgenstern (1967)
considered the effects of underconsolidation on the
stability of rapidly aggrading delta slopes.
Following his approach, Figure 12 shows a
nomogram of underconsolidation, derived using a
theory of coupled sedimentation and consolidation.
Given the high sedimentation rate of fine sand at
Sandheads, it is quite possible for the degree of
consolidation to remain at only 50% during the
freshet period. This may create excess pore
pressures, capable of triggering local instability.
a
b
c
Figure 13

Schematic view of a stage in the
formation of a retrogressive flow slide.
Retrogression, 4 m
Liquefaction
13

A typical longitudinal profile along the centerline of the river channel at the crest of the delta
slope is shown in Figure 13a. A limit equilibrium analysis showed that small-scale slumping
failure can easily occur at the crest, prompted by underconsolidation and possibly also by
spontaneous undrained collapse of the loose sediment. Once an initial failure occurs, the
liquefied sand will flow down the slope as shown in Figure 13b. The wave of sand will over-ride
loose material on lower slopes. An approximate undrained limit equilibrium analysis of the front
of the propagating sand wave proved that entrainment of a large quantity of sand from the path
of the sand wave is likely (cf. Sassa. 1988).

In this manner, a relatively shallow flow slide can sweep over the slope, removing a slice of
material as shown in Figure 13c. The crest of the slope is left unsupported and may fail
retrogressively by the same mechanism. In this way, a more-less continuous flow of liquefied
sand may be set up on the slope, moving material steadily towards the submarine canyon and
enlarging the landslide crater in the upstream direction. Such a process would explain how an
enormous quantity of material can be removed in a few hours, without causing a noticeable
disturbance of the water surface. The material entrainment process may continue on lower
slopes of the delta, deepening the submarine canyon and possibly diluting itself to form a
turbidity current.

3. CONCLUSION

The need for predicting landslide failure behaviour and consequences was expressed by
N.R. Morgenstern in the following words (Morgenstern, 1978):

There is a class of problems that arises in practice that is not concerned with the evaluation
of whether a slope will fail or not; but instead obliges us to assume movement and design against
the consequences. Where it is not practical to eliminate movements, the following questions
arise:

1) How much material will move?
2) What will be the time history of the movements in terms of velocities and accelerations?
3) How are protective structures designed against moving masses?


Regrettably, we have not made a very major progress towards answering these quantitative
questions during the 23 years since they were posed. As shown in the four examples presented
here, it is not an easy task and certainly not one that is amenable to standardized solutions.
Prediction of failure behaviour requires understanding of both geology and mechanics, combined
with a large measure of intuition and even imagination.
14
REFERENCES

Byerlee, J.W., 1968. Brittle-ductile transition in rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research,
73:4741-4750.

Chigira, M. and Kiho, K., 1994. Deep-seated rockslide-avalanches preceded by mass rock creep
of sedimentary rocks in the Akaishi Mountains, central Japan. Engineering Geology 38:221-230.

Cruden, D.M., 1989. Limits to common toppling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26, 737-742.

Cruden, D.M. and Antoine, P., 1984. The slide from Mt. Granier, Isre and Savoie, France on
Nov. 24, 1248. Procs., 4th. International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto, 1, 475-481.

Cruden, D.M. and Varnes, D.J., 1996. Landslide Types and Processes. In Landslides
Investigation and Mitigation. Transportation Research Board, US National Research Council,
Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. (editors). Special Report 247, Washington, DC 1996, Chapter
3, 36-75.

DeFreitas, M.H., Watters, R.J., 1973. Some examples of toppling failure. Geotechnique, 23,
495-514.

Eisbacher, G.H. and Clague, J.J., 1984. Destructive mass movements in high mountains: hazard
and management. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 84-16, 230 pp.

Evans, S., Hu, X.Q., Enegren, E.G. 1996. The 1973 Attachie Slide, Peace River Valley, near Fort
St. John, B.C., Canada: a landslide with a high-velocity flow slide component in Pleistocene
sediments. In Proceedings, 7th International Symposium on Landslides, Trondheim, Norway,
715-720

Fletcher, L., 2000. Failure behaviour of two large landslides in silt and clay. M.A.Sc. Thesis,
Geological Engineering, University of British Columbia, 170p.

Fletcher, L., Hungr, O. and Evans, S.G., 2001. Contrasting failure behaviour of two large
landslides in clay and silt. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (in review).

Follacci, J.P., 1987. Les mouvements du versant de la Clapire a Saint tienne de Tine (Alpes
Maritimes). Bull. Liaison Labo. Ponts et Chauses, Paris, 151, 39-54.

Goguel, J., Pachoud, A., 1972. Geology and dynamics of the rockfall of the Granier Range
which occurred in November 1248. Bulletin, Bureau de Rcherches Geologiques et Minires,
Hydrogeologie, Lyon, 1, 29-38.

Goguel, J., Pachoud, A., 1981. Les mouvements de terrain du versant sud du Massif de Plat,
Haute Savoie, France. Bull. Liaison Laboratoire des Pontes et Chauses, Spcial X:15-25.

15
Goodman, R.E., Bray, J.W., 1976. Toppling of rock slopes. Rock Engineering, ASCE,
Geotechnical Eng. Division Conference, Boulder, pp. 2, 201-237.

Heim, A. (1932): Landslides and human lives (Bergsturz und Menchenleben)., N. Skermer,
Translator, Bi-Tech Publishers, Vancouver, B.C., 196 pp.

Hungr, O., 1981. Dynamics of rock avalanches and other types of slope movements. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Hungr, O., 1997. Some methods of landslide hazard intensity mapping. Invited paper, Procs.,
Landslide Risk Workshop, R.Fell and D.M. Cruden, Eds., Balkema, Rotterdam , pp. 215-226.

Hungr, O., 1990. Mobility of rock avalanches. Reports of the National Research Institute for
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba, Japan, 46: 11-20.

Hungr, O. 1995. A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slide, debris flows, and
avalanches. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32: 610-623

Hutchinson, J.N., 1988. General report: Morphological and geotechnical parameters of
landslides in relation to geology and hydrogeology. Procs., 5th International Symposium on
Landslides, Lausanne, C. Bonnard Ed., 1 3-35.

International Union of Geological Sciences Working Group on Landslides (IUGS,WGL), 1995.
A suggested method for describing the rate of movement of a landslide. Bulletin, International
Association of Engineering Geology, 52: 75-78.

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., 1997. UDEC Version 3.0. Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Mitchell, R.J. and Markell. A.R., 1974. Flowsliding in sensitive soils. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 11:11-31

McKenna, G.T., Luternauer, J.L. and Kostaschuk, R.A., 1992. Large-scale mass-wasting events
on the Fraser River delta front near Sandheads, British Columbia. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 29: 151-156.

Morgenstern, N.R., 1967. Submarine slumping and the initiation of turbidity currents. In
Marine Geotechnique, A.F. Richards, Editor, University of Illinois Press: 189-220.

Morgenstern, N.R., 1978. Mobile soil and rock flows. Geotechnical Engineering, 9:123-141.

Morgenstern, N.R., 1985. Geotechnical aspects of environmental control. In Proceedings, 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Fan Francisco, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1:155-185.

16
Morgenstern, N.R., 1992. The evaluation of slope stability: a 25 year perspective. In Seed,
R.B., and Boulanger, R.W., Eds, Stability and performance of slopes and embankments,. ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication 31, 1:1-26.

Nichol, S.N., 2000. Examination of toppling behaviour of large rock slopes using the UDEC
computer code. M.A.Sc. Thesis, Geological Engineering, University of British Columbia, 133p.

Nichol, S.N., Hungr, O. and Evans, S.G., 2001. Brittle and ductile toppling of large rock slopes.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, (in press).

Sassa, K., 1988. Special Lecture: Geotechnical model for the motion of landslides. Proceedings
of the 5th International Symposium of Landslides, C. Bonnard, Ed., 1, 37-55.

Shoaei, Z. and Ghayoumian, J. 1998. Seimareh landslide, the largest complex slide in the world.
Procs., 8th Congress IAEG, Vancouver, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1, 1337-1342.

Skempton, A.W. and Hutchinson, J.N., 1969. Stability of natural slopes and embankment
foundations. Procs., 7th. International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico, State of the Art volume, 291-340.

Terzaghi, K. (1950): Mechanics of landslides. Berkey Volume, Geological Society of America,
New York, 83-124.

Thomson, S. and Morgenstern, N.R., 1977. Factors affecting distribution of landslides along
rivers in southern Alberta. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 14:508-523.