Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Transportation
II
JTRP
Research
Program
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
Final Report
UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS
Richard
Deschamps
Cary B. Lange
J.
September 1999
Indiana
Department
of Transportation
Purdue
University
Final
Report
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
Cary B. Lange
Research Assistant
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
*
member
Joint
Conducted
in
and the
U.S. Department of Transportation
of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
facts and
reflect the official views or policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation or the
This report does not
Federal Highway Administration at the time of publication.
The contents
Purdue University
http://www.archive.org/details/landslideremediaOOdesc
1.
2.
3.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
4. Title
and
Report Date
5.
Subtitle
September 1999
Landslide Remediation Using Unconventional Methods
7.
Author(s)
Richard
J.
6.
8.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
9.
Performing Organization
Joint
10.
Work
Unit No.
13.
SPR-2191
12.
Sponsoring Agency
IN 46204
14.
Supplementary Notes
15.
Prepared
16.
in
Highway
Administration.
Abstract
is
common
and
backfill
method.
"Unconventional" landslide remedial methods describe stabilization methods that are not commonly practiced
in Indiana,
design criteria are not available. Unconventional stabilization methods will likely have the greatest benefit applied to relatively small
landslides requiring constant maintenance because these landslides are in a delicate equilibrium.
may
stability
be sufficient to stop persistent movements. Proposed landslide remedial methods are conventional horizontal drains, driven
rail piles,
systems.
information system (GIS) database along with geographic and geologic information.
correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic features.
It is
concluded
geographic
that landslide
occurrence
is
bedrock geology.
Suitability of landslide stabilization
landslide classification
17.
Key Words
failure,
18. Distribution
Form
DOT F
1700.7 (8-69)
This document
is
Unclassified
Statement
No restrictions.
which include
scheme was developed which recommends suitable remedial solutions based upon the
recognized by the classification scheme, which is based upon four landslide attributes.
Unclassified
21.
No. of Pages
93
VA 22161
22. Price
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST
OF TABLES
iii
LIST
OF FIGURES
iv
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Problem Statement
1.2 Project
2.0
Approach
2.1 Inventory
Compilation
3.0
3.1
14
3.2
GIS
14
4.0
4.1
Overview
Application
and
of Indiana
(GIS)
DATABASE
Potential
Geology
14
16
16
21
5.0
28
5.1
Overview
28
5.2 Excavation
and
Backfill
Methods
Method
5.3 Drainage
5.3.1
35
5.3.2.1 Horizontal
30
35
Overview
5.3.2.1
28
37
38
39
42
43
45
46
5.5 Gravity
47
48
6.0
COST SUMMARY
51
7.0
53
8.0
59
9.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
61
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
62
REFERENCES
63
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Computer
Files,
APPENDIX B
Landslide Inventory
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Cost Summary
APPENDIX E KYDOT
APPENDIX F
of
INDOT
Contact Information
LIST
OF TABLES
Table
1.
Table
2.
Summary
Table
3.
Summary
of
Table
4.
19
Table
5.
27
Table
6.
Remedial Method
Table
7.
Table
8.
Excavation and
Table
9.
Cost
Stabilizing Action
Backfill
and
Cost
Backfill
Summary
Cost Analysis
Summary
Summary
10
29
31
34
52
Summary
Table 10.
Landslide Classification
Table 11.
55
57
LIST
OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Figure
2.
Figure
3.
Slope Distribution
Figure
4.
Landslide Dimensions
Figure
5.
Cattails
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
6.
7.
8.
9.
method
in
to I-64 in
backfill
CPID
at head scarp
Lawrence County
of landslide
SR
37
SR 54
in
13
on
10
of
relief of
to I-64 in
13
Trenton Limestone
illustrating
Cincinnati Arch
17
Bedrock Age
18
20
of Indiana
Roadway Network
23
24
25
26
of
32
Backfill
Method
33
of landslide
six horizontal
IV
on
SR
450, 8.6
37
40
vs.
wick drains
41
54
56
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
Landslides are a
common
Road 56
maintenance needs
of
in
many
very expensive;
is
million dollars.
The
recent
persistent
of
Transportation (INDOT) typically applies the excavation and backfill method, which
in
roadway maintenance.
However,
-and
at
may be
backfill
liberal
landslide
The
a lower cost.
landslide remedial
in
methods
is
may be used as an
to
and
method.
"Unconventional" landslide remedial methods describe stabilization methods that are not
commonly
practiced
in
Indiana,
and
a delicate equilibrium.
to stop persistent
will
which
likely
design
criteria
are
not
available.
modest improvements
in stability
may be
sufficient
horizontal drains, driven horizontal wick drains, driven recycled plastic pins, railroad
piles,
lime
cement columns,
to
Relatively
movements.
for
biotechnical
remediation,
and
gravity
mass
rail
retaining
systems.
The accomplishments
VI
GIS database.
Development
of
a landslide
classification
landslide inventory
to
of the
summarize
The
landslide.
existing landslide
The
data and also to realize trends and to correlate landslides with geologic environment.
inventory
individual
The
landslide.
may be
format and
landslide inventory
was constructed
is
each
Excel spreadsheet
The compiled
better quantified.
landslide inventory
and
constructed GIS database are significant accomplishments peripheral to the main focus
of the
Landslide
were entered
locations
INDOT may
ArcView,
into
GIS software,
a function
of
It
is
now
within
along
other
with
occurrence
build upon.
because
landslide
may be more
closely
GIS applied
a convenient means
convenience
of
data
This potential
retrieval,
is
correlation,
mechanism
may enable
of failure
of
manipulation,
methods.
in
was upon
investigating
relatively
control.
for
individual
Correlation of
may be used
in
Installation cost is
VII
methods.
and proposing
is
cost-effective
failed.
and
and storage
the study
data management,
for
recently
been
stability to
and
lineal foot
installation
is
expected
technique.
to
decrease
Railroad
after
installed
piles
rails
Installed
rail.
rail
this
predrilled
in
to stabilize
holes are
vertical
road embankments
of the
at
8 to 10 dollars
savings compared to
Finally,
a landslide
classification
1.
2.
3.
The depth
4.
The
cut slope or
it
is
embankment
suitable
soil
or
in
attributes.
any
part along
fill.
inventory and
landslide scarp
is
efficiently
managed, and
features.
Because landslide
to
enabled correlation
of landslide
is
now
to
be more
standard design procedure and construction methods within areas prone to landslides
may be more
construction
closely observed
technique
and
Refining standard
reduce
the
number
of
landslides that affect constructed roadways, reducing the impact landslide maintenance
may be
VIII
backfill
method.
typically less
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
common
Many
of
damage
to
roadways
of
Southern
and have
a very detrimental and costly impact on the state highway system. The
ranges from
requiring
relatively
minor periodic
Road 56
in
needs
many
of
maintenance
The
methods
persistent maintenance
roadway maintenance.
commonly
practiced
in
Indiana,
landslides are
in
successful. This
into
is
method
and
may be
at
which design
in stability
may be
provide further
(to
landslide treatments
describe
competent material
safety factor,
will likely
for
title,
movements.
Transportation (INDOT)
key
and
The
road
criteria
the
putting
smaller slides are also very costly, consuming a substantial part of the
stabilization
damage
is
million dollars.
to
level of
and Figure
2).
stability),
and
However,
in
in
most instances
of
is
sometimes constructing a
backfilling the
excavated
liberal
a lower cost.
The
landslide classification.
Figure
1.
backfill
W:
NO.
2 STONE
B-BORROW
ORIGINAL STABLE MATERIAL
NO.
Figure
2.
8 AGGREGATE
1 .2
Project Approach
Proposed
landslide
remedial
recommend more
classification
into
railroad
mass
piles,
rail
driven
drains,
horizontal
lime
retaining systems.
In
cement
order to
scheme, a landslide inventory was performed and the inventory was entered
a constructed geographic information system (GIS) database. The GIS database also
Summarizing, the
accomplishments
of this
Development
of
GIS database.
to
the landslide.
of
summarize
The
existing landslide
data and also to realize trends and to correlate landslides with geologic environment. The
inventory
individual
format and
may be
The
landslide inventory
was constructed
is
better quantified.
in
each
Excel spreadsheet
The compiled
constructed GIS database are significant accomplishments peripheral to the main focus
of the study that
Landslide
locations
were entered
into
INDOT may
ArcView,
build
upon.
with
other
It
is
occurrence
a function
is
of
now
is
Also,
because landslide
within
procedure
may be more
closely
of
methods.
was upon
the study
investigating
landslide classification
and proposing
is
The
5.
cost-effective
it
is
suitable
soil
or
in
attributes.
any
part along
embankment
6.
The slope
7.
The depth
8.
The
inventory and
landslide scarp
is
fill.
efficiently
managed, and
features.
Because
to
be more
is
now
standard design procedure and construction methods within areas prone to landslides
may be more
construction
closely observed
technique
and
and refined
procedure
could
dramatically
Refining standard
reduce
the
number
of
landslides that affect constructed roadways, reducing the impact landslide maintenance
may be
backfill
method.
typically less
classification
2.0
2.1
Inventory Compilation
Landslides included
roadways.
in
in
Indiana roadways, and also those occurring adjacent roadways along the Ohio River.
Landslides occurring adjacent to roadways along the Ohio River tend to be very large
landslides, affecting extensive area,
within the
scope
of the
report.
The
284 landslides
Table
1.
classification
and also
information
is
format and
may be
The
many
Adequate
was constructed
better quantified.
in
attributes of landslides
in
are included
landslide inventory
is
of the information
included
to aid in selection of
is
Specific landslide
in
Excel spreadsheet
A copy
of this file is
provided on disc
as Appendix
B.
Table
1.
Data Source
Landslide Attribute
Landslide location
Probable cause
field
&
width
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT Bridge
bore logs
sketches
Availability of slope inclinometer data
Earliest reported date of failure
Date of road construction and rehabilitation
Availability of
Indianapolis, Indiana,
all
and
information included
typically
in
field
or field survey
survey
Availability of field
or field survey
or field survey
or field survey
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT
Inventory Report
Division of Materials
the inventory.
summer
landslide field
& depth
of 1998, provided
INDOT
project files
reports of
Landslide
Formal reports
of
field investigation
of the landslide,
forms
in
may
include
and
field
failure
mechanism
of the landslide.
Field surveying
conducted at landslide
surveying.
summer
Qualitative observations
of
1998 provided
profile
of the landslide
The
and landslide
summarized
Table
2.
Of the landslides, 131 are corrected, 134 uncorrected, and the correction status
is
unknown
backfill
for
more than
little
highway.
half
of
failures are
common
the
landslides,
is
along
57
I-64:
in
accordance
of
within
failures
in
is
Summary
adopted landslide
to the widely
2.
occur
Table
146,
in
method.
occur along
classification are
unknown
for
classified
Fifty-two
as earth slump on
100 landslides.
Landslide Attribute
Number
of
Landslides
Correction Status
corrected
uncorrected
134
131
unknown
19
embankment
cut slope
146
135
both
Slope Type
Landslide Classification
earth slump
earth slump
52
132
100
on bedrock
unknown
sediments.
some
part,
which
failure
landslide classification.
The
where the
in
Inclinometer data
landslide classification
in
was
which
is
failure occurs, in
assumed
to
is
INDOT
often postulated
be an earth slump
if
known
is
to
be
of the landslide.
histogram
of
Three
Figure 3.
correspond to
distinct
3:1, 2.5:1
peaks occur
and
at
embankments and
so
is
it
__
-
/
1
en
Frequency
o
!
1,1
10
20
15
25
slope
Figure
The length
(L),
dimensions are
3.
30
(L_
***\
35
40
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
00%
45
()
Slope Distribution.
illustrated in Figure 4.
The depth
that estimated in IN
is
These
defined as the
of
100%
90%
available.
cut slopes.
CO
20
is illustrated in
DOT
site.
If
is
assumed
if
to
such information
is
is
is
"
^-
PLAN
W
L
L/
SECTION
Figure
The
landslide
many
volume
is
which
using Equation
D (Cruden and
Varnes, 1996).
Landslide Dimensions.
4.
because
landslides
3
,
half the
is
volume
3
.
Landslide volume
is
by semiaxes
estimated
L,
W, and
YOhs=-L*W*D
(1)
6
The area
of the landslide
landslide size
in
Landslide area
is
to
25,000 yds
2,200 yds
of estimating
The
ellipse,
relating
is
274
1560 yds
2
.
most
and
30
is
landslides, reference
is
field
surveying.
For
The photo
log
Vegetative cover
was observed
Notice
the inventory.
was taken
to the
may
likely
be
presence
is
and
therefore,
Figure 5
is
a photograph showing
a corrected landslide.
3.
Summary
of
Number of
Suspect Cause
Landslides
Creek
Groundwater
at
Toe
at Soil-Rock Interface
Miscellaneous Drainage
Sloping Bedrock
Engineering of Fill
Failed Internal Drainage Structure
Drainage Structures Adjacent to or within Slide
Failed
Removal
of
Toe by
Ditch
10
very
subsequent remedial
5. Cattails in ditch
Table
in
Figure
is
of cattails,
attributed to groundwater,
and
CPID
Maintenance
64
50
40
40
37
31
25
14
12
7
causes
or
number
of the
and as a
conditions
field investigation
forms.
the inventory.
in
causes.
Table 3 provides a
One
in
is
INDOT
cause
were most
of
stability
more suspected
calculations
did
involved.
soil
was constructed
the slope
result
or
list
existing
conditions.
Fifty
may have
is
it
not certain
observed
in
may occur
if
this is the
case
for
all
landslides
the roadway are relatively insignificant over a long period of time and require
Protecting the stream bank from erosion
movements such as
this,
and
may
prevent
will likely
due
to
for
40
landslides
is
in
total
at the soil
bedrock interface.
weight of the
soil.
facilitates
be due
in
visible
Table 3 includes
to poor drainage.
groundwater
upon the
to
forty
landslides.
These
is
evident.
the
soil
design of
cut/fill
may
sections of roadway.
not have
of past engineering
common
been taken
fill
may
not have
11
of the natural
mean
that the
fill
upon
reduction
is listed
fill
placed as such
Fill
which
saturation,
may
susceptible to drastic
is
occur
eventually
decades
after
construction.
cause
for
25
landslides.
This often
occurs where corrugated metal pipe (CMP) drains underneath highway embankments
become clogged
due
to
with debris.
Because
clogging.
this
after
is
landslides
noted
is
in
water backs up
and adjacent
to
all
the inventory.
to
in
some
part to concrete
paved
interceptor (CPID) ditches that failed. Severe erosion often occurs parallel to the ditches
into
CPID and
of the
the
soil.
may
Finally,
caused
for
Figure 7
it
is
of
INDOT
an active landslide.
project files,
is
difficult
to
is
embankment
height.
inadequate compaction.
in
relatively
to
is
it
Adequate compaction
erosion control
failures.
may have
occurring within
is
seven landslides
instability,
may have
Figure 6
stability calculations
fill
within the
translational
12
backfill
method.
Figure
6.
CPID
at
2.1
miles north of
Figure
7.
13
3.0
3.1
(GIS)
DATABASE
Geographic
information
systems
(GIS)
to
utilized
provides
ArcView and
of spatial information.
construct,
means
convenient
for
the
Arc/Info,
manipulate
referenced information, and allowed easy and relatively accurate correlation of landslide
themes
may be superimposed
to
of geographically
referenced information
The
following
in
is
Landslide locations
list
of
themes included
in
the
constructed GIS database. Most themes were obtained from the Indiana Department of
The Arcview
Natural Resources.
in
project
file
including
all
Appendix A on computer
themes used
in
the constructed
disc.
State, interstate
and US highways
political
in
Indiana
boundaries
Physiographic provinces
Bedrock geology
Surficial soil
Depth
of
Glacial
3.2
geology
overburden
advance
limits
GIS applied
to
engineering
practice
offers
new and
of data.
This potential
14
exciting
to
is
potential
for
the
currently partially
be a valuable
tool that
INDOT
may
build
upon and
geologic hazards
Borelogs,
more
utilize
common
maps and
individual landslides
sketches, photographs,
may
be stored
all
follows.
with
inclinometer,
and piezometer
a GIS database.
of
data
is
methods.
failures.
mechanism
may
of failure
because landslide
may be more
specific
Ideally
landslide boundaries
movement
of
more
site-
also
illustrate
and other
may even
benefits
boring,
information.
on the
coincidentally display
with precipitation.
landslide
to
and
control.
other
retrieval, correlation,
exciting
offers
site
locations,
of landslide
map
individual
data,
a mouse.
on a borelog
map
in
rainfall
to
to Indiana.
Clicking
topographic
locations
extensively.
in
may
distribution within
in
preventing future
now
also aid
Indiana
is
closely observed
and
15
4.0
4.1
The
advance
glacial
limits of
the lllinoian
and Wisconsin
two
in
distinct
northern half of Indiana consists of vast glacial plains formed from the
Wisconsin
glacial events.
Glacial
till
The bedrock
structure
The
Indiana.
Illinois
north of Indiana.
is
lllinoian
and
Indiana, which
The
geomorphologic regions.
Residual
limits within
soil
is
the dominant
bedrock
is
much
basin
is
to the
west
of Indiana
is
to the
in
Figure
8.
Underlying bedrock strata of Southern Indiana consists of Ordovician age bedrock, the
oldest bedrock within the state, to Pennsylvanian
the state.
bedrock
in
bedrock
in
in
in
aerial extent of
Figure 9.
16
is illustrated
Figure
8.
Regional structural
17
Trenton Limestone
Arch (Frey and Lane, 1966).
relief of
illustrating Cincinnati
Bedrock Age
Pennsylvanian
Mississippian
l
Devonian
Silurian
100 Miles
50
Figure
9.
Bedrock Age.
18
Ordovician
Indiana
is
are the
Wabash
and geomorphic
history
and contain
Plain,
Norman Upland,
Scottsburg
Lowland, Muscatatuck Regional Slope, Dearborn Upland and Tipton Plain Physiographic
Regions.
provided
in
illustrates
each
of
physiographic
region
are
Physiographic
Region
Description
Broad gently
Tipton
Till
Plain
about 2/3
rolling plain.
90%
of this is subject to
is
wetness. Remainder
is
steep
slopes.
Broad valley
Wabash Lowland
Crawford Upland
flats
agriculture, but
pasture.
is
slopes.
Norman Upland
is
pasture.
agriculture,
and low
but about half
Remainder
is
Broad valley
Scottsburg Lowland
Mascatatuck
Regional Slope
Dearborn Upland
flats
rolling hills.
of this
is
80%
is
suited to general
subject to wetness.
steep slopes.
Rolling limestone plateau crossed by deep rocky valleys. 70% is
suited to general agriculture, but about half of this is subject to
wetness. Remainder is steep slopes.
Hilly land with rocky slopes and outcrops of limestone and shale.
60% is steep slopes. Remainder is suited to agriculture, mostly to
pasture.
19
EXPLANATION
gj
Northern Loke ond Moraine Region
1
Plain
Moumee
Locuifnne Plain
Scale
5
20
K)
2jxc,ooo
20
30
40 MUtt
'Z^ZESSS
Figure 11
illustrates
an overview
of landslide
highway network.
is
It
36 landslides
cluster of
Southwest Indiana, 23
in
failures,
all
within
soil is
cluster
this
and
common
All
range from 22
hilly
terrain
28,
and correspond
illustrates
and seems
to
which
vertical slopes.
topography
a small
Relatively short
landslides
of
is
two
measured slopes
of
There
in
to the
topography
to indicate that
hilly
geology
of the
is
Considering bedrock
is
composed
of the
Raccoon Creek, Stephensport, West Baden, Buffalo Wallow and Blue River bedrock
groups.
composed
siltstone
of the
significant constituent.
fraction in
As observed
in
constituent.
of landslide occurrence.
Figure 12, there are several landslides that occur just to the east of the
Crawford Upland Physiographic Region within the Mitchell Plain Physiographic Region.
embankments.
Only 3
of the
all
is
is
unknown
to
for
21
Therefore, generally
it
is
of
in
bedrock geology.
Region occur primarily within the Kope and Dillsboro Formations, which are composed
mostly of shale.
containing
composed
al.,
1970).
of
Indiana
is
is
In
many
failures within
in
is
et
and
Southeast
is
Failure within
an
effort to
determine the
relative susceptibility of
was
to landslide
calculated.
The
area of each bedrock formation and group exposed as an outcrop or as the underlying
was
bedrock
From
in
Table
5.
each
The Kope
Formation has the highest density of landslide occurrence, 31 landslides per 100 mi
followed by the Buffalo
100 mi
2
.
The
of
2
,
2
.
22
15 landslides per
Group
is
about 4
at
about 3
40
Landslides
1-64 Landslides
1-74 Landslides
Ohio River Landslides
80 Miles
23
>>
sz
a.
co
o
Q.
O
I-
>
CC
c
o
-5T
eg
co
b
;g
c
co
CO
CO
C
o
'55
o
Q.
7S
.2 03
' "S
E
o
o
O
O
o
CD
"-^
O .Q CD
CD
O
CD
>
CD
DC
CO
c
CO
73
_c
"co
c
CD
o
3
o
c
1c
CD
o
c
CD
-
i_
O
O
O
CD
"55
DC
CD
CO
T0)
k-
LO
CM
_ o
o w
c "55 1=
O c O
=5 = uE LL
o o ro
2
*Q^
en
CO
CD
-Q
c
o
Q-J2 7=
o
o
L.
X3
as
O
CM
E
o
LL
CD
O
O
T3
CD
CO
CD
>
en
co
c
CD
T3
_C
>^-
co
co
.c
"5
o
CO
CD
O
c
CD
o
o
O
CD
"co
DC
co
0)
3
O)
il
CD
CN
Table
5.
Number
Bedrock
Type
Landslides
Kope Formation
Buffalo Wallow Group
Stephensport Group
Sanders Group
West Baden Group
123
242
31.0
15.3
18
431
4.2
21
9
5
696
506
1092
1313
1774
3500
948
1562
340
4338
4167
4001
10
1
3.0
2.8
1.9
1.7
1-6
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.03
284
Total
seen
Landslide
Density
2
(No. per 100 mi )
38
37
21
Whitewater Formation
Carbondale Group
Bond Formation
Borden Group
Muscatatuck Group
New Albany Shale
is
(mi
22
28
52
7
it
Bedrock
Area
14
Dillsboro Formation
Blue River Group
Patoka & Shelburn Formation
So
of
occur
in
Indiana and Southeast Indiana, and that landslide occurrence within each of these areas
is
shown
to
be a function
of both
landslides adjacent to
Indiana roadways.
in
The
may be
landslide
Naturally
27
5.0
5.1
Overview
Illinois
typical
treatment of landslides.
remedial methods
was
information
methods
list
containing contact
is
included as Appendix
lime
retaining systems.
Two
of the eight
The
some
methods are
exception of
F.
piles,
rail
individuals
of available
include: conventional
railroad
order to learn
the
of
In
contractors
extensive review
also performed.
An
to
pile
of
mass
All
retaining
is
mass
some
composition.
types of gravity
gravity
type.
between
the
in-situ with
relatively
new concept
still
within the
research and development stages at the University of Missouri-Rolla. Dr. Paul Santi, the
principal investigator,
to
a landslide
use
of driven
in
Missouri.
He has had
direction of Drs.
Erik
summer
5.1.2
of
first full
also
Loehr
The
under the
their research,
however,
Dr.
Bowders and
Dr.
1999.
embankment and
is still
test
stability of
28
one
theoretically indicate
a stable condition.
failing condition,
To account
for
and safety
indicate
one
.0
in
the
are generally
resisting forces
as
illustrated in
Table
6.
Remedial Method
Stabilizing Action
Summary.
Stabilizing Action
Remedial
Resistive Force
Addition
Driving Force
Method
Reduction
reduce total weight
reduce seepage force
Horizontal Drainage
Cantilever Piles
Biotechnical Remediation
reduce
total
physical restraint,
weight
Mass Retaining
Gravity
phyiscal restraint
Systems
removal
mass.
of
resistance
is
increased.
The
is
cantilever pile
methods
sliding.
Gravity
of vegetation
horizontally within
The
plane,
local
involved,
restrain
mass
total
weight of the
rail
shear
the sliding
mass and
thereby
of remedial
and
in
soil
and application
selection
(railroad
The
resistive forces.
pins,
and increase
availability of
capable contractors.
29
of
to the failure
the material
remedial method requires consideration of the cost-benefit of the remedial action, and a
general understanding of the landslide mechanism.
landslides
a complete understanding
is
induced
the alteration
instability
in
much
all
There are
soils
to stabilize
a slope only to
find that
mass.
This condition
is
larger
often
relic landslides.
in
In
required
there
if
is
any uncertainty
schemes.
and
It
backfill
adequate
in
for
some
geologic environments
rule,
in
which there
an understanding
remediation
of the
and
in
is
are discussed
in
comparison
costs
of
excavation and
The
backfill
the
most cases,
INDOT
5.2 Excavation
and
Backfill
and
backfill
3
,
in
of the alternative
To provide a frame
controlling
the
remedial methods
reference for
of
a cost analysis
same
of
the
INDOT
included as Appendix D.
method
is
the remedial
method most
often applied to
effective
Method
backfill
INDOT.
an
may accomplish
that
and cost
both of the
application
of failure is prerequisite to
the most
is
cause
may be
This approach
for stabilization.
smaller landslides,
of
definition
design of stabilization
efficient
failure investigation.
Adequate
However, as a general
efficient
uncommon
not
is
in
this
method.
for
three
30
to
different
size
as Case
I,
idealized
Case
II
and
Case
III,
respectively.
the
Table
is
7. Unit
presented
Cost
for
in
Table
7.
Excavation and
Backfill
Case
Cost Analysis.
SCENARIO
c
No.
53 ._
CO
2 Rip Rap
-.
3 No.
UJ
4 Rip Rap
5 No.
o
o
o
2oc
or No.
37
30
22
41
32
22
40
31
21
50
38
24
48
36
23
52
38
23
51
37
23
24.5
9.7
7.3
backfill
23
w/ B-borrow
III
19480 yds
32
backfill
backfill
Case
II
6240 yds
39
or No. 2 backfill
Case
611 yds
i-
6 Rip Rap
5
o o
7 No.
HI 5"
8 Rip Rap
08
backfill
w/ B-borrow
backfill
(minimum)
the idealized landslides are not arbitrary, they are reflective of the range
The volume
of
of landslide
volumes estimated
volume
for
163 landslides
these landslides
15
is
yds
about 6400 yd
Case
is
II
significantly
below
this
same throughout
to
landslide
84,000 yds
illustrates that
3
,
and
volume
3
Figure
approximately
50%
of
80%
is
was
the inventory.
3
It
Case
is
in
the inventory.
in
of the
$416,095
$462,728
$189,700
$235,426
$22,837
$31 ,955
maximum
indigenous to the
of
imported aggregate
site that is
is
backfill
unit cost
III
is
fill
significantly
above
combinations that
this
average.
may be
used.
backfill in
'B-borrow'
is
order to
simply
soil
31
within the
fill
area.
Additionally, for
each type
different scenarios
of backfill used,
of backfill used,
lists
of
excavation
each.
c
a
c
o
18
a.
16
o o
O E
14
>
12
0)
0)
10
(0
0)
=:
2
oC
in
re
..
80%
70%
60%
50%
..-'""
..-'
-40%
a
E
:=
-1
o
E
HM
Frequency
"-
Cumuiati\
Percentage
(A
LU
30%
20%
10%
lllllllllll.il.
oooooooooooooo
Loomomomoinotnom
r-mcMor-^mojor-uoogor^
I.I...
Figure
'
of
1.
3
)
size.
As
observed, unit cost of repair significantly decreases with increasing landslide volume.
Excavation within rock significantly increases the costs of repair for smaller slides, but
to
the percentage of
excavated volume.
excavation
required within
Many slope
due
failures
rock
total
mass. As such,
ideally
bedrock excavation
32
of the
will
be required
bedrock surface.
volume
of soil
same
compared
to the total
will
geological conditions
and
profile.
and
53
Backfill
Method
A
A^
A
A
No .1
Rip
or 2 backfill-soil excavation
Rap
Partial
backfill-soil
B-borroww/ No.1 or 2
backfill-soil
Partial
backfill-soil
excavation
a---- No.1 or
excavation
excavation
2 stone backfill-rock
&
soil
excavation
Rip
Rap
backfill-rock
&
soil
excavation
-Partial
B-borroww/ No.1 or 2
backfilll-rock
-Partial
&
soil
excavation
backfilll-rock
&
soil
excavation
"^*^^a
90
10000
5000
15000
As observed
in
of
20000
25000
3
)
Backfill
Method
3
.
This
vs. Landslide
is
may be because
Volume.
'B-borrow'
to granular backfill.
The
time and equipment costs required to properly compact 'B-borrow' material exceeds
costs required to import granular
yds
fill
until
the volume of
3
.
33
fill
cost inventory of
INDOT
landslide
The
included as Appendix D.
remediation projects
INDOT
account
of five
is
landslide
to
The
was
average costs
approximately $1 ,130 per foot of correction, and ranged from $517 to $2,442 per foot of
correction.
cost analysis
is
$900 per
foot of correction.
and
method as determined by the performed cost analysis and the INDOT cost
inventory.
Backfill
Cost Summary.
INDOT Cost
Summary
Cost Analysis
Case
$ 320 (max)
II
III
Minimum
$228
$517
Maximum
$1,653
$2,442
Average
$900
$1,130
Case
Case
$228(min)
34
5.3
Drainage
5.3.1
It
is
Overview
of landslides (Holtz
slope
only
is
it
is
adds weight
weathering
to
and
of rock
the
soil,
soil,
softening
stability of
is
is
in
Indiana.
Water not
applied.
also
a landslide, drainage
may
Although drainage
soil.
be most
likely
effectively
prevent landslides.
landslides
but
may be
Groundwater near
Because
of this,
may be used as
Drainage
levels.
reducing
infiltration
drainage
horizontal
sizes
always
facilitates
landslide successfully
of drainage.
and
infiltration.
facilitates
drainage by
means
and positioned
vertically
of
an
Drainage methods
or horizontally,
and
inclusion
such as
may be a
variety of
intrusive
include,
conventional horizontal
drains, wick drains, vertical wells, large diameter vertical drainage wells or galleries,
drainage tunnels.
require pumping.
utility
by
Internal
in
internally or externally.
is
it
and
and
vertical wells
liabilities
due
Horizontal drainage
systems are not without maintenance needs, however they usually have an advantage
35
to
in
terms of both
cost
construction and
filter
uneconomical.
wells
in
points
groundwater
to
may
large enough,
allow horizontal
drilling within
is
if
a manner that allows gravity drainage of each vertical well to single or multiple
where water
and overlap
is
at belled
along roadways
in
may
bases.
Where
vertical
may be
and Kentucky
California
Vertical wells
due
to large
(Holtz
and Schuster,
996).
expensive and are typically applied only to very large landslides requiring drainage
of
an
extensive area.
and diversion
ditch
ditches,
of cut
infiltration
stability.
interceptor
open
paved
soil
mass
Figure 6
is
soil
may
Erosion can also occur near the toe of a landslide due to natural or
features.
intermittent stream, or
man made
drainage
drainage
ditch, during
erode
soil,
which
may
lead to
instability.
Figure 17
is
may
the toe of a landslide due to a small ditch running parallel to the base of the slope.
Vegetation
is
also used
in
Vegetation reduces
soil
it
is
infiltration.
When
used
to prevent
36
Biotechnical remediation
is
discussed
in detail
section 5.6.
Figure 17. Erosion along riprap lined drainage ditch at toe of landslide
on SR 450, 8.6 miles northeast of US 50 in Martin County.
5.3.2 Horizontal
Drainage Overview
of instability
among
earth slump
on bedrock
effective stress.
is
soil-bedrock
interface.
depends on several
of pipe
the
casing used,
site,
However,
long-term
pH and
considered the
landslides.
soil,
Water
and reduces
weakens
is
and
performance
quality of
of
horizontal
from
drains
37
due
chemicals from
to precipitation of
groundwater, vegetation growth near drain outlets, build up of biological phlegm, and
may
also
clog
due
to clear
need
to
often
uses
to prevent clogging.
in
very fine-grained
Because
may be
Routine maintenance
Schulze, 1989).
and
or
in
The
to 8 years.
community
Highways (CDH)
of pipe to
areas
heavy
of
professional
not hindered
California Division of
6 feet
final
is
Also, drains
soil
in
near the
(Brauns and
upon
effectiveness
long-term
the
of
drains.
horizontal
Regardless, horizontal drainage can be an effective stabilization measure and also the
5.3.2.1
that
polyvinyl chloride
dictates a
first
CDH
taken.
for
may be
(PVC) pipe,
maximum
is
design
Steel pipe
now
is
California
typically
life
of
life
used
Today,
of steel
Experience
about 40 years
in
widely discouraged
PVC
of the
cased drains
some aspect
in
in
The West
in
order to
Horizontal drainage
Virginia
Department
of
Transportation often applies temporary physical restraint at the landslide toe to raise the
safety factor to just
Temporary
wood
restraints include
cantilever piles.
Department
of
installed
The Kentucky
fills,
and also
effect.
steel or
stabilized landslides.
Jensen
Drilling,
a specialty contractor,
38
is
often
employed by KYTC
TDOT
and
to
and
drill
install horizontal
A dozer-mounted
is
advanced
The
rods.
An expendable
drilling,
drill bit is
1/2" slotted
bit
drill
The
attached to 3 1/2"
is
slot density is
1/8" hole
PVC
is
drill
Two rows
44 per
After
rods.
drill
schedule 80
Standard pipe
place.
as follows.
is
completion of the
Drilling's
drill is
techniques.
drilling
Jensen
drains.
PVC
88
drill
in
on the
of pipe.
may be
pads
that
have
parallel fashion
feet,
a fan pattern
into the
TDOT
Typically,
installation.
50
be cut
to
spaced 25
unit cost of
experience
of
soil
problems, and
may
may
drill
involved.
TDOT
still
may
has many 15
in
vary from 15 to
to
20 year old
is
approximately $9 to $1
still
functioning.
Per
5.3.2. 1
of the slide
cost
in
a fan pattern.
installed drain
TDOT,
done
feet
The
is
installs horizontal
if
for drilling
exists.
flat,
concept
still
the 1970's
in
originally used.
They were
The
originally
when durable
developed
plastic
University of Missouri-Rolla.
39
in
installed
commonly
is
relatively
new
The
installation
technique
is
The annulus
in
is
is
pushed
is
Figure
is
is
Figure 18. Disposable drive cone and wick drain (Santi, 1999).
Horizontal
wick drains
embankment
in
Missouri.
Figure 19
is
a photograph
piezometers and 16
and
results
short-term
show
from the
in
controlling long-term
in
with
a fan
in
in
and
fill
embankments.
the embankment.
in
It
where
was concluded
controlling long-term
groundwater
40
patter,
tight pattern.
six
infiltration,
The wick
test
embankment showing
moisture meters.
infiltration
soil
of the test
of
installed
in
Cost
decrease as the
installation
installation.
The cost
field application of
depends
upon the
any natural
landslide
in
during the
or
fill
embankment
of
of
1999.
in
in
it
is
is
expected
in
in
may be
to
controlling
soil
type.
applied to
slopes and
natural
fill
groundwater levels
slope of any
Attempts to
may be
stabilize
applied
another
infiltration
effectiveness
soil drainability,
summer
of
embankments.
to
foot,
largely
of
will
be applied
999.
_.\*
to
-i&*"~c is
II
^l-Is^
41
movement. Driven
stabilizing
stabilizing
piles,
cast
and timber
piles either
piles
may be
deep-seated
piles,
precast concrete
in
in
(Morgenstern,
landslides
for
pile walls
Unanchored
1982).
between adjacent
tied
or
pile
pier
Soil arching
piles,
limitations.
may be
place concrete
active
in
back
some
type of
wall.
movement between
piles.
Lagging
system. Load
is
moving wedge
embedded
in
competent material
pile
of soil to
embedded
within
competent
soil
the
As a
or rock
is
Based on
local
constructed with
of failure is less
designs using
walls are
spaced 5
to
are typically
7 feet on center
of other reinforced
1982).
been reserved
However,
the
and
cantilever
pile
techniques
discussed
justified
are
not
(Hausmann, 1992).
traditional
treatments, and are less expensive to apply than traditional pile structures.
42
have
remedial
5.4.1
Lime
Lime
piles
Piles
upon lime
rely
however,
Lime
piles are
into the
of
mixed
soil,
lime
They are
and cement
different
from lime
mixing techniques.
Cation
the clay facilitated by the addition of lime are the basis of the treatment.
exchange begins
changing
it's
plastic
a more
characteristic to
and
is
caused by the
one,
particles to flocculate,
hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate gels that form following dissolution of clay
minerals
Lime
in
piles
increase
in
a high
PH
has a
effective cohesion
Lime
seated failures.
in
Glendinning,
1997(b)
recommended
outlines
on the
in
part
because an
stability of
shallow
and
due
level.
design
A paper by Roger
guidelines
for
slope
drawing
in
Increased strength
in
the piles
soil;
in
effective stress
as a consequence
of
Increase
in
pile strength
due
to progressive hydration
and
crystallization of the
lime;
in
piles
43
due
to
stability
are available
in
literature
Rogers and
Glendinning, 1997(b) describe design parameters and other considerations for lime
stabilization.
design procedure
brief outline of
from
pile
this
paper follows.
The
2.
Effectiveness of treatment.
failed slope
adjusted so that
circles
3.
analyzed using
is
it
may be
slope
traditional
stability analysis.
met.
is
be designed
to
pass through
all
is
slip
Are lime
Lime
a suitable treatment?
piles
Lime
shallow landslides.
piles are
most
when
effective in stabilizing
deep seated
applied to
failures.
4.
5.
Pile intensity,
which
is
is
Compare
of safety
worst-case factor
initial
piles,
is
factor of safety to
see
columns are
United States.
foundation
lime
in
Although
in
this
is
for
120
psi,
upon several
Scandinavian countries.
million linear
Stabilator
construction,
and
in
meters
USA,
is
Inc. is
new
of
to the
structures,
no
specific
to remediate landslides.
About 6
Japan.
Indigenous material
in
improvement
soil
recently
specialty contractor
for
and more
Scandinavia
in
meters
in
and
proportions
of the
diameter.
in
column.
The
variables.
44
The mixing
tool
used
to
30
psi
accomplish
column depends
Type
of indigenous soil.
will
produce a column
soils.
The water/cement
The
The
and
used.
cement
clay.
The strengthening
ratio
of
as water becomes
The
effects of ion
exchange reactions
is
cement.
limitations of installation
Mac Kenna,
is
5.4.2
in
installed to
a depth
The
Inc.
82 feet due to
of
published as $45 per cubic meter to $65 per cubic meter (Esrig and
The general
1999).
USA,
Inc. is
about
The use
is still
Erik
of driven
and work
technique that
materials
will
likely
Missouri-Columbia.
under way
account
compared
RPP's most
is
of
to
application
similar to
is
of plastic
to concrete or steel.
cannot be driven
sufficient distance
soil.
The
of Drs.
to
competent
micropiles
in
present
$1
is
Also, lime
cement columns
above bedrock
Dr.
for
Dr.
adequate embedment
Loehr plan
45
slump
to provide
Bowders and
for earth
summer
of 1999.
If
full
scale slope
successful, recycled
may
plastic pins
earth slumps.
Railroad
are installed
rails
a row or rows
in
landslides occurring
side
in
placement
of the
Railroad
soil
mass down
pile wall
are
piles
rail
of the soil
resulted
in
bedrock when
continued
stabilizing
movement
of the soil
KYTC
is
included
in
Appendix
are typically
movement
of
to protect the
rail
E.
used
by
the
Kentucky
rails
adequate
mass.
by the
written
publication,
is
KYTC would
rails
treatment
landslide
the past,
In
landslide
mass.
common
embedment
Because
drill rigs.
soil
to remediate
where the
rails.
movement
erosion after
Railroad
hilly terrain,
used
mounted
mass from
retained soil
rails
typically
the
and are
rail,
sections within
cut/fill
hill
KYTC
is
Used as Retaining
Empirically
Structures",
in
Appendix
KYTC
internal
in
the
design guidelines are based upon the following variables: the gauge of railroad
rail
used, the depth to rock or the depth to the observed failure surface, the spacing of
the
rails,
of
rows
of
rail
used.
Railroad
rails
are furnished
39
in
sections and design guidelines require 1/3 of the length of the incorporated railroad
feet
rail
penetrate into bedrock or below the observed failure surface. Given these requirements,
the
KYTC
less than
suggests railroad
23
feet.
rails
is
mentioned previously,
is
rails
are to be installed.
46
Also, as
embankments where
the
surface where
failure
Railroad
provided
to
$8
to
To reduce
rails.
$10 per
Department
foot.
KYTC
occur.
will
often furnish
(TDOT)
is
rails,
this
KYTC
regarding the
piles.
mass
retaining
systems
toe.
is
5.5 Gravity
Gravity
KYTC
rail
to the shoulder
costs,
of Transportation
application of railroad
roadway
the
embedment will
installation
pile
rail
pile
in
stabilize landslides
way
is
by means
Gravity
available to grade
mass
systems are
retaining
embankment
fills
utilized
whenever
to the required
Gravity retaining walls can be constructed of gabion baskets, rock or riprap, reinforced
concrete, or masonry.
friction
the
angle of
fill.
fill,
wall height of
10 meters
to
the upper
is
Because
utilizes
limit of
the residual
lateral force
from
in
controlling
larger
landslides
in
the
in
walls.
frictional
MSE
of
soil
application to highway
reinforcement
was
first
became a popular
1970's.
first
is
retaining walls.
polyurethane (HDPE),
is
the most
in
in
MSE
47
wall facing
element used
is
any
filled
steel cages,
MSE
walls are
more
develop the
necessary
to resist
frictional
movement.
fact require
in
MSE
may be
walls
upon the
systems such as
retaining
rigid wall
than conventional
flexible
$15
$35
to
Cost
constructed to heights
MSE
of
much
square foot
of wall facing.
are anchored
dollars per
The
with steel tendons, called tiebacks, behind the slip plane of the slope.
pile wall is
placed vertically and extends through the sliding mass, past the rupture zone, and
embedded
may be
competent
soil
fill
between
is
piles
material.
Tiebacks are
down slope
installed in
by
rows
on the
holes as
failure
level.
soil is
failed
injecting grout.
of predrilled
is
plane of landslide.
expensive than other methods, but are often the only method that
may be more
may be used
to
5.6 Biotechnical
Remediation
structures
stream bank
and revetments
stabilization
to
improve
and
stability
is
is
most
the use of
often
and also
to
in
surficial
plants
incorporated
in
in
slope
retaining
enhance appearance.
plants are imported to the job site, or are collected from the vicinity
live
Live
mass movement.
This method
is
48
was
is
centuries old.
non-existent
in
A decade
remediation
biotechnical
of
is
United States
the
in
driven by regulators
because
Most
by community.
importantly,
Vegetation
acts
in
and
off
by intercepting
variety
embedded
in
rainfall.
remediation
is
now
considered
encouraged
a viable engineering
is
biotechnical
is
it
is
of
ways
infiltration
improve
to
slope
root
Immediate reinforcement
is
through
stability-
Embedded brush
layers
is
may
drains or wick drains to alleviate excess pore pressures from the slope or structure.
Additionally, vegetation
degree angle
at the
placed
in
horizontal
lifts
is
as
live plant
MSE
structures
is
remediated areas.
Vegetation
Rows
construction progresses.
to
MSE
will
of
structures.
in
Secondary reinforcement
soil
and
resist shear,
however, the vegetation also acts as horizontal drains to alleviate excess pore pressures
This method
is
particularly well
of
embankment
in
poorly
embankment.
banks
to
and
sliding
may
Sotir, 1995).
is
Deep-seated
caused by poor
entire
face
of
the
This method
is
in
constructed
combination
damaged from
construction.
Riprap
is
areas at the stream bank toe where the stream bank occurs at an outside bend, where
erosion occurs.
49
As
previously mentioned,
biotechnical
traditional
landslides
and erosion
Fuller
few
per row.
live
five
landslide correction.
50
surficial
of
into
George Athanasakes
feet of soil.
is
biotechnical remediation.
$5
remediation
$250
$15
to
to
$2
$20
to
as
much as
$400 per
lineal foot of
COST SUMMARY
6.0
summary
cost
methods
is
included as Table
mass
precisely
including
table
pile
9.
of
of
all
methods, and
retaining systems.
compare costs
approximate costs
in
Because
dollars per
mass systems
51
square foot
pile
remedial
in
recommended
methods
to
it
is
difficult to
gravity
mass
c
CO
Q.
5
o
03
03
.o
.C
5)
?0
&
03
.c
UJ
o
a.
3
O
vj
01
Q _
c Qc
^
S
c o
^-
CO
CO
Q3
- c
en
to
CO
c
CO
-c
o
o
03
CO
CO
Io
x-
.^_
to
01
en
*l
-c
CO
CO
03
CO
-a
cco
!fc
-5
Q3
C3
03
CO
^,
5
^ 8
co
to
03
03
<n
CD
E
E
co
-*
Cfl
C3
5
Q
co
CO
*
I
cco
03
s>
c
o
O 3
03
cr
CD c
r
-c
o
o
o
Lf3
CM
(1!
u.
g
CO
C3
T3
CI)
^~
CO
co
>,
CO
!_
CO
CO
<
^
c 1-1
03
CL
Q.
2.
O o
co
to
co
D. +*
T3
co
CO
-3
-3
u
>
5i
03
1-8
P-S
O
-2
Q
>- CO
si
^
v-
03
CO
co
M_
CO
O O
O
(0
C33
C\J
LO
,_
.
f-
CO
CO
F
3
To
N
F
CO
CD
cvj
uS
</>
" _
2
ob
to
co
r-cvj
o
o
1-
Q.
O
o
c
z:
CO
T.
(1)
CO
o o
r
o
m
i
CL r
X o
o
c
'co
(li
CO
co
O
I_l
(A
x:
111
QC
c
o
u
N c sz
CD
o 'CO
s:
XQ
CO
_1
UJ
to
t/1
TJ
O
CO
<
Q
T3
en
CD
03
E c
03
CO
CL
"5
c
o
**
c CO
o >
co
'5 o
X
CO
UJ
-a ^:
S
CO
75
CD
"n
CD
0)
'o Q. .2 cc
c
03
o
E "c0 N
c 'C n
CD
g o
X CD
Q)
>
CD
03
(0 >
>
C 1_
o
CO
Q C
CO
CD
>.
CO
?!
c
E
_g
CD
0)
a.
g
|
E ~
CL
</>
<o
o.o!
ffl
to
co
a.
.ti
>
C5
$
t)
>
O
n
J_ ~>,
n c
Z "O g
c
m
c
g CO
co CO E
To
r o
o 3 _c
E "O ro
o CO
*" O
n DCO oco
is C3 o c
0)
CL co
J2 o X J E
-*-'
(A
CO
ti
CO
"
B03
o
c
O
u
UJ
co
co
co
_v^
.2
^3 -Q
CO
CD
03
<ii
"55
52
01
CO
o o
.52
^^
to
o C3
o O
Q.
U
~5
CO
CN
7.0
Applicable landslide
remedial
geometry,
geometry,
landslide
overburden,
the
methodologies
of
depth
of
failure
and
plane,
such
as
hydrogeologic
conditions,
soil
some
however,
were not
quantified.
required attributes,
Quantifying
for
slope
depth
of
Design
suitability of the
Many
type,
conditions.
(permeability),
conditions
geologic
site
assess
such as
soil drainability of
soil
drainability
The
classification
scheme
is
in
Figure 20.
Eleven landslide types are defined from the following four landslide attributes included
in
Varnes landslide
classification (earth
2.
Depth of overburden or failure surface (depth of overburden is used for earth slump
on bedrock landslide and depth of failure plane is used for earth slumps).
3.
4.
in
the
in
3,
4 and
8) are
Table 10
number
which
is
is
a summary
of landslides categorized in
an earth slump on bedrock landslide occurring within a cut slope with a depth
feet.
Most
of
8,
of
eighty feet.
53
1,
to failure surface
between 20 and
c
o
CD
Q.
-= t=
*i
O
CM
CO
Li.
A
CD
CD
.-=
t3
CC
o
CO
00
VI
CD
Q.
C/)
h-
a;
o
CM
_o
0)
C/3
Q.
>
o H
VI
c
CO
CD
CD
o
2 A
= tr3
<
CO
u. CO
.c
CD
CD
_o
LL
Q.
ra
C
o
LL
13
CO
CO
<
-I
fc_
o
CM
LU
CD
-i
CO
b
IM
CD
VI
id
a)
CO CO
O
to
-O
10
Is
CD
Q.
O
CM
>
CO
LU
O)
CD
CO
c
o
CI)
.c:
CD
CD
a
O
CM
CD
ac
CD
</)
O
"w
"3-
-Q
b o
3 o
CO
_CC
i_
Q. .^
'55
Q_o
CO
CO
1-
CD
Q.
VI
c
CD
a
^_
c
o
<M
-Q
3 a
o ro
CD
CO CO
>
CM
CD
Q.
5*
o
o
l_ C\J
CD
V)
r>
o m
CO co
-Q
embankments
The remaining
Type
7.
unknown
No
for
classification
among, Type
each landslide
20
feet.
1b, 2, 4, 5, 5b,
and
Type 6
Type
or
9.
The
landslide type
the inventory,
is
based,
including
is
provided
is
The
summary
table
in
Appendix C.
Table
Summary.
Shoulder to
Depth of
Scarp
Landslide
Slope
Varnes Landslide
Type
Type
Classification
OB/FS
Distance
No. of
Landslides
(ft)
(ft)
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
2
3
4
5
5b
6
7
8
9
embankment
embankment
embankment
cut slope
OB[20
OB[20
OB[20
OB[20
either
OB>20
embankment
embankment
embankment
iearth
cut slope
earth
either
earth
either
earth
iearth
earth
FS[20
FS[20
FS[20
FS[20
20<FS[80
slump
slump
slump
slump
slump
slump
FS>80
[20
26
nya
5
2
>20
"na
na
[20
nya
11
>20
"na
"na
"na
"unknown
28
115
Total
70
20
is
not applicable
55
is
not
known
284
Type
Type 1b
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 5b
Type 7
Type 8
unknown
56
of Landslide
Type.
Table 11
summarizes,
methods.
As observed,
in
landslide
type,
in
and
retaining structures
is
mass
11. Appropriate
RR
RR
rail
piles
rail
piles
Gravity
mass
mass
mass
Since railroad
rail
rail
in
piles
embankment
ineffective.
rail
in
conjunction
of Landslide
Type
piles
fills
in
conventional
areas accessible to
drilling
drill
roadway.
in
The
limiting
the roadway
failure
rigs,
near the
was assumed
to
be about 20
piles applied to larger slides that affect both driving lanes are usually
Finally,
although railroad
retaining
installation requires
Railroad
retaining
Therefore, proposed
retaining systems.
the roadway
soil,
systems
systems
Gravity
retaining systems
RR rail piles, Recycled plastic pins, Lime cement columns
Lime cement columns
Lime cement columns
Lime cement columns, Recycled plastic pins
Lime cement columns, Gravity mass retaining systems
Gravity mass retaining systems
Gravity
installed within
in
landslides.
all
application of railroad
plane.
is
landslides
listed
poorly drained
in
beneficial.
Landslide
Types
Type 1
Type 1 b
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 5b
Type 6
Type 7
Type 8
Type 9
all
to
Table
proposed remedial
applicable
however,
The
all
horizontal drainage
Horizontal drainage
Table 11.
TDOT
each
for
rail
piles
23
failure
plane
is
KYTC
to landslides with
57
limited to
feet,
depth to
failure plane
classification
scheme
near 30
for
all
As previously mentioned,
feet.
The
limiting failure
cantilever piles
plastic pins
feet.
is still
Erik
be 20
the landslide
Loehr
to
in
was assumed
to
be 20
feet,
the
same as
Also, driven recycled plastic pins are best suited for minor earth
competent
above bedrock
installation
cannot penetrate
Also,
to
rail
slump landslides
adequate embedment
of the
soil.
to provide
railroad
80 feet
in
into
equipment
installed to
rock,
therefore
limitations
a depth
of
58
than 80 feet.
is
only
used by Stabilator
82
it
feet.
No
This
limiting
landslides are
8.0
amount
substantial
repair
of the
roadways damaged by
The
landslides.
cases more
typically costs
liberal landslide
and
backfill
may be
is
most cases
foot of correction.
In
many
recommends
method, which
treatments
spent to
is
classification
Eleven
classification.
scheme, which
is
landslide attributes.
The
1.
following
is
Development
summary
of findings/deliverables
from
this study:
2.
3.
GIS
bedrock geology and
Summary
potentially
of
including conventional
recycled
remediation,
5.
and
Development
gravity
of
railroad
mass
a landslide
rail
a function
alternative
horizontal drainage,
pins,
plastic
cost-effective
is
driven
lime
piles,
of
landslide
remediation methods
cement
columns,
driven
biotechnical
retaining systems.
classification
suitable
The
inventory
efficiently
managed, and
features.
to
enabled correlation
in
of landslide
Landslide occurrence
59
be more
in
was shown
to correlate
is
now
within areas
areas.
prone to landslides
may be more
closely observed
and
reduce the number of landslides that affect constructed roadways, reducing road
may be
60
and
backfill
method.
9.0
The
1.
following
RECOMMENDATIONS
landslide
The constructed
database as part
may be
inventory
reoccur,
INDOT's standard
the
attribute information
is
better quantified.
A copy
upon.
spreadsheet
2.
of the
inventory
is
provided on disc
Appendix A
to
hazards
more
utilize
common
in
extensively.
to Indiana.
landslide locations
disc
an Excel
in
into the
INDOT's
upon and
build
file.
standard operations.
3.
in
INDOT may
The
to
be a valuable
tool that
to
procedure.
INDOT may
map
software) project
build
other geologic
file
containing
Appendix A.
of
scheme.
4.
prone to landslides
in
number
constructed roadways. Clearly, the existing standard specifications are not adequate
in all
geologic environments.
The need
to
5.
likely
is
viewed as one
of
the most
millions of dollars
Develop a
similar
roadway system
etc.
database
of other
to
when
61
in
routing of
new
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would
like to
thank the
members
of the
helpful support.
Zia.
llyin,
for their
Special thanks
to:
Project
Geologist, for providing assistance and guidance during the inventory construction and
field investigation
industry contact
names
Engineer Supervisor,
for
INDOT Geotechnical
and
cost analysis; and to Brad Steckler and Tarlochan Bansi, for providing
of landslide remediation projects.
62
INDOT Highway
llyin,
backfill
INDOT
method
cost data
REFERENCES
Brauns,
J.
and Schulze,
Proceedings of the
Engineering, Vol.
12?
3, pp.
B.
1989.
International Conference
1549-1554.
1996.
Landslide Types and Processes.
Cruden, David M. and Varnes, David J.
Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Special Report 247, Transportation Research
Board National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 36-71.
Esrig,
Melvin
I.
Frey, Robert
Chapter,
A.
1966.
Indiana
A Survey
University
of Indiana
Geology.
Department
of
Rho
Geology
Bloomington, Indiana.
1995. Biotechnical Stabilization of Steepened
Transportation
Research
Record
No. 1474, pp. 23-29.
Slopes.
Gray, Donald H. and Sotir, Robbin B.
Gray, Henry H.
h
the 3& Annual
1985.
Proceedings of
pp. 2-1 3.
April,
1975.
Landslides
Stabilization of Soil Slopes.
Report 247, Transportation Research Board
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 439-473.
Holtz,
R.D.
Investigation
and
Mitigation,
R.L.
1996.
Special
The
Morgenstern,
N.R.
1982.
Analysis
of
Wall
Rogers, C.D.F. and Glendinning, S. 1997(a). Improvement of Clay Soils in-situ Using
Lime Piles in the UK. Engineering Geology, Vol. 47, No. 3, September 5, 1997, pp. 243257.
with
63
Santi, Paul M.
Schuster, R.L. and Fleming, R.W. 1982. Geologic Aspects of Landslide Control Using
Application of Walls to Landslide Control Problems, Proceedings of Two
Sessions of the Committee on Earth Retaining Structures of the Geotechnical Division of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1-1 8.
Walls.
Shaver, Robert H., Burger, Ann M., Gates, Gary R., Gray, Henry H., Hutchinson, Harold
Keller, Stanley J., Patton, John B., Rexroad, Carl B., Smith, Ned M., Wayne, William
J. and Wier, Charles E. 1970. Compendium of Rock-Unit Stratigraphy in Indiana. State
of Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Bulletin 43.
C,
Smith,
Duane
D.
1980.
Long-Term Performance
of Horizontal Drains.
Transportation
and
Control:
J.
1978.
National
64
APPENDIX A
(Computer
Files,
APPENDIX B
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTORS
Vegetation Descriptors
Abbreviations
A#
BL
borelogs
c- cut
t-
s-
trace
g- grass (typically
sparse
b-
tow weeds
st-
sma// frees
m- moderate
slope
Crawfordsville
CMP
d-
dense
vd- very
t-
<S/or
mowed)
/cw brush
frees
dense
CPID
unknown
Bedrock Type
e/c
cut
ERRF
es
earth slump
es-r
east
FS
failure
GW
groundwater
ID-
surface
number
identification
L- length of landslide
no
Muscatatuck Group
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
02
03
04
P1
Borden Group
Sanders Group
Stephensport Group
Buffalo Wallow
Kope Formation
Dillsboro Formation
P2
P3
P4
Group
Wri/fewafer Formation
Bond Formation
north
nya
Failure Position
I
U- upper slope
S
S
M- middle slope
souf/i
Seymour
L-
s/r
soil-rock
E- enf/re s/ope
SI
s/ope inclinometer
SV-
W
W
W
site visit
Vincennes
west
Widened
width of landslide
lower slope
and ;s nof
is
relative to
a bench
in the
slope
y- yes
65
v.
ID
ialeof
photo
File
County
Location
id
log
notion
log/pic
Earliest
reported
date of
Miscellaneous
Comments
failure
tt
SR
26/32
1, just
(Rd leading
York Ridge Rd
Area
of
to Guiltord),
Per
SR
26/32
1.
Area 2
SR
15 mi Sol PribbieRd.
1.
creek r 4 1
73
Dearborn
10/16
P s *i or 41
76 pavement through
pavement through
Dearborn
10/18.19 cree? or 41
87 Per
DO
Dearborn
engi(3or41
87 Per
DO
1,
1.0 mi
Guilford
SR
1.
2.2 mi
Guiltord
SR
0.6 mi
N SR
46,
'St.
Leon
N SR
46,
'St,
Leon
new
new
1.0.53 mi S
Area 5
of
Pnbble Rd.
slide'.
Area
SR
0.6 mi
slide',
active slide,
Rd
SR
26/32
DO
Rd
26/32
Pnbble Rd.
SV
larger
69
leakf or 41
much
10/15
26/32
ot
subdistnct. Per
part ot a
10/15
Area 4
SR
May be
Dearborn
26/32
mi
and monitored by
Dearborn
046
toe s or 41
Area 3
.
DO
SV
10/14
26/32
bedr
Dearborn
SR
active slide,
10/17
Per
2
DO
Dearborn
1
sl P'8
GW
or 41
pavement through
Dearborn
9/24
satul
9/97
Dearborn
9/24
satui
9/97
US 52
Franklin
9/14-16
creel
Jun-80
S US 52
Franklin
9/13
creel
Area 2
10 37/39/43
OldSR
1.0.6 mi S
11
37/39/43
OldSR
1,
12
112
Per DO mamt forces ditched, installed drainage cross-str. np rap banksareas basically stable
Per DO mamt forces ditched, installed drainage cross-str np rap banksJun-80
areas basically stable
.
37 SR
1.0 mi
N SR 64
37, 0.6 mi
SR 48
13
18
37
SR
37.
14
10
37
SR
7 mi
of
Crawford
creel.
W 64
Oct-91 Per
DO
Monroe
8/10
POSS 72 91
Jun-94 Per
DO
active slide.
Orange
4/17
Struq
slop!
81
86
blocl
15
89/208
37
SR
37, 0,8 mi
of
US 150
'97.
Orange
5/1
GW
57
Crawford
1/8-10
79
8/96. Per
DO
moves 2-37yr
priority.
Previous recommendation
ot
DO
repaired
1993
16
31/90
37
SR
37. 1.0-1.3 mi
1-64.
Area
creel
25
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks
in rd
repair
area and N
ot repair:
cracks
in
road
17
31/90
37
SR
37. 1.0-1.3 mi
1-64.
Area 2 Crawford
creel
25
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
of repair:
cracks
in
road
18
31/90
37 SR
37.
.0-1 .3
mi N
I-64.
Area 3 Crawford
creel
25
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
of repair:
cracks
in
road
19
31/90
37 SR
37.
.0-1 .3
mi
I-64.
Area 4 Crawford
creel
25
Jun-80 Per
DO
rd in repair
area and N
of repair;
cracks
in
road
25
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
of repair:
cracks
in
road
creel
25
Jun-80 Per
DO
cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
of repair;
cracks
in
road
creel
25
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
of repair,
cracks
in
road
6/5
addil 69.
73
Apr-84
6/4
addil 59.
73
Apr-84
59.73
Apr-84
69,
73
Apr-84
69.
73
Apr-84
outla 69.
73
Apr-84
73
Apr-84
73
Apr-84
69.73
Apr-84
69.73
Apr-84
69. 73
Apr-84
69.73
Apr-84
69.73
Apr-84
69,73
Apr-84
69
77
20
21
22
31/90
37 SR
37.
0-1 .3 mi
31/90
37 SR
31/90
37 SR
37.
.0-1 .3
SR
37.
.0
23 48/49/92
37
Hill
24 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
37.
1 .0-1 .3
mi
mi
mi
1-64.
1-64.
I-64.
S SR 54
Rd. Area la
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area lb
37,
SR
Area 5 Crawford
creel
Area 6 Crawford
Area 7 Crawford
to Patton
54 to Patton
Lawrence
Lawrence
cracks
cree
25 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 2a
37,
SR
54
to
Patton
Lawrence
6/3
tt
slop
drair
cree
26 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
S SR 54
Rd. Area 2b
37,
1 .0
mi
to Patton
Lawrence
6/3
to
slop
drair
creel
27 48/49/92
37
S SR 54
SR
37, 1.0 mi
Hill
Rd. Area 2c
to Patton
Lawrence
6/3
w
slopt
drair]
28 48/49/92
29 48/49/92
37
37
SR
37. 1.0 mi
Hill
Rd. Area 3a
SR
Hill
S SR 54
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 3b
37,
to Patton
creel
Lawrence
6/2
shoy
SR 54 to
Patton
creel
Lawrence
6/2
outla 69.
shou.
cree
30 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 3c
37.
SR 54
to Patton
Lawrence
OUtlf
6/2
69.
slop
drair
31
48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
32 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
33 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
34 48/49/92
37
SR
Hill
35 48/49/92
36 48/49/92
37
37
37
SR 54
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 4b
SR
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 4c
SR 54 to
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 4d
SR
37,
37,
37,
37,
Hill
Rd. Area 4e
SR
SR
.0
mi
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 5
37,
cree
Lawrence
6/2
OUtlf
54 to Patton
cree
Lawrence
6/2
outlt
shot
Patton
cree
Lawrence
6/2
outlt
shot
54 to Patton
cree
Lawrence
6/2
outlt
shot
to Patton
cree
Lawrence
6/2
outlt
shoi
SR 54 to
37. 2.1-2.4 mi
area
to Patton
shot
S SR 54
SR
Hill
37
1 .0 mi S
Rd. Area 4a
37.
Patton
cree
Lawrence
6/1
outlt
shot
of
SR
54,
Lawrence
4/2-4
area of old and frequent slides. Per DO moves 4 times/yr; High pnority.
Per site visit 5/20/98 2 active areas dumping soil on shoulder below by
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
047-4
GEOUETRIC INFORHATION
Slope
plan
area
AVAILABLE
OB
OB
(range)
(avg)
volume
Initial
ID
File
County
Location
Remedial Method
Probable Cause
too
Vegetation
Correction
Landslide
status
logfplc
typo
ll
1 la
Wa
i
1
SR
26/32
SR
26/32
26/32
just
York Ridge Rd
Area 1
S of
[Rd leading
1.
Area 2
10/17
creek erosion
sloping bedrock
of toe.
report
-.
26/32
46 mi S
I.
Pnbble Rd,
of
Dearborn
10/16
Dearborn
10/14
Dearborn
rock butlress.
bedrock
VO mi N
Guillord
Rd
Dearborn
26/32
SR
1.
2.2
mrN
Guilford
Rd
Dearborn
new
SR
1,
0.6 mi
NSR
46.
'Si.
NSR 46.
1,0.6 mi
lide
Area 2
'SI.
new
10 37/39/43
OldSR1.0.6m.SUS52
37/39/43
OldSR
12
112
37
SR
37, 0.6 mi
N SR
13
IB
37
SR
37. 0.7 ml
10
37 SR
15
89/208
37
dt
nc
dt. s-nri
nc
02
o2
LI/?
02
o2
tf
ft
ft
ft
yds1
260
60
12.252
25
30-33
32
7.563
10-22
600
4SO
226,195
15
16-22
20
83,776
16
400
180
56,549
30
10-20
IS
41.688
18
210
100
23
19-32
26
9,367
Earliest
Miscellaneous
failure
Pet
Leon
1.0mrSUS52
9724
2:1.
comp
of
es-,
weakened shale
engineering
bedrock
dl.
recommends
backfill, report
rock backfill
S-mt
d-vdt
nc
es-r
o2
21
150
100
11,781
cne
es-r
o2
30
180
35
4.948
02
o3
no
till
16.493
CMP
rock backilii
do.mfc.
nc
CMP
rock
dg.mb
L3/4
27
172
67
9.051
Dearborn
9/24
nc
es
o4
L374
29
106
75
5,244
Franklin
9/14-16
creek erosion
of
loe
relocated road
dl
'
=-r
02
36
435
58
19,816
9/13
creek erosion
ol
toe
reiocaied road
d-vdi
es-'
02
30
500
70
27.469
45
450
60
21.206
18
75
80
4,712
ranklin
Crawford
64
SR 48
ol
8 mi S. Paioka River
37,
Dearborn
SR37,O8miSolUS150
i'
31/90
creek
Monroe
8/10
Orange
4/17
Orange
S/l
road realignment
ioe
s/r
GW S
sit interface,
sb w/in
outside
dt;
failure,
dg
ol laiiure
scarp
rock backfill
rd: dt
above
vdg
rock backfill
inierlace
e/c
m4
nc
es
m3
ne
es-r
m4
36
270
150
31.809
'
SST
m3
37
195
40
6.126
d
SSI.
rock backfill
GW
backfill
1/
31/90
ifi
31/90
Area 3
19
31/90
20
21
22
loe
creek
loe
creek
loe
r/r
Crawford
creek
loe
r/r
--
Crawford
creek
loe
rock backfill
and
bin wall
r/r
Crawford
creek
loe
rock backfill
and
bin wall
r/r
Crawford
creek
loe
PC
Crawford
37 SR37,
Crawford
37 5R
Crawford
31/90
31/90
37 SR 37, 1.0-1.3
mN
1-64.
Area 6
31/90
37 SR 37. 1.0-1.3 mi N
1-64.
Area 7
dB/49/92
23 48/49/92
SR
37,
mi
.0-1 .3
.0
mi
I-64.
S SR 54
lo
Patlon
-'
-lilIRd,
Area 1a
5R37,
1.0 mi
31
SSR
Hill
Rd, Area 1b
3R
37,
Hill
Rd, Area 2a
54
to
Ration
1/0-10
creek
37
.0
mi
S SR 54
lo Patlon
5/5
addilion ol
Lawrence
5/4
aMlonoira material
Lawrence
5/3
37
SR
Hill
nn S
1
Rd. Area 2b
37.
SR
54 to Patlon
Lawrence
5/3
18/49/92
17
2W 48/49/92
37
18/49/92
37
;>9
Hill
10 mi S
Rd, Area 2c
SR
37, 1.0 mi
Hill
Rd, Area 3a
SR
37,
SR
Hill
30 48/49/92
37
48/49/92
:r
48/49/92
37
33 48/49/92
37
48/49/92
37
3S 48/49/92
37
32
37
37
.0
mi
lo
Patlon
lo Patlon
Rd, Area 3c
1,0
mrSSRS4
Rd. Area 4a
5R
37,
Hill
Rd, Area 4b
SR37.
.0
.0
mi
S SR
Rd, Area 4c
SR
37,
.0
SR 37,
.0
SR
mi S
Rd. Area 4d
mi
SR
io Patlon
54 to Patlon
S SR 54
Hill
Hill
S SR 54
Rd. Area 3b
SR37,
Hill
37
54 lo Patlon
S SR 54
Hill
Hill
36 48/49/92
SR
SR37, 1,0miSSR&4ioParton
Hill
31
37.
10 Patlon
54 to Patlon
S SR 54
10 Patton
Rd, Area4e
mi S
Rd, Area 5
37,
SR37,
area
,0
2.1-2.4
SR
mN
54 lo Patton
of
SR
54.
Lawrence
5/3
material
loe. 4"
abandoned waier
73
SS or 41
76 pavement through
36 or 41
69
37 or 41
73
pavemenl through
DO
subdistrict.
Per
SV
active slide,
16
12
10
17
Per
ice, 4"
loe. laiiure
abandoned water
loe. 4"
shoulder drain
loe. failure
rr*
36
260
es-r
m3
U3/4
25
es-r
m3
25
--
m3
e:-
m3
csu
es-r
m3
U1/2
es-
m3
Ul/2
200
40.841
28
135
90
9.543
95
100
7.461
25
50
100
25
230
120
23
4.654
12
1.405
32 or 41
87 Per
DO
aciive slide,
<25
25
33 or 41
87 Per
DO
aciive slide,
20-35
28
20-30
25
9/97
8-15
12
5.627
Jun-80
10-18
14
6.787
Jun-BO
W64
Ocl-91 Per
DO
<20
20
72.91
Jun-94 Pet
DO
active slide.
2,682
38 or 41
25.
0-16
13.352
81
86
17
2.571
57
79
Previous recomnrendalion
99
8-20
14
7,136
10
8-20
14
2.094
300
120
28.274
10
8-20
14
6,981
cracks
In rd in repair
area and
ol repair;
cracks
In
road
cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
ol repair,
cracks
In
road
DO
cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
ol repair,
crocks
in
road
Jun-80 Per
DO
cracks
in rd in repair
area and N
ol repair;
cracks
in
road
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks in
rd in repair area
and N
ol repair;
cracks
in
road
Jun-80 Per
DO cracks in
rd in repair area
and N
of repair;
cracks
In
road
213
62
10.372
5-30
18
69.73
Apr-84
rock backlill
b, si
m2
30
96
69
5.202
5-30
1B
59.73
Apr-84
nprap
b, si
<=
m2
30
116
32
2,915
5-30
18
"
69,73
Apr-84
nprap
b, si
'
m2
Ul/2
30
47
20
738
5-30
18
"
63,73
Apr-84
riprap
b.st
m2
U3/4
30
96
27
2.036
5-30
18
"
"
69,73
Apr-84
b, st
m2
22
95
35
2.611
5-30
18
"
69.73
Apr-84
5-30
18
Apr-84
shoulder drain
123
43
4,154
5-30
b.st
m2
Ml/2
22
50
27
1.060
nprap
b, st
m2
L3/4
22
90
56
3.958
n,a
b.st
m2
L1/2
22
45
46
1.626
nprap
b.st
m2
22
190
95
14.176
nprap
b.st
m2
U1/4
22
33
26
674
nprap
b. si
m2
L3/4
29
113
80
7.100
5-30
18
m3
27
76
77
4.596
35
35
4/2-4
repaired
road
23
22
.awrence
moves 2-37yr
DO
in
L3/4
6/1
Pot
cracks
m2
m2
-awrence
979
of repair;
6/2
'
6/2
area and
b, si
b, si
.awrence
LS remediation
In repair
rock backfill
nprap
Lawrence
25
10
8.462
9.425
6/2
28.903
90
60
5/2
160
200
.awrence
25
22
Lawrence
25
5/2
970
m2
Lawrence
14
outlet
Jun-80 Per
8-20
CMP
25
10
b. si
"
69,73
18
"
69,73
Apr-84
5-30
18
"
69,73
Apr-84
5-30
18
"
"
69.73
Apr-84
5-30
IB
69.73
Apr-84
5-30
18
69,73
Apr-84
5-30
18
69.73
Apr-84
69.73
Apr-84
"
"
69
77
1,629
shoulder dram
on edge
ol slide,
shoulder drain
outlet, slope saturated by clogged
shoulder drain
creek loe. laiiure Shoulder dram
outlet, slope saturated by clogged
shoulder drain
creek toe. laiiure shoulder drain
outlet, slope saturated by clogged
shoulder drain
creek toe. failure shoulder dram
outlet, slope saiuraied by dogged
shoulder dram
creek loe. laiiure shoulder dram
outlet, slope saturated by clogged
shoulder dram
creek loe. laiiure shoulder drain
outlet, slope saturated by clogged
shoulder drain
loe, failure
3,927
np rap
DO
riprap
and
DO
Jun-80 Per
1.842
creek
Jun-80 Per
25
3,534
14
outlet,
outlei
25
14
8-20
6/2
8-20
10
outlet,
.awrence
15
572
cracks in rd
of
DO
DO
hiqh pnoritv.
Jun-80 Per
28,236
'97,
25
14
subdislrici
Per DO main! forces duched. insiailod drainage cross-sir., np rap banksareas basically stable.
Per DO maint lorcos diiched. installed drainago cross-sir., np rap banksareas basically stable.
8-20
mg-b.
o
St.
dt
beyond scarp
lop
nc
es-r
66
6&4
3.972
SV
9/97
10-24
$12
toe, failure
subdistnci. Per
3-20
Lawrence
slide
20-25
Lawrence
creek
active slide,
line
esr
active slide,
DO
pavement throuqh
line
outlet,
abandoned waier
ol r/r
nc
DO
line
creek
27
fill
26 46/49/92
m-dl
awrence
creek
25 18/49/92
aciive slide,
31 Or 41
37,
DO
"
Per
st
Comments
construction
5>
SR
1.
Leon
borrow
dmied_piers
np rap or rock
10/15
1.
Pnbble Rd.
1. 'b'
Dearborn
SR
of
comp
GW
1.0.53 mi
es-r
r/r
ft
2.5:1
SR
.
26/32
es-r
dt outside
26/32
Ar,;i
10'15
,lifjf
failing,
t)'
or drilled piers,
fi
still
ft
date of
road
fill
SR
backfill
f)
*s
1.0.15 mi SolPnbbleRd.
SR
Dearborn
lo Guilford),
ti
area of old and frequent slides. Per DO moves 4 iimes/yr; High priority
Per siie vial 5/20/98 2 active areas dumpino soil on shoulder below bv
ID
tog
1 date of
\oad
togfplc
iructlon
photo
File
County
Location
Earliest
reported
date of
Comments
Miscellaneous
failure
1
erosion and
38
37
SR
111/210
37 SR 37, 2.35 mi E
40
110/209
37
41
110/209
37 SR37,
42
110/209
37
110/209
SR
110/209
37
45
25
37
46
25
37
47
25
37
48
25
37
49
207
37
54,
SR
area
Lawrence
69
4/1,5.6
77 Per
6.1 mi
37, 6.7 mi
7.1 mi
of Tell City
Perry
2/8
73
May-93
N SR
70.
Perry
5/6
too
73)
Nov-89
N SR
70, Area 2
37. 6.1 mi
37 SR37.
44
SR
of
Area
Perry
5/6
too
73
Nov-89
N SR 70
Perry
5/7
too
73
83
N SR 70
Perry
SR 37. 9.3 mi N SR 70
SR 37 @ SR 48 interchange.
Area 1 across from A-4
SR 37 @ SR 48 interchange.
Area 2 across from A-4
SR 37 @ SR 48 interchange.
Area 3. across from A-4
SR 37 @ SR 48 interchange,
Area 4, across from A-1 A-2. A3
Old SR 37 over Seaboard RR.
Area
across irom AOld SR 37 over Seaboard RR.
Area 2 across from A-3
Old SR 37 over Seaboard RR.
Area 3 across from A-1 A-2
.
1/20.21
73
Nov-89 Per
too
73
Nov-89
5/8
Monroe
8/11
Monroe
8/11
are
Monroe
8/11
are
Monroe
8/12
Monroe
8/14
Monroe
DO
INDOT
2.
not
78-79. Per
in
priority.
91
Jun-94
91
Jun-94
91
Jun-94
91
Jun-94
en^
72
Feb-88 Failures
in
newly compacted
fill
8/14
enj
72
Feb-88 Failures
in
newly compacted
till
end
72
Feb-88 Failures
in
newly compacted
fill
bedrock
repaired 1997,
construction of road
tool
Perry
DO
of
Per DO correction by
a pnonty.
Per
Apparent dip
and frequent
of old
site visit
erosion and
39
43
37. 2.1-2.4 mi
area
visible
Per
DO
basically stable
Per
DO
basically stable.
Per
DO
basically stable.
50
207
37
51
207
37
52
37
SR 46/SR 37
37
SR 46/SR 37
Monroe
8/13
junct,
Area
Monroe
8/9
junct.
Area 2
Monroe
8/8
53
fail,
?2
78
72
1978 ongmal failure, recurrent in Aug '96 Part of emb over old quarry.
78 78 remediate by building slope to 3:1 Per DOC and DO Intersection
em]
fall
modification
54
30
55
56
37 Old
41
41
SR
US
41
US
41
37.1.0 mi
of
Gratsburg Crawford
5/5
3/21,22
4 6 mi N
of
SR
64 Area
of
SR
64, Area
4 6 mi
Gibson
Gibson
dra
56.
82
83
failj
57
87 Good pictures
in
Dan's
file
taken
in
winter
faill
57
87 Good pictures
in
Dan's
file
taken
in
winter
Per
57
14
41
US 41,
0.5 mi
Nof SR 47
Parke
25 R93
7/10-12
DO
W of
US
37
70
Dearborn
55
88
Dearborn
55
88
Dearborn
58
59
9/109
60
9/109
61
9/109
Dearborn
11/3
62
9/109
48
Dearborn
11/2
63
24
48
Dearborn
10/20
92
Dearborn
10/20
92
Dearborn
10/21
92
Dearborn
10724
64
24
65
24
66
24
SR
5 mi
48.
52
W of US 50, Area
US
Lawrenceburq, Area
US
in
9/23
crd
1'
55
88
55
Feb-83
dnve
48
Lawrenceburg. Area 2
US 48. Industnal dnve
48
Lawrenceburg, Area 3
US 48, Industnal dnve
48
Lawrenceburq, Area 4
48. Industnal
in
in
in
92
i
67
24
48
68
24
48
69
24
US
in
Lawrenceburq. Area 5
US
dnve
Lawrenceburq. Area 6
US 48. Industnal dnve
48
Lawrenceburg, Area 7
48, Industnal
in
in
Dearborn
92
10/22.23
Dearborn
Dearborn
92
92
11/1
enc
70
88
50
US
50. 0.05 mi
E SR 450
Martin
4/13,
5/22
slo
added stone
Jul-79 stabilized.
mam
46 SR 46, 2 8 mi
to
Per SV. AP
DO
bypass
project
will fix
30.91
Apr-84
Per DO, slopes too steep in fill section, moves annually. INDOT placed
some np rap;Low priority. Per SV no apparent LS features.
52
Aug- 84
90
Dec-83 Per
DO bm
do
34
50 US 50,
.6
mi
W of SR 56
Dearborn
11/10
CIV
DO
repairs by
en<
72
73
74
75
87
42.1/93
42 1/93
42.1/93
50
52
52
52
76
42.1/93
52
77
42.1/93
52
US SO,
US
1.9 mi
junction),
US
US 52,
(NW
(NW
ere
Ripley
12/3
Franklin
9/12
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Franklin
9/9-11
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Lower slope
Franklin
9/9-11
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Upper cuislope
Franklin
9/8
29
May-93 Per
DO
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides.
be
wall constructed
WSR
WSR
(NW
WSR
(NW
Area 4
52, 1.14 mi
lunction).
Area 3
1.25 mi
junction).
W SR
Area 2
52. 1.49 mi
junction).
US
Area
52. 1.51 mi
junction).
US
E US 421
52, 1.85 mi
WSR
Area 5
(NW
Franklin
dre
of
slide.
Per DOC, may need urgent attention in '98 and pre 1970 bmwall correction
failed, scarp in road caused frequent hazard. Per DO active slide, wedged,
leveled and monitored by subdistnet.
Geotech report completed in 1988 for proposed realignment. Per DO
being monitored
Geotech report completed in 1988 for proposed realignment. Per DO
being monitored.
Geotech report completed in 1988 for proposed realignment. Per DO
being monitored.
Geotech report completed in 1988 tor proposed realignment Per DO
fixinq under contract in 1998.
1992 new road construction. Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem. Per DO being monitored.
1992 new road construction. Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem. Per DO being monitored
1992 new road construction. Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem. Per DO beinq monitored.
1992 new road construction Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem. Per DO being monitored.
1992 new road construction. Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem Per DO being monitored
1992 new road construction. Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem. Per DO being monitored.
slit
71
In
Old canal
at toe.
of
A-3
of
A-2
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
DATA
AVAILABLE
GEOMETRIC INFORMATION
area
photo
a>
File
County
Location
Remedial Method
Probable Cause
log
Si
Correction
Landslide
status
tog/pic
(range)
(avg)
il
type
"
f)
ft
ft
ft
ft'
ft
tt
yds*
IntUaldateof
road
corx&ucilon
Earliest
reported
date of
Miscellaneous
|-T.;
38
37
SR
mN of SH 54, S
37. 2.1-2.4
mg-b;dt
Lawrence
beyond
lop
4/1.5,6
>. .--
area
nc
es-r
m3
27
108
51
4.326
23
23
2,457
Comments
failure
69
"
77 Per
,VV
M.VH
-ry\,.-TTyr"
JCJ.-p:
>
Li-O
App.lirr!
cr '
l.'r-J'.^-h
ol old
and trequenl
site visit
erosion and
2/8
Perry
5/6
too steep
m N SR 70, Area 2
m N SR 70
Perry
5/6
too sleep
Perry
5/7
too steep
N SR 70
Perry
1/20.21
loo sleep
9.3mNSR70
Perry
5/8
loo sleep
Monroe
8/11
Monroe
8/11
area
is
adjacent to
CMP
Monroe
6/11
area
is
adiacenl lo
CMP outlet
Won roe
8712
111/210
37 SR 37. 2 35 mi E
110/209
37 SR37.
6.1 mi
11
110/209
37 SR37.
6.1
J?
11CW 09
37 SR 37. 6.7
43
110/209
37
44
110/209
25
SR 37.
37 SR37.
37
4..,
25
37
47
25
37
25
ol Tell City
N SR
mi
A/ea
70.
SR 37 6 SR 48 interchange,
A/ea
SR 37 SR 4B interehanrje,
A/ea 2 across from A-4
SR 37 SR 48
interchange.
regraded?
oullet
die
pi
18
140
110
12,095
sst-db
S dg
nc
pi
L3/4
25
145
80
9.111
sst-do
& dg
nc
p1
Ll/2
25
60
60
2.627
Pi
27
650
180
91.692
pl
27
140
40
4.398
m-dg
nprap
Perry
1
39
4C
dg.si
dg.
si
<10
10
20
10-20
15
<10
10
2,250
45,379
Per DO
a pnoriiy.
"
73
May-93
"
"
73
Nov-89
73
Nov-69
"
73
83
73
Nov-89 Per
Per DO repaired 1997 May have been due to poor compaction dunng
construction ol road
78-79 Par SV no apparent siqn ol failure.
DO noi
pi
23
120
50
4.712
clO
10
73
Nov-89
m3
Ll/2
26
30
30
707
10-2S
18
91
Jun-94
m3
M1/2
26
50
25
982
10-25
18
SI
Jun-94
vdg-md
es
m3
Ml/2
26
50
25
982
10-25
16
91
Jun-94
vdo. msl, ml
m3
L3/4
27
90
40
2.827
10-25
18
"
91
Jun-9J
72
Feb-88 Failures
.dg-r*
rock backfill
vdg-rn
rock
or lo extend to 3
10
si.
rock backfill
<10
es
dg
rock backfill
backfill
10
'
pnoniy.
4'.
207
0(.i
207
SI
207
37
52
37
S3
37
Won roe
8/14
engineering
fill
soil backfill
vdo. ssi
ne
es
ml
U3/4
28
60
50
2,356
25
1.454
in
newly compacted
Ml.
Per
DO
basically stable.
Won roe
8/14
engineering ol Ml
soil backfill
rig. ssi
nc
es
ml
Ll/2
28
55
40
1,728
25
1.067
72
Feb- 88 Failures
in
newly compacted
fill.
Per
DO
basically stable
Won roe
6713
engmeenng
soil backfill
rig.no. msl
es
ml
U1/2
28
97
35
2,666
15
988
72
Feb-88 Failures
in
newly compacted
fill,
Per
DO
basically slabto
Won roe
6/9
nc
es
m3
L374
22
98
56
4.309
10
0-70
35
1.064
72
78
Monroe
8/8
'
es
m3
20
59
98
4,563
15
0-70
35
1.690
72
978 original failure, recurrent in Aug '96 Part ol emb over old quarry
78 78 remediaie by building slope lo 3. 1 Per DOC and DO Intersection
37
ailure
emb
ol
ol
fill
inlei.
ntersection modification
dg. cattails
mersection modilication
s-mt, dg
Duiil
m md
slope
SR 46/SR 37
Area 2
junct.
ailure
modilication
S4
30
v.,
Elf.
S7
,4
37 Old
SR
37.1.0 mi
M US 4 1.4
ol
Gratsburg Crawford
of
SR
6-1
6 mi Noi
SR
64. Area
41 US41,4.6mi N
Area
Gibson
5/5
Ml, 22
Gibson
US41.0.5miNo!SR47
46 SR 46. 2.8 mi
Wo! US
Parke
Dearborn
S9
9/109
9/109
48 SR46.
SI
9/109
48 SR48, SR 148-US
50,
Area 3
62
9/109
48
m W ol
US
50.
SR
52
9/23
CPID
rock backfill
ailed
CPID
rock backfill
63
24
48
64
24
48
65
24
46
66
24
in
24
48
24
46
24
48
3earbom
realignment
SR 148-US50, Area 2
Dearborn
realignment
48,
Area
11/3
Dearborn
11/2
US 46.
Indusiriat drive in
Lawrenceburg. Area
US 48.
Indusinal
dnve
in
Lawrenceburq. Area 3
US
4B, Indusinal
dnve
in
.awrenceburg. Area 4
US
48. Indusinal
dnve
in
Lawrenceburg. Area 5
US
48. Industrial
dnve
Lawrenceburg. Area 6
US
48, Indusinal
68
50
engmeenng
ol
till,
GW
soil/rock interlace
dnve
in
.awroncoburq. Area 7
is
still
failing
dg ouiside
US5O.O.05m,ESR4S0
es
nc
es
Cne
es-r
r/r;
di
toe
cne
nc
250
260
51.051
16
3-16
10
20.168
28
165
50
6.480
14
>50
50
2.240
57
87 Good pictures
in
Dan's
taken
in winter
P3
E(bench)
28
60
45
2.121
>50
50
"
57
87 Good pictures
in
In winter
P1
34
300
105
24,740
20
20
DearDom
10724
Dearborn
10722.23
d-vdg. cattails
toed
"
55
o2
"
55
88
o2
55
8B
55
Feo-83
16
525
95
275
70
23
144
23
2S5
02
U1/?
16
02
Ml/?
02
Ul/4(bench)
39.172
24
25
25
23.213
15.119
10
3-12
3,733
56
6,324
15
15
15
2,342
46
10.642
15
15
15
3.941
37
92
34
bO
US
SO,
m W ol SR 56
Deartwm
11/10
CMP
67
so
73
42 1/93
52
421/93
7&
42.1/93
'6
42 1/93
77
421/93
52
US 50.
1.9 mi
US
52,
E US 421
eSmiWSR (NW
Area
US
SI
52
9/12
Franklin
9/9-11
Franklin
9/9-11
m W SR
{NW
Franklin
9/8
junction).
US
52,
backfill
m W SRI
25 m W SRI
[unction).
Area 4
junction).
Area 5
[NW
(NW
Franklin
lor
proposed roalignment
Per
DO
1988
lor
proposed realignment
Pei
DO
92
92
148
46
5.321
15
15
15
1,971
vdg
nc
o2
Ml/3
18
164
56
7,187
15
15
15
2,662
vdg
nc
o2
Ml/4
22
49
45
1.747
15
15
15
647
92
nc
o2
Ul/4(bench)
25
49
20
761
15
15
15
282
92
o2
E(bench)
23
279
157
34.466
15
15
15
12.765
1.576
30.91
Apr-64
Per DO. slopes loo steep in fill section, moves annually. INDOT placed
some np rap;Low priority. Per SV no apparent LS features.
52
Aug-84
db-l outside
92
r/r
es-r
Pi
U3/4
35
125
50
4.909
13
2-16
92
r/r
dg Hanking
above wall
r/r
es-r
o2
23
395
130
40.330
22
15-30
23
21.908
cne
es-r
c25
25
1.702
Per
DO
repairs by
fill
retaining wall
report
needs expanding,
recommended
rock backfill
wall;
dt
Area 2
US 52. 1 49
52
junction). Area 3
52
12/3
Franklin
rock
1988
in
being monitored.
o3
130
27
2.757
nc
o3
U1/4
30
60
55
2.592
cne
o3
21
470
190
70,136
IB
14
90
Dec-83 Per
DO
bin wail
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides
Old canal
at
31.172
29
May-93 Per
DO active
slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Lower slope
29.729
29
May-93 Per
DO active slides.
Old caoal
at toe.
Upper culslope
29
May-93 Per
DO active slides
Old canal
at toe.
"
29
May-93 Per
OO active slides.
Old canal
at toe.
junction).
52,
Ripley
ot
comoieied
25
out ol line w/
engmeenng
72
report
Ml/3
slide 1
71
in
Geolech
fixing
poor drainage.
CMP. creek
o2
nc
failure
rip
rap or rock
reck backfill
backfill
still
failing
mg-st w/in
r/r.
dt
toe
d-vdi
nc
o3
LI/?
26
730
150
86,001
d-.d,
-.:
o3
tin
35
90
45
3.181
o3
100
135
10,603
"
ol
vd.
clogging ol
nc
Dearborn
Per SV,
10721
DO added
Jul-79 stabilized
o2
es-r
Dearborn
R93
o3
25,
es-r
nc
12.217
file
nyc
11/1
83
main slide.
Per DOC. may need urgenl attention in 9B and pre 1970 binwall correction
70 (ailed, scarp in road caused Irequeni hazard Per DO active slide, wedged,
leveled and monitored by subdisinct
Gaotech report compieied in 1988 lor proposed realignment. Per DO
68
vdt
soil backfill
dg-db
fill,
22
E(bench)
rock and
dg-db
of
P3
nc
10/20
5722
m3
56,82
In
slides
di
10/20
4/13,
will fix
realignment
TJearbom
Martin
es-r
Dearborn
Dearborn
nc
Par
Industrial drive in
-awrenceburq. Area 2
US 48.
sloping bedrock,
w/m
Dearborn
ouiside LS. dg
LS
ol toe
dg w/in
LS
engmeenng
70
dt outside LS;
dt
creek erosion
nr
vdi
reiocaied
ailed
7/10-12
69
SB
;>.
67
A-3
of
A-2
log
iateof
id
log/pic
uetlon
photo
ID
File
County
Location
(0
78
42.1/93
52
US
79
42.1/93
52
US
81
82
42.1/93
42.1/93
42 1/93
52
52
52
US
US
83
42.1/93
52
US
84
42.1/93
52
US
W SR
junction).
(NW
W SR
W SR
Area
W SR
DO
active slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Franklin
9/7
May-93 Per
DO
active slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Franklin
9/3.4
"
May-93 Per
DO
active slides
Old canal
at toe.
9/5
engi
advf
engi
29
advf
eng
Franklin
(NW
May-93 Per
29
Franklin
(NW
29
drair
(NW
Miscellaneous
29
May-93
in
in
36
52
US
(NW
Area 12
52. 0.6 mi
Franklin
9/2
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides
Old canal
at
Franklin
9/1
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides
Old canal
at
of
New Trenton
Franklin
9/20
high
55
railr
86
41
52
US
52. 3.8 mi
at
toe
W SR
and piezometers on
Inclinometers
85
Comments
failure
9/6
Franklin
Area 10
48 mi
52.
(NW
Area 9
52. 0.51 mi
junction).
Area 8
60 mi
52.
lunction),
(NW
Area 7
52. 0.67 mi
junction).
US
W SR
52. 0.73 mi
junction).
Area 6
52, 0.98 mi
junction).
80
W SR
52. 1.09 mi
junction).
Earliest
reported
date of
W of SR 46,
Area
ehgi
Franklin
55
9/21
advtj
toe
site installed at least
as early as 3/81
monitored regularly by maint, forces. They say it's a 'shallow'
failure, but SI 5201 was pinched at 24', this may be part of a larger slide
Per DO monitored regularly by maint forces This slide may extend
through terrace to nver. it may be as long as about 200' Movement as
Feb-84
much as 44' depth @ toe (SI 5262). this is in shale. At and A2 may be
DO
Mar-81 Per
acting together
US
52. 3.8 mi
87
41
88
42
52
89
40
52
90
108
91
19
56
SR 56. 7 mi
RdtoSR 156
92
86
58
SR
52
56
W of SR 46.
Area
Franklin
9/21
Franklin
9/17.18
Franklin
9/19
US
52, 0.6 mi
of
SR
Old
52, 6.0 mi
W of SR 46
SR
56. 0.6 mi
N SR
Tower
156,
engn
Feb-84
55
Aug-83
55
Aug-83
rrpp.
Water
Switzerland
11/19
Slide'
58. 4.4 mi
55
in
Cedar Grove
US
engn
cree
W of Patch Ridge
W SR 54
81
slopl
Ohio
Greene
GW
5/21
cred
61
Apr-90
43
Apr-88 Per
men]
DO
Per
terrace to nver.
DO
93
94
59
95
107
61
north Clay/Parke
SR 59
7 mi north Clay/Parke
Co.
A2
line.
SR61.
1.4 mi
SSR62
96
S3
62 SR62.
0.1 mi
WSR
97
83
62
SR62.
0.1 mi
ESR250(NE
98
60
99
60
100
57
101
84/105
102
new
103
104
105
216
82
junction)
SR
5 mi E
62
across from A-1
SR 62. 0.5 mi E
62
across from A-2
62
SR
62.
62, 0.5 mi
62 SR62.
4 mi
Memrad
ESR
63
SR
(W
64. 1.1
79
64 SR64.
1.1
110
79
64 SR64.
1.1
111
77
64
64
64, 2.2 mi E
7.2
EB
7/16
Wamck
3/1-5
too.
Mar-84 Per
Perry
2/1-4
cree
engt
24
Apr-66
Jefferson
12/2
cree
68
163. Area
163, Area 2
SR 37
SV np
DO
DO
areas
seem
stable
DO
seem
stable
Sep- 84 Per
Spencer
2/20.21
bed 82. 83
rem
eng
94
bed
May-05 Inclinometer
by maintenance contract.
30
2/22.23
cre<
35.87
installed 8/83
98 Per
Sep-95
Per
DO
guardrail slipping,
DOC.
distnct
make
74
Dec-87
4.
R82
Nov-87
4,
R82
Nov-87
Per
DO
slide
Per
maintenance tned
Per
DO
SV
Crawford
4/19.20
GW
30
Jul-86 Per
DO
not
GW
56
Aug-86 Per
DO
small
and
stable.
56
Aug-86 Per
DO
small
and
stable
56
Aug-86 Per
DO
small
and stable
56
Jan-86
Crawford
5/4
GW
GW
Crawford
4/18
too
Wamck
14/12
66
Sep-82
Jan-90 multiple small slides here
too
EB
Vanderburgh
14/11
too
66
Sep-82
EB
Vanderburgh
14/11
100
66
WB
Vanderburgh
14/10
too
66
Vanderburgh
14/8
too
66
Jan-90
too
66
Sep-82
106
64,1
20.6
115
106
64.1
20.6
116
106
64.1 20.6
117
106
64.1 22.4
EB
64.1 22.4
WB
Vanderburgh
14/9
DO
distnct forces
wedge,
rip
rap
shoulder and
AP
pipe running
W down
continues to
hill.
Per DO small and stable, not a pnonty. Per SV corrected but possibly
moving, cracks in pavement on N side of road.
14/10
114
DO correction
prionty.
Vanderburgh
64.1 20.5
from ditching
Per
priority.
gully wash/piping
maintenance tned
WB
106
project.
slide.
66
113
new bndge
patches.
fails
5/3
7/14
Crawford
Initial
shift
Vigo
5/2
forces,
level
clog
fail!
by maint
infill
Crawford
wedge
repair=S1 Million;
repairs
too
7/13
of
DO corrected
8/21
Vigo
Aug-83 Per
Clark
7/15
will
bed
too
Vigo
INDOT wedges
cost=S1000/yrlNDOT
8/22
8/20
rap
active,
Clark
Clark
Per
Sep- 84 Per
Spencer
W of SR 145
mi W SR 37. Area
mi WSR 37, Area 2
mi W SR 37. Area 3
SR
R78
failed
Parke
prol
S SR
64. 0.2 mi
5.
89
7/16.17
Crawford
162
SR
S SR
64 SR
SR
of
63, 7.9 mi
29
64
R78
Parke
107
106
St.
Area 2
63
62, 2.9 mi
63. 7.9 mi
118
131. Area
SR
SR
112
SR
31
62
63
109
62. 0.8 mi E SR 66
62
junction near Sulphur)
82
79
SR
SR
106
108
145
|5,
repaired 1990.
DOC,
Per
SR 59 0.7 mi
59
Co line. A1
still
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
GEOUETRIC INFORMATION
W L
plan
D
OB
Slope
photo
to
County
Location
File
Vegetation
Remedial Uethod
Probable Cause
log
ft
78
42.1/93
52
42.1/93
52
BO
42.1/93
52
B!
42.1/93
Vi
82
42.1/93
52
S3
42,1/93
5Z
8-1
42.1/93
52
65
86
36
1.09 mi
WSR
(NW
US
52. 0.98 mi
W SR
(NW
US
52,
m W SR
(NW
mWSRl
(NW
US 52.
junction).
73
Area 8
US
67
52,
US
52, 0.51
60 mi
junction), Area 10
US
52,
(NW
9/3,4
9/5
volume
ll
-
f)
tt
tt
if
ft
ft
ft*
yds*
(NW
GW
ol
fill,
sloping Bedrock
date o/
toad
5 *j
consliuctton
Earnest
repotted
failure
U1/4
30
90
50
3.534
"
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides.
Old canal
ai toe.
o3
29
315
160
39,584
"
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides-
Od canal
altoe.
'
03
Ul/2
30
292
107
24.539
32-42
37
29
May-93 Per
DO
active slides
Old canal
al loe,
>
o3
Ul/2
30
1B1
131
18.623
25-42
34
>
29
nc
o3
26
250
190
37,306
<25
25
"
29
nc
fl-
nc
at
nc
bm
dt
bm
Per OO active slides. Old canal ai toe. Thick sandy gravel layers
subsurface
Per DO active slides. Old canal at toe Thick sandy gravel layers
May-93
subsurface Failure looks regressive
Oci-85
Fran Win
9/2
rock backfill
db-dt
nc
o3
LI/4
22
150
25
2,945
29
May-93 Per
DO active
slides
Old canal
at
Franklin
9/1
d-vdi
nc
o3
31
735
135
77.931
"
29
May-93 Per
DO active
slides.
Old canal
at toe.
Franklin
9/20
***
nc
o2
34
273
31
6.647
55
Mar-81 Per
41
52
MH
42
52
89
40
52
US
(NW
mWolSR 46.
52, 3 8
high
9/21
adverse
temp
bedrock
railroad, sloping
engineering ol
Franklin
Area
fill,
report
sloping bedrock,
loe
GW conditions, creek
52, 6.0 ml
SR
56, 0.6 m.
N SR
of
SR 46
156,
Water
108
56
19
M.
SR 56, 0.7 m.
RdloSR 156
W ol Parch Ridge
,,;.
86
56
SR
W SR 54
94
95
107
96
53
53
59
63
62
9a
60
(,.
62
too
57
6:
102
now
lino,
A1
SR
59
Co.
line.
A2
SR
nonh Clay/Parke
m north Clay/ParKc
4miSSR62
0.1
62.0.1
m WSR 145
miESR250(NE
unction)
5miESR131.
Area 2
across Irom A-
60
64/105
7 mi
Co.
SR62.
J9
10!
SR 59
62 SR62,
97
52
Franklin
9/19
SR
62.
.5
mi E St Mcinrad
8 mi E
62.
SR 66 (W
11/19
creek
4mESR
162
-,
creek
ol Ml, Sloping
Greene
5/21
Parke
7/16,17
Parke
7/16
Wamck
3/1-5
Perry
2/1-4
Jeflerson
12/2
Clark
8/22
Clark
8/21
Spencer
2/20.21
bedrock,
recomm.
drilled p<er
RR
rails failed,
30
20-40
30
4,924
wan w/ rock
Ml
downslope
es-r
o3
Ul/2
32
184
71
10.260
20-36
28
11,147
'
55
wan
(ill
downslope
nc
es-r
'
o2
32
258
65
13.070
30
24-29
27
9.681
55
nc
o2
31
350
80
21.991
>50
50
"
"
55
d-vdt
nc
es-r
02
Ul/2
26
500
70
27,489
17
10-21
16
55
Irom wall
toe
-.'
t .,.n".;.
'
;..-
-ir;
[..
:...
toe (not
backfill
rock backfill
loe
creek
toe,
engmeenng
Gw
ol
-,;
s/r
miedace.
oo steep
GW
bedrock slope,
6
removal ol toe bulge
ol Ml.
s/r interlace,
drainage, sloping
8/20
7/1
105
82
|V1
SR 63,
Vigo
7/13
ailed pipes
liX.
82
63
SR
m S SR 163. Area 2
Vigo
7/14
ailed pipes
may have
29
64
SR64.02rrWolSR145
79
64
SR64.
109
79
64
SO
110
79
64 SR64,
77
64
11?
.,-!
1.1
64. 1.1
1,1
W SR 37. Area
mi W SR 37, Area 2
m WSR 37. A/ea 3
mi
SR
64, 2.2 mi
7,2
EB
WB
E SR 37
nl ill rati on ol
GW
jinwaD
and beyond
es-r
e/c
o2
Ml/'
17-26
285
225
50,364
20
10-25
18
24.871
"
es-r
02
13
755
240
142,314
5-10
26,354
es
10
50
50
1.063
15-25
20
"
55,
R78
55.
R78
m3 E
29
137
40
4,304
nc
Pi
26
50
45
1.767
Pi
24
85
55
3.672
nc
o:
20
460
70
25.290
nc
m6
16
28C
110
24,190
250
50
outside
di
r/r
vdb outside
r/r
udi
runoff
slope
rock backfill
np rap and
still
AP
nprap
saturated slope
tailing
patches
new
mid slope; dg. scarp
sg-sb w/m
es-r
o3
Aug-83
:'
c;_-;.ce
4/19,20
Crawled
5/2
Crawlord
5/3
Crawlord
5/4
GW s/r interface
GW s/r interface
GW @ s/r interface
Crawford
4/18
too steep
Wamck
14/12
Vanderburgh
14/10
too steep
vdD.
Vanderburgh
14/11
too steep
vdb
vdb
r/r
,S Cb
vdg
rock backfill
vog,
rock backfill
vdg. s-di
rock backfill
di
regraded?
dg; mt
64.1 20,6
EB
Vanderburgh
14/11
too steep
116
106
6-1
WB
Vanderburgh
14/10
too steep
ii?
106
64.1 22.4
EB
Vanderburgh
14/8
too steep
rock backfill
64.1 22.4
WB
Vanderburgh
14/9
too steep
rock backfill
SV
7/98, road
was
8-20
15
50-100
75
<20
20
11,946
9.817
<30
30
7.272
20
Apr-90 on
43
Apr-88 Per
b, St
above
outside
vdb,
r/r
topol slope
SI
s.
dg outside
flb
outside
enceline
r/r;
r/r,
st
st
DO
repaired 1990
Per DOC, lirst correction flittered Irom that recommended in report and
'ailed Per DO, stone added to slope, active In weaihered shale, Per SV
Soil sat bottom ol slope even though not in low lying area
Per DOC, lirst correction differed Irom that recommended in report and
89 tailed Per DO, stone added to slopo, active In weothored shale. Per SV
.;
bottom Ol Slop* even thouqh nol in low lyini) area
89
SV np
70
Mar-84 Per
24
Apr-66
68
Aug-83 Per
DO corrected
rap
ol
U3/4
36
200
55
8.639
<75
75
Sep-84 Per
DO
repairs
by mamt
lorcos,
areas
seem stable
es
U3/4
27
215
60
10,132
<75
75
Sep-64 Per
DO
repairs
by mamt
lorces,
areas
seem stable.
nc
es-r
m6
LI/'
19
155
140
17.043
13
5-60
33
5.471
82,63
m4
Ul/'
152
66
10,267
12
5-12
3,042
94
Pi
Ul/2
35
30
May-OS Inclmomeler
Mar-84
04
27
175
105
14.432
34
34
35.87
Sep-95
P3
32
73
30
1,720
<40
30
74
Dec-67
PC
P3
29
80
75
4.712
<15
10
74.
082
nc
p3
27
75
65
3.629
<15
10
74,
R82
17
6,058
make
district
shift
DO
DO small
and stable
56
Aug-86 Per
DO small
and stabfe
56
Aug-86 Per
and stable
56
J an- 86
DO small
DO small
200
66
Sep-82
50-100
75
66
SO-100
75
66
Sep-82
50-100
75
66
66
66
Jan-90
"
66
Sep-82
43
7,768
5-15
10
1,151
ll
125
125
12.272
12
5-10
3.636
nc
es-r
mS E
11
700
163
89.614
12
5-10
26.553
es-r
m5
LI
20
175
SO
6.872
5-10
1,018
es-r
m5
31
260
90
18,378
25
25
25
11,345
es
P4
22
150
60
7069
200
nc
es
p3
23
200
30
4712
nc
es
P3
27
30
30
707
nc
es
pa
27
250
30
5890
nc
es
p3
23
430
30
10132
50-100
75
es
P3
25
80
30
1885
50-100
75
es
p3
26
110
35
3024
50-100
75
proieci
Per
DO correction
DO district lorces
wedge.
ide
Jul-86 Per
230
22
Nov-87
Aug- 66 Per
23
Ml/2
68
DOC,
56
mS
lailuro
Per DO didnl lind where problem was. Por SV rip rap & shoulder and AP
patches
Per DO maintenance ined lo stabilize Out not very successful, continues 10
Nov-87
slide. Per SV gully wash/piping
pipe running
down hill.
Per DO maintenance wed lo stabilize bui not very successful, continues lo
30
pi
slipping, pnonty.
es-r
Per
DO guardrail
es-r
Inilial
nc
installed 8/83
complete.
98 Per
wodgo
ropair=Sl Million;
by maintenance contract.
es
nc
at
dunng road
omb corrected by
61
w'-i
LS
rock backlill
106
OO
'''-.' iv
toe
vdb, sst
dg. si outside
rock backfill
r/r; flt
vdg, sst
Crawlord
s/r interface
Per
,.1h,.'
nc
106
recommended
area
118
dt.
64
20.6
dg, dt
si
<>.!
r/r
rock backlill
106
vdg outside
rock backlill
106
:-!
dt,
vug
rock backlill
in
20.5
vdg
113
lib
dt,
vdt
Vigo
'
DO
Slide occurred
dg. m-dt
bridrje
Clark
107
backfill,
a<led
2.9m.Eo1SR3
63, Area
rock
',
Per
Feb-84
fill
vdt
borrow
11.539
lailure in
into rock
vdb
w and Wo B
rock backfill
63
SR
backs
rock backlill
oo steep
>
tie
creek erosion
ol
w/
considered
216
63, 7.9
toe
GW weakened shale
103
7.9 mi
wa
Drilled piers
104
62 SR62,
roc*
toe
bedrock
2/22.23
v.-.
rock backfill
engmeenng
Spencer
drilled pier
Irorr
Ohio
Crawford
SR62,
Switzerland
OCrosslromA,2
SR
52
9/17.18
Slide'
SB, 4 4 mi
SR61,
61
Franklin
engmeenng
.;-,,
US
91
9/21
1 in
Cedar Grove
90
93
Franklin
USS2.0 6mrEolOtdSR
Tower
in
in
,].;t
SI
Comments
iltseeltaneous
dateot
o3
|di
rock backfill
engmeenng
Franklin
W ol SR 46, Area
52. 3 6 mr
Franklin
Franklin
N of New Trenton
52, 0.6 mi
9/7
t-ngineenng of
Area 12
unclion)
US
mWSR
W SR
Area
46 mi
luncfion),
9/6
Franklin
DATA
AVAILABLE
OB
(avg)
GW
WSR
US
52 US
52
52.
Franklin
(range)
Initial
III
Ipglplc
79
area
not a priority.
Per
and stable, not a pnorily Per SV corrected but possibly
moving, cracks in pavement on u side of road
sull
log
date of
fad
log/pic
faction
photo
ID
Hte
Location
fa
119
106
64.1
120
106
64.1 22.8
22.7
County
WB
Vanderburgh
14/6
EB
Vanderburgh
14/7
too
ace
Earliest
reported
date of
66
Sep-82
66
Sep-82
alio
121
106
64.1 22.8
WB
Vanderburgh
14/6
too
66
Jan-90
122
106
64.1 23.3
EB
Vanderburgh
14/5
too
66
Jan-90
64
WB
Vanderburgh
14/4
EB
Vanderburgh
14/3
too
67
Jan-90
Gibson
14/2
too
67
Jan-90
123
23.3
124
106
64.1 23.7
125
106
641 23.7 WB
126
106
64
127
106
64.1 23.79
23.79
66
Gibson
14/2
too
67
Apr-93.
WB. Area 2
Gibson
14/2
too
67
Apr-93
WB, Area
WB
128
106
64
Gibson
14/2
too
67
Jan-90
129
106
64.1
24 15 EB. Area
Vanderburgh
14/13
eng
67
Apr-93
23.8
Miscellaneous
failure
130
106
64.1
Vanderburgh
14/13
eng
67
Apr-93
131
106
64.1
Vanderburgh
14/13
eng
67
Apr-93
13?
27
64.1
62.2
EB
Dubois
14/1
Oct-82
63.4
WB
Dubois
13/23
GW
GW
72
64.1
72
Jun-85 Per
133
SV no
apparent sign
ot failure
Oct-82 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
Oct-82 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
134
27
64.1
64.6
EB
Spencer
13/24
GW
72
Oct-82
135
27
64.1
68.5
EB
Perry
13/22
fails
73
Jun-82
136
27
64.1
70.1
EB
Perry
13/21
73
Oct-82
64.1
72.9
MED. Area
Perry
13/18
73
64.1
72.9
MED. Area 2
Perry
13/18
GW
GW
GW
73
64.1
73.1
EB
Perry
13/17
too
73
Jul-85
WB
Perry
13/15
GW
73
Oct-82
137
138
27
139
140
27
64.1
73.2
141
27
64.1
Perry
13/19
GW
73
Oct-82
142
27
64
Perry
13/19
GW
73
Oct-82
64
73.5
Perry
13/16
GW
73
Dec-82
Perry
13/16
fails
73
Feb-87
143
144
27
EB
145
64.1
73.8
EB
Perry
13/20
too
73
Dec-82
146
64.1
75.4
EB
Perry
13/13
GW
73
Nov-86
64.1
75.5
WB
Perry
73
Per
148
27
64.1
75.7
WB
Perry
13/14
GW
73
Oct-82 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
149
27
641 76.8 EB
Perry
13/12
GW
73
Oct-82 Per
SV no
apparent sign
ol failure
too
73
Jul-86 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
73
Jul-85
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
147
150
64.1 78.4
WB
Perry
13/11
151
64.1 78.7
EB
Perry
13/10
64.1 79.9
WB
Crawford
13/6
64.1 80.0
WB
Crawlord
13/5
EB
Crawford
13/7.8
152
27
153
GW
73
Oct-82 Per
73
Oct-86
GW
73
Oct-82
GW
GW
73
Oct-82
154
27
64.1 80.2
155
27
64.1
80.5
WB
Crawford
156
27
64.1
80.7
WB
Crawford
157
64.1
80
9WB
Crawford
13/4
158
64.1 81.6
EB
Crawford
13/9
159
64.1
81.7EB
Crawford
160
64.1
83.2
WB
Crawford
13/3
GW
GW
73
Oct-82
73
Sep-82
GW
73
Sep-82
73
Oct-82
161
27
64.1
83.3
EB
Crawford
13/1
162
27
64
83.3
WB
Crawford
13/3
163
27
64.1 83.4
EB
Crawford
13/2
164
27
64.1 83.8
WB
Crawford
12/20,21
In
SV
rest
didn't
see landslide
area
73
Oct-82
73
Jan-87
GW
73
Feb-87 Per
SV no
apparent sign
ot failure
GW
GW
73
Feb-87 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
73
Mar-87
loo
GW
Comments
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
OATA
GEOMETRIC INFORMATION
area
lid
File
106
Location
County
Vegetation
Remedial Method
Probable Cause
log
Vanderburgh
14/6
14/7
14/6
120
106
64,1 22.6
EB
Vanderburgh
121
106
64.1 22.6
we
Vanderburgh
typo
loos.eep
access rd
allowing
rock backfill
diich too close fo top
GW infiltration
rock backfill
too steep
122
106
64.1 23 3'E8
f>i
'
23.3
WB
Vanderburgh
14/5
Vanderburgh
14/4
Vanderburgh
14/3
rock backfill
loo steep
106
64.1
237 EB
rock backfill
rock backfill
loo sleep
fence row
r/r. it
lop; si
lence row
r/r.
r/r.
If
"*
f)
ft
ft
It
ft*
ft
ft
yds
11
Earnest
reported
Miscellaneous
construction
failure
P3
24
105
35
2886
50-100
75
>
66
Sep-82
es
pa
23
60
35
1649
50-100
75
66
Sep- 82
rt
222
35
6103
50-100
75
66
Jan -90
P3
25
no
35
3024
50-100
75
66
Jan-90
-':
26
"
66
"
nc
es
<=
es
P3
23
100
50
3927
50-100
75
67
Jan-90
es
P3
22
140
45
4948
50-100
75
67
Jan-90
es
P3
L3/4
26
70
30
1649
50-100
75
"
"
67
Apr-93
<-
p3
L3/4
26
70
30
1649
50-100
75
67
Apr-93
es
P3
L3/J
26
230
35
6322
50-100
75
67
Jan-90
<*
'
p3
M2/3
28
30
25
589
50-100
75
67
Apr-93
es
'
p3
28
220
35
6046
50-100
75
67
Apr-93
05
P3
L3/4
28
40
31
974
50-100
75
67
Apr-93
nc
es-r
p1
LI/2
25
70
35
1924
0-6
143
72
Oct-82
P1
22
75
50
2945
3-7
364
72
Jun-85 Per
M3/4
30
60
65
3063
<I0
10
756
72
Oct-82
<=
lence line
si
.00. ss.
vdo oulSJde
124
cornfield
r/r.
top; St
vcb outside
rock backfill
vdb outside
123
Landslide
status
dg outside
WB
tottlaldateot
l|
Correction
log/pic
64.1 22,7
AVAILABLE
(avg)
photo
ib
(range)
WB
Gibson
14/2
loo steep
rock backfill
Gibson
14/2
loo steep
rock backfill
WB. A/ea2
Gibson
14/2
loo sleep
rock backfill
Gibson
14/2
too sleep
rock backfill
125
106
641
23.7
126
106
i,i
127
106
64.1 23,79
126
106
64,1 23.6
129
106
i,.i
130
WB
1
Vanderburgh
14/13
engineering
ollJII
rock backfill
106
64,1
Vanderburgh
14/13
engineering
olfill
rock backfill
131
106
Vanderburgh
14/13
engineenng
of
rock backfill
13?
27
54
64
133
'
62.2
EB
Dubois
14/1
63.4
WB
Dubois
13/23
GW
GW
fill
27
64.1 64.6
EB
Spencer
13/24
GW @
135
27
..-1
68.5
EB
Perry
13/22
failed
138
27
>r,
70
EB
Parry
13/21
GW seepmg from
:.:
137
vw
27
73.1
r/r,
r/r.
dg outside
cornfield
r/r.
dg outside
cornfield
dg,
s.
rock backf
erosion
II
rock backfill
regraded 1
hill
'eg raced
hill
oo steep
-3
upper limil
dg ouiside
lop
:.
r/r,
r/r,
GW seeping from
hill,
erosion
rock backiili
GW seeping Irom
hill,
erosion
rock
Perry
13/16
GW seeping from
hill,
erosion
rock backfill
dg outside
r/r.
rock backfill
dg ouiside
r/r
dg outside
r/r;
EB
73.5
,,.i
73 5 EB MEDIAN
CPIO
Perry
13/16
ailed
EB
Perry
13/20
oo steep
75 4 EB
Perry
13/13
db. dl
es-r
P'
OS-,
es-r
m6 E
es-r
m6 E
dg
dg outside
13/19
es-r
dg
13/19
rock backfill
no
of r/r
3pe
Perry
liJ
and
lence row
Perry
Aroa2
and
and
IS: dg outsrde
LS. m-di
top
dg ouiside r/r; dt
hill
64,1 73.3EB.
si
si
toe
GW seeping from
cornfield
r/r. si
13/17
27
comlield
dbw/m
CPID
GW seepmg from
GW seepmg from
comlield
toe
t/r,
13/15
27
27
top
dg outside
top
dg outside
6 lop
Perry
1-11
14-1
13/18
r/r.
Perry
1-1.'
143
Perry
13/18
dg ouiside
EB
64.1 73.2
Perry
top
WB
27
1-1
72 9 MED, Aroa 2
641
V;
64
72 9 MED, Area
re graded'
inlerlace
hill,
cornfield
s/r inlerlace
134
r/r,
dg ouiside
s/r inlerlace
s/r
dg outside
dl lop
slope
dg ouiside r/r, db w/in
r/r; dt lop
dg ouiside
upper
r/r.
di
r/r.
di
dl
Jul-85
Oct-B2
es-r
me
22
105
100
6247
1,018
73
Oct-82
es-r
m6
22
75
40
2356
3-6
262
73
Oct-82
es-r
me
Ml/3
IB
105
40
3299
3-9
489
73
Dec-82
es-r
mE
L3/4
21
75
60
3534
6-10
698
73
Feb-87
es-r
me
L1/?
18
120
70
6597
2-11
1.059
73
Dec-82
es-r
me
Ml/2
16
215
52
6781
3-5
867
73
Nov-86
r.
73
Per
73
Oct-82 Per
SV no
73
Oct-82 Per
SV no apparenl
sign of lailure
SV no apparent
sign of lailure
sign of lailure
64
Perry
13/12
GW seeping from
hill
regraded'
dg; dt
top slope
es-r
150
.,!
WB
Perry
13/11
loo steep
regraded'
dg
151
64.1 76 7
EB
Perry
13/10
rock
dg out&de
79.9
WB
Crawlord
13/6
60.0
WB
Crawloid
13/5
EB
Crawford
80.5
WB
Crawford
is-:,
27
I...1
13/7.6
GW seepmg from
GW seeping Irom
GW seeping Irom
Crawford
WB
Crawford
13/4
158
,y,
61.6
EB
Crawlord
13/9
159
64.1 81.7
EB
Crawford
WB
Crawford
13/3
83.3
EB
Crawford
13/1
83.3
WB
Crawlord
13/3
EB
Crawford
13/2
GW seeping Irom
Crawford
12/20.21
161
27
t-i
62
27
fvl
'
'
83.2
163
27
64.1 83.4
164
27
64.1
63 6 WB
r/r
m6
GW @ s/r interface
GW s/r interface
GW s/r interface
GW seeping Irom
GW seeping Irom
regraded?
dg,
hill
hill,
st; dt
dg. db:
erosion
hill
dg.
st,
mt
dt
top slope
top slope
top slope
dg, vdb, dt
dg
m- a; outside
LS
w/in LS.
top
3142
0-3
116
me
U1/2
11C
60
5184
1-4
320
75
45
2651
3-10
425
73
Jul-86 Per
27
40
848
3-21
12
251
73
Jul-85
m6
U3M
m6
L3/4
19
73
Oct-82
73
Oct-82
73
Oct-82
73
Jan-87
73
Feb-87 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
73
Feb-87 Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure
73
Mat
75
37
2179
3-6
242
20
140
50
5496
3-6
611
no
es-r
m6
Ml/'
27
145
82
9338
3-12
1,729
es-r
me
M3/4
18
200
60
9425
2-3
582
m6
19
400
110
34558
1-2
1,280
m6
LI/?
16
130
70
7147
4-8
1.059
18
m5
U2/3
160
60
7540
5-18
12
2.141
es-r
m5
Ul/4
180
55
7775
7-8
1.440
<
-:
es-r
rn6
LI/?
85
75
5007
1-10
556
-:
es-r
me E
20
200
60
9425
465
73
Od-82
nc
es-r|c
m6
U2/3
18
125
90
8836
1-6
764
73
Sep-82
nc
es-r
m6
LI/7
20
160
80
10053
1-5
745
73
Sep-82
nc
es-r
mS
U1/2
160
130
16336
3.227
73
Oct-82
ol
69
ol failure
Ocl-86
13
Ml/3
es-r
see landslide
apparent sign
LI/5
m6
d'dn'1
73
m6
es-r
SV
73
top slope
40
es-r
nc
dg; dt
100
es-r
es-r
dg
LI/'
es-r
hill
mS
es-r
w/in
lop slope
nc
top slope
LS
WB
lop
hill
80.7
t>i
hill
64.1 80.9
160
rm
157
r/r.
sign ol failure
73
27
K.1
SV no apparent
73
es-r
64.1 80.2
Oct-B2 Per
lop slope
27
73
27
dg; di
155
regraded'
IS4
301
640
hill
LS: dt
1,629
seepmg from
dg ouiside
dg. dl
3-9
GW
regraded'
SV no
2034
10
13/14
hill
Oct-B2 Psr
37
<10
Perry
seeping from
73
3-13
es-r
GW
3240
WB
6597
75.7
524
55
bJ
70
<f.4
27
3-9
75
27
153
Oct-82
3534
120
Perry
152
Jun-82
73
19
top
dt |ust
of (allure
73
17
apparent sign
Ml/4
WB
backfill
70
4,451
LI/2
75.5
78,4
138
m6
6EB
45
m6
76
100
1-3
3-15
64
14
20028
6.1
1-
2504
60
es-r
147
!
51
425
es-r
146
rock backfill
70
22
ol failure
64.1 73.8
s/r interface
19
Lt/3
apparent sign
no
145
GW @
L1P
lirmi ol r/r
dg outside
backiili
rock backfill
'-
SV no
in rest
area
Comments
date of
photo
ID
File
County
Location
ad
log
ruction
tog/pic
165
166
27
2WB
64
84
64
85.2
64
Earliest
reported
date of
Miscellaneous
73
Jan-87 SV was
GW
73
Sep-82
Crawford
12/19
too
MED
Crawford
12/18
85.2
WB
Crawford
12/17
GW
73
Feb-87
168
27
64,1
85.8
EB
Crawford
12/11
GW
73
Sep-82
169
27
64
87.0
EB
Crawford
12/12
taile
73
Oct-82
64
88.5
EB
Crawford
12/14
too
73
Jun-86
64
88.7
EB
Crawford
12/13
GW
73
Sep-82
64
89.1
EB
Crawford
73
Feb-87
73
Sep-82 SV was
Sep-82
167
170
171
27
172
4WB
12/15
CMF
in incorrect location
incorrect location
173
27
64
89
174
27
64
89.5
EB
Crawford
12/16
GW
73
175
27
64
89.5
WB
Crawford
12/8.9
faile
73
Jun-82
176
27
64.1
89.8
WB
Crawford
12/7
GW
73
177
new
64
Crawford
1/6.7
Crawford
12/5.6
too
Floyd
12/4
,oo
Gibson
3/19.20
641 96
178
179
27/78
180
71
181
182
183
220
220
220
64.1
65
SR
65.1
65
NW
ramp.
EB
N SR 64
65. 2.34 mi
I-65. 2.4
65.1
12/10
mi
'4.
72
98
R94
Dec-85
R95
Dec-85
<f4.
mad
Clark/Scott
I-65. 2 4 mi S Clark/Scott
Area 4 across trom A-2
line,
Clark
8/16.17
toe.
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
Per
DO
line.
Clark
8/18.19
toe,
CMF
iai.e
line,
Clark
8/18,19
engi
runs
Spencer
8/7
slop
32
Apr-85
185
58
66
SR
66. 4.4 mi
W SR 70. Area 2
Spencer
8/6
slop
32
Apr-85
186
58
66 SR
66. 2.3 mi
W SR 70, Area 3
Spencer
187
58
66 SR
66, 2.1 mi
W SR 70, Area 4a
Spencer
188
58
66 SR
66, 2.1 mi
W SR 70. Area 4b
Spencer
189
58
66 SR
66, 2.1 mi
W SR 70. Area 4c
Spencer
W SR 70. Area 5
190
58
66 SR 66,
191
58
66 SR 66. 1.15 mi
66, 0.95 mi
W SR 70. Area 6
W SR 70, Area 7
W SR 70. Area 8
193
58
66 SR
66. .80 mi
194
224
66 SR
66.
2 mi E
SR 70
195
104
66 SR
66.
3 mi E
of
196
223
66 SR
66, 6.3 mi
197
15
66 SR
66, 2.6
198
70
70
NBL
taile
W SR 70. Area
SR
DO maint.
here
66. 4.6 mi
66
Per
cpsd
continually active,
SR
58
DO
of
regularly
DO
66
192
Per
Jan-86 Per
58
mi
55
GW
184
.3
of failure
taile
in
seep
EB
118
Crawford
Comments
failure
SR 545
N SR 70
of
SR 64
8/4.5
8/3
slop
32
Apr-85
slopi
32
Apr-85
slopi
32
Apr-85
slopf
32
Apr-85
Spencer
7/2
slop.;
32
Apr-85
Spencer
7/1
slopi
32
Apr-85
Spencer
7/24
deal
32
Apr-85
sprrrf
yr..
trees
and large
yr.,
trees
and large
yr.,
trees
and large
-2
times per
trees
and large
yr.,
trees
and
large
-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and
large
-2 times per
yr..
trees
and
large
yr.,
trees
and large
yr..
trees
and large
yr.,
trees
and large
Spencer
7/23
slop
32
Apr-85
Spencer
7/4,5
creej
86
Oct-85
Perry
2/10-13
poss 40.49
92
Perry
1/11,12
eros
79
Sep-91
Crawford
1/1-5
68
Per DO mostly erosion, partial repair by INDOT Road may have been
Oct-89 realigned through area. Per SV landslides may not be same ones as
Spencer
2/16,17
creeK W68
Spencer
2/14,15
C reeJ4.
W68
Mar-84
Spencer
2/18
creek W68
Mar-84
R86
Mar-86
Old coal mine underneath site Per DOC revaluation in progress. Per
DO slide stable until 3/97 flood, cracking currently, requires R/W to repair
Engr.Report dated 1/97 discussing various remediation techniques and
Per DO currently being repaired by contract
costs
descnbed
in file.
SR
W SR 66. Area
mi W SR 66. Area 2
mi W SR 66. Area 3
70. 0.1 mi
199
70
70 SR
70. 0.1
200
70
70
SR
70. 0.1
201
69
E SR 243
Putnam
slop
202
74.1
155 4
EB
Ripley
14/14
203
74.1
156.0
WB
Ripley
14/15
204
74.1
Ripley
14/16
205
74.1
Ripley
14/16
206
74.1
159.7
EB
207
74.1
160.5
WB
>5.
Mar-84
62
Jul-87
tOO!
62
Apr-86
too*
62
Jun-85
too
62
Jun-85
Dearborn
14/17,18 too
62
Dearborn
14/19
62
too
too
Per
DO
slide active,
pushing on
Per
DO
no maintenance done @
no immediate concern.
landslide,
Apr-86
NE comer
ot
endbent
of
STR
70-74-26A,
does
not
seem to be an
active
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
GEOMETRIC IHFORUATION
W L
plan
OB
D
Slope
!
ID
County
Location
File
12/19
too steep
regraded 9
dg; dt
85.2
MED
Crawford
72/18
GW
s/r
interlace
rock backfill
da
...;
85.2
we
Crawford
12/17
GW
s/r iniertace
rock backfill
vdb; di
27
64.1 85.8
EB
Crawford
12/11
GW
s/r iniertace
rock backfill
!>I..H
169
27
170
171
i
27
72
173
27
B4
2WB
EB
Crawford
12/12
failed
64.1 88.5
EB
Crawford
12/14
loo sleep
641
GW
88.7
EB
Crawford
12/13
64.1 S9.1
EB
Crawford
12/15
64
WB
Crawford
12/10
89.4
CMP
27
64.1 89.5
EB
Crawford
GW
CPID,
64.1 87.0
r/r.
top slope
db outside
top slope
r/r;
dg outside
u<. dt
GW
rock
backfill
rock
backfill
lop
slope
dg outside
r/r.
dt
top
dg outside
r/r.
dt
top
rock backfill
miertace
m-dt
dg oulside
slope
dg; dt
LI/7
m5
U2/3
nc
es-r
mS
'
es-r
"
m4
es-r
<=
m5
'
m5
es-r
'
'
es-r
12/16
GW
s/r interface,
erosion
rock backfill
dg outside
upper limit
of
dg outside
r/r;
<": dt
6718,19
s/r
iniertace
toe, engineering of
failed
line.
Clark
8/18.19
engmeenng
Spencer
an
sloping bedrock
tH'.
58
66 SB
70. Area 2
Spencer
8/6
sloping bedrock
Spencer
8/4.5
sloping bedrock
66. 4 4 m.
W SR
70. Area
III-.
58
187
58
66
mil
58
66 SR
189
58
66 SR 66.
2.
i..i
58
66 SR66.
1.3
191
58
66 SR66.
!>;'
58
66
SR
66. 2.1
SR 66.
SR
70,
Area 4b Spencer
SR
70.
Area 4c Spencer
mWSR
70.
Area 5
rt
ISrm
0.95
SR
70.
58
66
SR
66.
194
224
,.,.
SR
66.
19S
104
i.t,
SR
66, 0.3 mi
SR
20
75
75
4418
1-4
273
73
Oct-62
M3/4
16
85
70
4673
2-6
462
73
Jun-66
m4
M3/4
16
105
110
9071
Sep-82
m3
15
150
100
11781
2-5
1,008
73
10-14
12
3,491
73
Feb-87
toe
vdg
rock backfill
rrvd.
m3
U3/4
18
215
100
16886
es-r
m4
19
60
75
3534
es-,
m5
Uir>
13
335
110
28.942
m5
M3/4
19
65
90
m2
U3/4
23
75
45
>
"
esr
13
2,651
2-3
1,042
73
Jun-82
10-20
15
1.309
73
Sep-82 Per
5-10
9.290
72
98
25
25
74,
R94
Dec-85
25
25
74.
R95
Dec-85
backfill
dg outside
r/r;
dt
toe
c.
223
66
SR
if*:
15
E6
SR 66,
2 6 S
19?
70
70
SR70.
0.1
199
70
70
SR
N SR
66. 6.3 mi
.'00
70
70
201
69
70.1
SR
70. 0.1
70. 0.1
1-70,0.1
S4S
W SR 66. Area 3
erosion
occurs within
rock backfill
Spencer
dg oulside
r/r;
dt
toe
pc
dg oulside
r/r.
di
toe
PC
200
48,695
55
Jan-86 Per
DO
continually active.
50
2,749
58-59
Ocl-87 Per
DO
ml
32
330
70
18.143
"
"
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
ml
32
430
70
23.640
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
pi
22
20
16.022
32
10-28
19
22.844
removal-serrated slopes
rock key, bmwall or remlorced
'
dt
nc
eanh
pi
Li
14-19
90
.'
70
12
4.94B
2-16
10
0-20
10
4.747
1.222
>
32
Apr-85
es-f
Pi
LIP
14-19
115
60
5,419
1-10
736
32
nc
es-r
Pi
LI/'
13-38
170
170
22.698
0-18
5.044
32
Apr-85
jinwall or
di
nc
es-r
Pi
LI/7
13-38
240
135
25.447
0-18
5.655
32
Apr-85
d.
nc
es-r
Pi
L1/7
13-38
165
120
15.551
0-18
3.456
32
vdf
nc
es-r
p1
LIP
16-34
310
220
53.564
0-18
33.064
32
Apr-85
dt
nc
es-,
Pi
LI/?
17-23
170
170
22,698
0-16
4,464
32
Apr-B5
Pi
LI/'
15-30
440
160
62,204
0-6
38,397
r,
32
Apr-85
es-r
Pi
L1/?
35-48
140
20
2,199
5-12
462
32
P1
33
2-5
86
Pi
38
16-20
18
cleanng
spnngs preseni
ol vegetation, sloping
bedrock,
GW
.:
wall
Spencer
7/23
sloping bedrock,
Spencer
7/4.5
creek
Perry
2/10-13
s/r
wall
removal-serrated slopes
interface
ice
vdb-mi
ot
nc
dg oulside
rock backfill
Perry
1/11.12
Crawford
1/1-5
Spencer
2/16.17
creek erosion
Spencer
2/14.15
erosion
of
toe?
ml
r/r.
top
Slope
vdg-b; vdt
zone
lor
toe
C
nc
es-r
360
n-
pc
es-r
r/r
es-r
P1
30
r/r
Pi
30
remediation
Spencer
2/18
Pulnam
,.,.
dg
toe
rock backfill
dg outside
rock backfill
dg outside
ol
14/14,
203
74.1 156.0
WB
Ripley
14/15
too steep
206
74.1
159.7
207
74.1 160.5
rock backfill
ol
CPID
rock backfill
14/16
loo steep
rock backfill
R.pley
14/16
too sleep
reck back.,11
EB
Dearborn
WB
Dearborn
14/19
too steep
S-dt outside
rock backfill
Ripley
di
Ripley
NBL
DO maint
150
42,412
25
25
20
20.944
nc
rock backfill
dg.ss. outside
iusi
dumped
r/r
dg ouis.ee
r/r
m-dt
eg outs.ee
m-dt
zz
:L-.side
dfl-b outside
top slope
i/r.
r/r;
160
5,027
6-12
30
707
<20
20
349
55
1.296
<20
20
640
40
1.117
..],:
,!'.-.,
''. t:..:
sg
dt
-.-
1;
..-
Per
00 mosi slides
still
yr
!.
,m,|
trees
and large
i.ni,,.
tiees
and largo
and largo
-2
times per
-2
times per yr
-2
times per
trees
and largo
yr
trees
and largo
yr.
trees
and large
trees
and large
per
yr.,
yr.,
yr
Per
yr.,
Ocl-65
40.49
92
79
Sep-91
68
Per DO moslly erosion, partial repair by INDOT Road may have been
Oct-89 realigned through area Per SV landslides may noi be same ones as
desenbea - Me
24,
W68
Mar-84
24,
W68
Mar-84
W68
Mar-84
R86
Mar-86
nc
es-r
Pi
LI/2
200
67
10.524
<20
20
5.197
24,
es-r
m4
U3/4
20
180
117
16.540
20
20
8.168
65.
o4
29
200
47
7050
5-30
13
62
Jul-87
04
U3/4
30
83
4C
2490
>S0
62
Apr-85
es
03
L3/4
27
55
35
1444
20-40
30
62
Jun-85
es
o3
LI/2
27
30
20
450
20-40
30
62
Jun-85
cne
es-r
o4
Ml/3
25
57
20
B55
5-30
18
62
-r
04
26
200
55
6250
"
62
70
-.-.-.
removed lr< - re 30 pi
di ally
DO mosi slides still active, ditched 1 -2 limes per
rocks removed Irom road penodically
Per DO mosl slides still aciive, dilched 1-2 times per
Apr-B5
rocks removed irom road penodically
nc
387
DO
sile
DOC
revaluation
progress
in
R/W
Per
lo repair
Per
DO
slide active,
pushing on
NE comer
ol
endbenl
ol
STR
70-74-26A.
Per
DO
no mainienance done
no immediate concern.
landslide,
Apr-86
Per
.'<;:*
:'.:
25
L"J "-.':
nc
EB
Ml
Por
70
nc
dt
sloping bedrock
7/24
-
rock key. bin wall, remlorced eanfi
74.1 155.4
DO
regularly
ol
of toe.
202
205,
Per
310
dt
sloping bedrock
SR 64
204
31
13-16
dt
7/1
m W SR 66. Area
m W SR 66. Area 2
rrt
ol failure
Area 6 Spencer
70
rrESR243
apparent sign
Ui/'
LS
ol
SV no
P3
196
in incorrect location
ml
sloping bedrock,
SR 70
of
lilt,
7/2
rr.
2 mi E
673
ol
Spencer
193
60
Spencer
66. 2,1 mi
fill,
beneath emb
mied CPID subsequeni erosion
66 SR
SR
rock backfill
np rap or rock
56
In incorrect location
ol
smaller area
lor engineering of
220
66, 4 6 mi
till,
erosion
dt
st
Comments
1H.I
dg.
IIP
>,:
Sep-82
es-r
GW
Clark
Feb-87
73
3/19,20
73
Sep-82
Gibson
-65, 2 4
S Clark/Scot!
Area 3 across Irom A-
73
nc
218
loo steep
.,',
1,500
,oo S ,ep
220
13
3-7
320
12/4
182
13
1767
12/5,6
8/16,17
4673
75
Floyd
Clark
70
30
6480
Crawford
220
85
75
ne
1H1
18
23
no
beyond toe
tailed
U1/4
M1/3
24
line,
Sep-82
dg; dt
m N SB 64
Jan-87 SV was
73
-V4
1/6,7
73
Crawford
65. 2 34
es-r
65. 2.4
S Clark/ScoM
65.1
Area 2 across Irom A-4
1.047
(i
65 SR
2.756
r/r
now
71
14
2-16
Sep-82 SV was
177
mo
12-16
4712
73
GW
EB
7972
60
failed cpid
EB
70
100
12/8,9
116.1
145
19
276
12/7
rock backfill
Miscellaneous
failure
Crawford
iniertace
Si S 5
Crawford
96.4
yds*
5596
WB
95
WB
ft
75
89.8
64
tf
21
89.5
...-.
L3/4
27/78
repotted
date of
m3
64
179
C)
Earliest
c.'
'
64.1
s/r
-iMc
read
constnxtlon
es-r
top slope
27
178
toe
27
NW ramp.
u-
m6
-j.
SS
175
i
H<
es-r
rock backfill
s/r iniertace
rock backfill
s/r
dt
volume
initial
"-
top slope
do. patchy
-.-i..-.
174
Crawford
...;
64
DATA
AVAILABLE
OB
(range) (avg)
l|
51 SI
27
IK
1M
Vegetation
Remedial Method
Probable Cause
log
toggle
area
locaiion,
io
be an active
photo
ID
County
Location
File
CO
iateof
ad
log
vctton
log/pic
Earliest
reported
date of
Comments
Miscellaneous
failure
IE
208
74.1
160.8
EB
Dearborn
14/20
209
74.1
168.9
EB
Dearborn
14/21.22
210
74.1
Dearborn
14/23
211
96
111
212
227
145
SR
1 1 1
Tabor Rd.
junct w/ Mt.
near I-265
SR
145. 0.3
mSol
Bnstow
97
145
SR
145. 4.6 mi
214
226
145
SR
145. 6.9 mi
S SR
56, Area
S SR
Orange
6/8
too
56. Area 2
Orange
6/9
too
Martin
5/24
GW
Gibson
3/17,18
Gibson
3/17,18
Tippecanoe
7/7
145
SR
145. 6.9 mi
51
150
217
45
168
US
SR
218
45
168
11
225
220
11
225
W ot SR 57,
168. 5.3 mi
225,
Area
68.87
SlCD
67
4.
couldn't
see
cracks
in
Apr-86
77
DO
new SR
repaired with
1 1
road reconstruction
Jul-93 Slide
Jan-90 Per
is
DO
Per
10 yrs old
DO
DO large
Per
SV no apparent
sign ot failure.
Per
SV no apparent
sign of failure.
67
Jan-90 Per
DO
W56
Feb-87 Per
DO
slide
58
Feb-82 Per
DO
no new movement.
58
Feb-82 Per
DO
no new movement.
Per
DO
didn't find
yrs.
W oi SR 57,
Area 2
SR
67
too
226
219
May-86 Per SV
Apr-93 Per
GW
1/23
215
SR
W95
60
too
Dubois
I-64
216
168. 5 3 mi
8/24
2/5
1,
d-ai
213
Area
Floyd
Perry
62
eras
5-1 7 mi
SR
01
43,
eras 2.
R95
Mar-86
SR225.
5-1 7 m.
Eol SR
5-1.7 mi
Eol SR
43,
Area 2
SR225,
221
11
225
222
100
231
US
231. 3.1 mi S
223
16
231
US
231 4.5 S
43.
Area 3
SR 54
Tippecanoe
7/7
eros
2.
Tippecanoe
7/8.9
eras
Greene
4/7-11
GW
Martin
4/12
ditchO.
2,
Per
50. Area 1a
DO
didn't find
R95
Mar-86
R95
46.48
Jul-79
W75
May-90
Per
SV
Per
SV
standing water
Per
SV
at
toe ot
Per
US
o!
DO
R/W
slide is off
cut slope
DO
with toe
Bedrock 12-22'
US
under
R/W
is at
231shouider.continually moving,
toe ot slide
no
line,
ditch
cutting.
f
224
225
16
16
231
231
226
16
231
227
114
250
US
231 4,5 S
US 231
US 231
US
ot
US
ot
50. Area 1c
50, Area 2
6 mi
W ot SR
156.
6 mi
W ot SR
156.
SR
250. 0.6 mi
W of SR
156,
W of SR
156.
SR
250.
Martin
Martin
4/12
4/12
Martin
Switzerland
114
229
114
250
Area 3
SR
250, 0.6 mi
250
Area 4
11/15
Switzerland
11/16
Switzerland
11/17
Switzerland
ditchO.
ditchO.
ditctfl.
228
114
4.5
50. Area 1b
SR
Area
250.
250
Area 2
230
4.5
US
ol
11/18
CTe
i
prob
Cre
3
prod
Cre
!|
prod
Cre
?|
prob;
W75
W75
May-90
May-90
W75
May-90
68
Jan-98
68
Jan-98
68
Jan-98
Per
DO
cut slope
Per
DO
DO
with toe
Bedrock 12-22'
slide
cut slope
Per
RAW
slide is off
R/W
is off
R/W
US
231shoulderxontinually moving,
toe ot slide
with toe
Bedrock 12-22'
slide is off
under
US
under
231shoulder.continually moving,
toe of slide
with toe
US
under
231shouider.contmuafly moving,
68
Jan-98
60
Apr-90 Per
DO
76
Mar-85 Per
DO
monitored
76
Mar-85 Per
DO
monitored
Mar-85 Per
DO
monitored.
it
slide
extends
if
slide
extends
if
slide
extends
it
slide
extends
engil
231
230
US 50
Dearborn
11/13
creel
inter)
232
52/66
262
233
52/66
262
234
52/66
262
235
35
275
SR 262 N
over
Lauqhery Creek. Area 1
SR 262 N of Milton over
Laughery Creek. Area 2
SR 262 N of Milton over
Lauqhery Creek. Area 3
I-275.
of state line (N
6 mi
crossing ot Si line)
SR 350. 6.7 mi
of US 50,
Area 1 across from A-2
SR 350. 6 7 mi
of US 50.
Area 2 across from A-1
ot Milton
236
47
350
237
47
350
238
101
239
102
450
240
102
450
SR
450, 2
SR
mi S.
Dearborn
11/11.12
Dearborn
11/11.12
Dearborn
11/11,12
Dearborn
10/13
slopi
<f
W
slopi
slopi
"%.
and!
Dearborn
11/5
CMF
56
Dearborn
11/6
CMF
56
Tippecanoe
158. Area
76
R93
Lawrence
too
Feb-87
Per
DO
Per
DO
76
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995.
slide
Per
SV no apparent
Per
SV
sign ot failure,
241
102
450
242
102
450
243
102
450
244
102
450
245
17
SR
450. 2.0 mi S
SR
158. Area
450. 2.0 mi S
SR
450, 2.0 mi S.
SR
158. Area
SR
58.
Area
SR
4
SR
SR
450. 2.0 mi S.
158. Area
SR
450. 2.0 mi
S SR
158. Area
SR
450, 8.61 mi
450
area
of
US
50.
NE
Lawrence
5/20
too:
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995
Lawrence
5/20
too
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995.
DO
repaired 1995.
Lawrence
too
Lawrence
6/7
too
Lawrence
6/7
too
76
Apr-83 Per
Martin
4/14
engi
76
79
Onginal report
247
248
17
17
17
450
450
450
SR
450. 8.61 mi E ot
US 50,
NW area
SR
450, 8.61 mi E of
area
SR
US 50. SW
Martin
4/16
eng'
76
79
76
249
17
450
in
"79
US 50,
Area
450, 8.9 mi E
US
Area
50.
Martin
Martin
5/23
76
Feb-90
76
Feb-90
in
report
in
Per
addressed LS's
79 addressed
DO
slide
in
fill
due
in
area. Per
LS's
in
DO slide
Recompacted
toe
in
in
fill
due
siltstone.
to
siltstone
450, 8.9 mi E of
of
addressed LS's
FC
79 movement
SR
'79
Ohgmal
eng
Martin
995
246
in
to
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
DATA
GEOMETRIC INFORMATION
Slope
ID
File
County
Location
206
74,1 160.6
EB
Dearpom
14/20
209
74.1
160 9
EB
Dearborn
14/21.22
210
74
Dearborn
14/23
SR
Ml Tabor Rd.
96
111
2)2
227
145
SR
145.
21S
97
145
SR
145, 4.6 mi
/14
226
215
226
145
SR
?1.,
51
150
,-T,'
45
168
45
166
11
225
i.i
'
720
11
225
221
11
225
8s
eroaon
of
CPID
Hanks
ol slide
rock backfill
di
r/r,
Floyd
8/24
Perry
2/5
Dubois
1/23
Orange
6/8
too sleep
Orange
679
loo sleep
Martin
5/24
GW
Gibson
3/17.18
rock backfill
loo sleep
es
c
r/r
rock backfill
dg (lawn) outside
rock backfill
dd
di
nc
dg
dg
r/r
pirn
atea
I *
AVAILABLE
OB
OB
(range)
(avg)
volume
Initial dale
el
||
tLO
h1h
fop
vdb
m S of Bnstow
C)
tJ
ft
if
ft
i<
o4
27
80
45
2700
o2
M2/3
28
IS
844
"
::
30
105
70
5513
ele
mG
33
140
30
3,299
12-15
217
na#
tt
ft
yds'
inadequate
es-r
12
rock backfill
rock backfill w/
B borrow
(on lop 1 )
Regraded'
B borrow (on
top'')
Reqraded'
s/r interlace,
creek
loe
di
rock backfill
vdg-b outside
rock backfill
w/in
r/r;
sb
LS
dg.b
Gibson
3/17,18
Tippecanoe
7/7
Tippecanoe
7/7
erosion
Tippecanoe
7/8.9
erosion
m6
LI/?
<=
m6
m6
es-r
13-25
107
140
11.765
20
90
65
15
130
75
Miscellaneous
19
62
18
>
61.W95
5-45
25
GO
"
11-22
17
66.87
May-86 Per SV
Apr-93 Per
67
couldn't
see
77
DO
repaired with
new SR
wedaed
DO
<20
20
67
DO repaired
7.658
<20
20
67
Jan-90 Per
DO
W56
Feb-87 Per
DO slido
58
Feb- 82 Per
DO
no new movement
Feb-82 Per
DO
no new movement
es-r
23
75
38
2.238
'-
p3
23
ISO
60
7,069
nC
es-r
p3
Ll/4
23
100
15
1,178
es
35
205
40
6,440
Pd
es
35
285
55
12.311
nc
es
'
35
185
50
7.26S
10
2-20
696
"
10
10
1.745
"
10
10
291
"
58
150
150
'
72.R95
150
150
72.
R95
150
150
"
72.
R95
24.
in
Jul-93 Slide
is
10 yrs
Per
old.
1 1 1
road reconsinjciion.
data also Per
of road, inclinometer
DO large
periodically
4,595
no
cracks
Apr-66
10
2.905
Comments
failure
7-30
62.113
Earliest
reported
Pate of
10
dne
10
construction
by subdisinct 1993
Per
in
SV no apparent
SV no
sign ol lailure
yrs.
?.
SR22S.
Area
56. Area 2
W ol SR 57.
168, 5 3 mi
S/r interface,
10-25
drainage
rock backfill w/
SSR
145, 6.9 mi
SR
1-64
GW
of
toad
1
t
near 1-265
Arr_.;i
:'i*<
Vegetation
Remedial Uethod
Probable Cause
log
logfrlc
1.5-1.7 mi E or
SR
43.
nprap
ol
toe by creek
riprap
ol
loe by creek
mg-b
SR225.
1.5-1.7
mE 0( SR 43.
Area 2
SR225.
1.5-1.7
mE
01
SR
43.
w/in
outside
mg-b
r/r.
w/rn
r/r
222
100
231
US
223
16
231
US 231
mS
231. 3.1
4.5
SR
Sol US
54
50,
Area 1a
4/7-11
GW 6
Marlm
4/12
ditch
vCD-dt
vdb. vdi
m-db
Greene
vdb-dt
r/r
w/in LS.
LS. dg(lawn)
beyond scarp
rock backfill
s/r interlace
d:
dg (pasture): m-dt
dd
es-r
m5
11-25
163
125
16,002
<=
pi
13
230
110
19.871
17
5-17
11
>15
15
6.717
"
"
46.48
Jul-79
W7S
May-90
Per
at
loe ol
ai
loe ol
at
loe of
.-.
outside
top
Mar-86
30,
DO
R/Wtmo. no
but is al
cut slope
cuttinq
224
16
231
US
US
50, Area lb
Manin
4/12
22S
16
231
US
US
50, Area 1c
Manm
4/12
;?>.
16
231
US
US
50, Area 2
Manin
>:>;
,,4
;'.:;
SR250,
:
::;>
114
250
22S
114
250
230
114
250
.fl
1-
0.6 mi
;',<(
in m,
v\
.'
."
1\
,.!
r:
M-i
1-.-.
Mi
l'.h
Switzerland
Aroa3
h;
m, \:
"
11/15
Switzerland
11/16
Switzerland
11/17
Switzerland
11/18
n is-
engmeenng
231
230
262
232
52/66
262
SR
S US 50
262, 3.5 mi
Dearborn
11/13
Dearborn
11/11,12
ol
creek erosion
mentioned as
rip
rap Or rock
backfill
(paslure); m-di
mentioned as
mentioned as
dg
(paslure); m-dt
mi
dg, dd.
mentioned as
lill,
dg
nd
pl
nc
Pi
dd
Pi
o2
m-
30,
W75
May-90
"
30.
W75
May-90
"
30.
W7S
May-90
r>
68
Jan-98
130
20
2.042
>1S
15
LI/2
25
IS
295
>15
15
L3/4
90
20
1,414
>15
15
300
88
20.735
Ll/4
20
25
Per
DO
Slide is Olf
cui slope
Per
DO slide
cul Slope
Per
is olf
is olf
12-22'
RAW
Bedrock 12-22'
US
under
loe ol slide
o2
22
125
90
8.836
68
dd
o2
22
515
60
24,269
68
Jan-98
dd
02
13
426
110
36,804
"
68
Jan-98
60
Apr-90 Per
DO
subdistrict repaired,
loe along
loo ol slido.
Per
dd
US
to
m-dt
creek
231shouldorcontmually moving,
loe ol slide
with toe
d-vdi
vdb, 0:
US
Bedrock
DO slide
cul slope
RAV
Bedrock 12-22'
it
slide
extends
if
slido
ortonds
lo
sloping bedrock,
ol toe.
GW
soit/rcck
db-mt outside
rock backfill
r/r
es-r
02
30
260
80
16 336
-:
es-,
o2
Ml/4
27
50
15
dd
,.
o2
Ml/4
27
50
nd
esr
o2
U3/4
27
es
02
o3
e
es
12
12
4.840
589
6-10
116
20
785
76
Mar-65 Per
DO
monitored
6-10
155
76
Mar-85 Per
DO
420
90
29.688
monitored!
10
6-10
7,330
76
Mar-85 Per
DO
25
39
40
1.228
monitored
100
100
182
Ll/4
26
60
45
2.121
o3
25
103
B7
7.038
Dm
36
33
64
1.659
56
76
wedged,
leveled,
and moniiors
menace
233
52/66
SR 262 N
ol Milton ovor
.auqhory Creek. Area 1
SR262Nol Milton over
262
Laughory Creek. Area 2
SR 262 N ol Millon ovor
;<..'
Lauqhory Creek. Aroa 3
:>:jj
52/66
235
3b
;:.
47
350
237
47
3S0
2sa
101
443
239
102
450
;mo
102
450
6 mi
275,
27S
crossing ol St
SR350.
Area
SR
Dearborn
ol state lino
(N
Wol US
50,
350, 6.7 mi
Wol US
SO,
m NSR43
SR 450, 2.0 m S SR 15B. Area
SR
443, 0.5
SR
4S0. 2.0
mS
SR
158. Area
241
102
IV
SR450. 2.0
mi
S SR
158. Area
242
SR450.
102
450
243
102
SR450.
450
5
:>n
102
450
?4b
246
17
17
450
450
2.0 mi
S SR
158, Area
SR450.2
0m.SSR
156, Area
SR
mE
450. 8 61
Ol
US
50,
NE
area
SR 450.
mEolUSSO,
8.61
NW area
sloping bedrock
GW e
slopir
line)
6.7 mi
11/11,12
GW
loe
rock backfill
i-
d-st car.aii-;
vdg vdb.
d-si cattails
11/11.12
Dearborn
10/13
rock backfill
dg-db outside
Dearborn
11/5
CMP
regraded?
dg
Doaroom
11/6
rock backfill
np rap or rock
Tippecanoe
>-"
loe in ditch
Dearborn
diici
vdg vdb.
; Dedroct
GW
rock backfill
backfill,
still
tailing
dg
r/r
-.
gabion wall
200-250
225
74.
R93
56
Feb-87
by subdisincl
being monitored by subdisirict. Per
also 2 other areas of slides near here
Per DO being monitored by subdisincl Per
Nov-80
near here
Nov-80
Per
OO
slide
fill
B borrow
backfill
and
flatten
slope
vdg
es
m2
U1/2
19
90
30
2.121
40
40
76
Apr-83 Per
00
repaired 1995
.awrence
5/20
fill
B borrow
backfill
and
flatten
slope
vdg
es
m2
U3/4
19
575
70
31,612
10
40
40
7,806
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995
Lawrence
5/20
fill
llanen slope
dg
es
m2
U3/4
19
490
70
26.939
13
40
40
8.647
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995
lill
llanen slope
dg
es
m2
U1/4
19
80
30
1,885
13
40
40
605
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995
'
.
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995.
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995.
.awTence
Lawrence
DO
slide repaired-moniiored
Lawrence
6/7
ol
fill
B borrow
backfill
and
flatten
slope
dg
es
ITt2
U1/4
19
90
35
2,474
40
40
305
Lawrence
6/7
(ill
B borrow
backfill
and
flatten
slope
.dg
es
m2
U1/2
19
160
60
7,540
40
40
1.4B9
Martin
4/14
engineering
ol
till
dg. SSI
es-r
m4
26
160
100
12,566
IS
6-57
33
4,654
76
79
Martin
4/16
engineenng
of
fill
vdg-b. st
dd
es-r
26
320
145
36,442
10-65
38
33.743
"
76
79
engineering
ol
fill
vdg.,,
dd
es-r
m4
29
330
110
28,510
12-65
39
16.191
76
79 movement
SV no apparent
SV 2
sign ol failure,
correct/on.
10
blocked
24?
17
450
246
17
450
249
17
450
SO
450. 8 61
miEolUSSO.SW
area
SR
2
23
report in '79
Per
addressed LS's
DO slide in
8.9
mE
ol
US 50.
Area
4S0. 8 9
mE
ol
US
Area
SR 4S0,
Ongmal
Martin
50.
Martin
Martin
5/23
B-bonow
vdg. st
dd
m5
vdg. si
m5
rock backfill or
71
25
350
75
20.617
<20
20
50
40
1.571
<20
20
n
'
76
Feb- 90
76
Feb-90
fill
in
area
'94,
siltstone.
ID
photo
File
County
Location
miction
tog/pic
250
17
251
17
252
new
450
450
SR
ol
US
50. Area
450. 8 9 mi E
of
US
SO.
450. 8.9 mi
Earnest
reported
date of
date of
pad
log
Martin
Miscellaneous
Comments
failure
76
Feb-90
76
Feb-90
SR
Area
545 SR545.
4 mi N
SR
Martin
Dubois
164
83
6/10.11
Failure
1990 (per prop owner, '87), again in1994 Per DO slide active,
Jun-90 corrective measures taken by INDOT. has moved oil R/W and broken
sewer
Per DO slide is small and stable, not a pnonty. Failure within bedrock or
failure in
253
ol
SR
164
Dubois
4/21-26
GW
83
254
56
of
SR
66
Spencer
2/19, 7/6
GW
39.85
Jul-86
Dubois
6/13
GW
83
Jun-84
Dubois
6/14
GW
83
Jun-84
545. Area 3a
Dubois
6/12
83
62
Dubois
6/12
83
255
62
256
62
257
62
545
258
259
62
Dubois
6/12
GW
GW
GW
83
Jun-84
260
62
Dubois
6/12
GW
83
Jun-84
261
62
Dubois
6/15-17
bro
83
Jun-84
262
28
Clark
8/15
263
76
Wamck
7/18
Warnck
7/19
Wamck
7/19
Wamck
7/22
Wamck
7/22
Wamck
Wamck
264
76
265
76
266
76
267
76
268
76
269
76
270
76
271
76
272
61
273
61
SR
of
CR
35 9 mi
CR
35 9 m.
CR
35.9 mi
CR
35.9 mi
CR
35 9 mi
CR
35 9
CR
35 9 mi
CR
35.9 mi
CR
35.9 mi
CR Sec
2-1
marK Area
CR Sec
2-1
mark. Area 2
CR Sec
2-1
Jun-84
1
Jun-84
Scarp near road, dnlled pier wall has prevented slide regression into road.
Oct-82 Per DO repaired Bedrock Locust Point and Cardwood FM of Borden
group
1997. Per
SV no
fall
1997
Per
SV no apparent
sign of failure
fall
1997
Per
SV no apparent
sign of failure
Jan-85 Remediated
fall
1997. Per
SV no apparent
sign ol failure
Jan-85 Remediated
lall
1997
Per
SV no
apparent sign
ol tailure
72
Jan-85 Remediated
tall
1997. Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure.
72
Jan-85 Remediated
fall
1997
SV no apparent
72
Jan-85 Remediated
lall
1997. Per
SV no
apparent sign
of failure.
72
Jan-85 Remediated
tall
1997
SV no
apparent sign
ol failure.
era;
72
Jan-85 Per
DO
repaired by
INDOT
in
'88
and holding
ero;
72
Jan-85 Per
DO
repaired by
INDOT
in
'88
and
holding.
SCO!
72
Jan-85 Per
DO
repaired by
INDOT
in
'88
and
holding.
72
Jan-85 Remediated
fall
too
72
Jan-85 Remediated
too
72
Jan-85! Remediated
too
72
too
72
7/22
too
7/21
too
Wamck
7/21
too
Wamck
7/20
laila
Spencer
6/18
Spencer
6/18
Spencer
6/18
Perry
6/20
Feb-86
too
'
near I-64 59 9 mi
274
61
275
63
276
63
Perry
6/21.22
Feb-86
277
63
Perry
6/23
Feb-86
278
63
Perry
6/24.25
Feb-86
Perry
6/19
279
13
280
13
281
65
282
94
283
85/215
284
64
mark. Area 3
1
66
Mt Vernon Rd.
of
in front of
house.
SR 62
State
St. 0.1
Albany
Per
Per
apparent sign
ol failure.
sign ol failure-
mi
W I-265
in
New
s/r interlace
87
78
Perry
DO
Lawrence
6/6
Apr-88 Per
Perry
7/3
Vanderburgh
3/14-16
Floyd
8/23
cha
con!
May-86 Per
DO
Oct-83 Per
DO
not active.
active
and a pnonty.
slide repaired
by contract.
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
GEOMETRIC INFORMATION
W L
plan
D
OB
Slope
nu
(range)
DATA
AVAILABLE
OB
volume
(avg)
bittlai
photo
ID
file
County
Location
Remedial Uethod
Probable Cause
log
Vegetation
Illi III
cc
25C
17
450
251
17
450
252
new
VI',
253
254
255
SR 450.
US
50, A/ea
US
SO, Area
8.9 mi E ol
Martin
Martin
rock
date of
road
||
(OfffptC
C)
ft
tf
ft
ft
ft
yds*
U_
construction
Earnest
reported
date of
mS
290
40
9,111
<20
20
"
76
Feb- 90
m5
40
35
1.100
<20
20
76
Feb-90
p1
L1/3
21
115
47
4,245
20
20
20
2.096
83
es-r
mG
15
230
170
30.709
23
1-22
11
17,440
"
83
es-r
Pi
29
75
65
3.829
3-12
709
39.85
Jul-86
'
es-r
P1
LI/'
32
180
BO
11,310
<5
1.395
83
Jun-84
83
Jun-84
"
83
Jun-84
vdg, st
nc
vdg,
Miscellaneous
Comments
failure
SR
450. 8.9
rrt
ol
4miNSR164
backfill
c B-borrow
st
[_
nc
s-mg
Dubois
6/10,11
Dubois
4/21-26
GW
s/r interlace
rock
56
545 SR545.8.SrrtNolSR66
Spencer
2/19.7/6
Gw
sit interlace
rock backfill
mt.dg
62
',!'.
Dubois
6'13
GW s/r interlace
GW s/r interlace
GW @ s/r interface
rock
do-t outside
SR54S,
m-dg
backfill
nc
(pasture)
Failure in extremely
weathered shale
failure m 1990 (per prop ownor, '87), agamm1994. Per DO slide active,
Jun-90 corrective measures taken by INOOT. has moved oil BJVJ and broken
sewer.
SR
:. SR
545, Area
545, Area 2
Dubois
6/14
SR
545, Area 3a
Dubois
6/12
545
SR
545. Area 30
Dubois
6/12
62
'..!',
SR
545, Area 3c
Dubois
..i;
62
'.!-
SR
545, Area
3d
Dubois
6/12
.-.'.
62
257
62
'.)'
;"fj
62
259
.'"..
GW s/r interlace
GW - s/r .nierlace
GW s/r mierlace
backt.ll
rock backfill
db-t outside
rock
vdg-b; dt
backfill
62
28
.i
76
;..!
76
,' (
',.)',
SR
76
....
76
76
.-...
76
.i.-i
27Q
76
75
I',-!
35 9 m.
1,011
I'-
76
272
61
273
61
274
61
,,V,...
V.I
3S9rr.
A2b
mart
CR
35.9 m.
tt
CR
Sec
CRSoc
.urt
35.9 mi
35.9 m.
59 9
A.IM
Sec
35.9 mi
mark. Area
CR
35 9
Ml
CR
CR
rrt
A3.i
CR
,,.,.1-
271
6/15-17
Ctark
6715
7/18
oo sleep
Wamck
7/19
oo steep
Wamck
7/19
oo steep
Wamck
7/22
oo sleep
Wamck
7/22
oo sleep
Wamck
7/22
oos.ccp
Wamck
7/21
oo creep
Wamck
7/21
oo steep
Wamck
7/20
ailed
Spencer
6718
erosion
of ditch
of ditch
"
83
Jun-84
rock backfill
vdg-b; dt
lop of slope
'
es-r
P1
22
90.
60
4.241
<5
524
33
Jun-84
rock backiili
vdg-b: dt
top of slope
nc
es-r
pi
22
110
70
6.046
<S
747
83
Jun-84
'
es-r
'
pi
21
180
65
9.189
<5
1,134
83
Jun-84
<
ml
U1/7
21
280
460
101.159
"
72
Jan-85 Remediated
laii
1997
'
72
Jan-85 Remediated
tall
1997
PorSV no apparent
72
Jan-85 Remediated
lall
997
Per
SV no
appareni sign ol
"
72
Per
SV no
rock backfill
63
Perry
'
:'::' a-.
dg (lawn) on top
r/r;
recommended
of
dg
cornfield a!
base
ol
dg.
comdeid
base
ol
at
backiili
recommended
recommended
case
dg. csmtieia ai
recommended
recommended
recommended
leqraded'
-
r,..
-i
-,r-.
'..I.-.:
rock backfill
recommended
20
370
45
13,077
p2
L3/4
19
95
35
2.611
p2
19
90
45
3,181
'
P2
19
260
65
13.273
>
p2
19
75
45
2,651
72
Jan-85 Remediated
lall
1997
Per
SV no
p2
U1/2
19
60
25
1.178
72
Jan-85 Remediaied
lall
1997
Per
SV no
appareni sign
pi
20
60
75
3.534
72
Jan-85 Remediaied
(all
1997
72
Jan-B5 Remediated
lall
1997
Per
SV no
appareni sign ol
lailuro.
"
72
Jan-65 Remediated
lall
1997
Per
SV no
apparent sign ol
tailuro.
72
Jan-85 Per
DO
repaired by
INDOT m
'88
and holding
dg; cornfield
base
at
ol
base
dg, cornfield at
ol
dg
P2
20
80
60
3.770
P2
20
175
50
6.872
p1
27
69
100
5.419
<so
50
mq-sst w/in
Pi
L3/4
27
71
42
2,342
<50
50
72
Jan-65 Per
DO
repaireO by
INOOT
in
'88
and holding
Pi
LI/3
27
25
21
412
<S0
50
72
Jan-85 Per
DO
repaired by
INOOT
In
'88
and
mS
LIP
22
138
48
5.202
16
12-18
15
2.055
"
Feb-86
m6
LI/?
r/r;
r/r
r/r;
.'.'-.''
db oulside
r/r.
dt
backfill
lop
slope
vdst.
vdt
276
63
Pen,
6/21.22
?.t;
63
Puny
6723
vdl
?;&
63
P.ryy
6/24,25
vdt
nc
27S
13
P.nV
6719
oulside
aeo
['HI
13
65
282
94
2B3
85/215
(i.i
64
Bnslow-St Moinrad
42IOSR145. Area
Bnstow-SI. Meinrad
42loSR
145.
Rd IromCfl
Rd IromCR
Area2
1
66
Ml Vernon Rd.
m Iron!
of
house.
SOISR62
StaloSl.
Albany
Im W
r/r.
di
top
1-265
in
New
Perry
Lawrence
pe
rock backfill
16
1.971
"
Feb- 86
17
14-21
16
3.877
Feb-86
Pi
15-36
160
57
7.163
20
20-30
25
3,537
Feb-86
87
78
Apr-88 Per
40
25
7B5
eso
es-r
P1
22
220
130
22.462
.db-S-dl
-:
cs
m3
U1/2
25
30
25
5B9
es-r
m6
L1/7
p3
'
ml
nc
vdg. b
nc
Floyd
6723
recommended
12-20
9,236
32
a-8
rock backfill
17
98
3/14-16
retaining wall, report
4.697
120
pi
7/3
46
19-25
Vanderburgh
change
130
P1
es-r
rock backiili
6/6
14
ol slope
nc
LS
dg outside
rock backfill
foilu/e-
'
rock backfill
failure
sign ollailuro
dg
m-MMn?/?
rock backfill
rock
:-
er'r
rock backfill
6/20
Scarp near road, dniied pier wan has prevented slide regression into road
Oct-82 Per DO repaired. Bedrock Locust Point and Cardwood FM ol Borden
qroup
dg
slope
Regraded''
o'
dg
slope
fleqraded 7
over area
-.'
dt.St
wan
IT.";
27S
s-
218
rock backfill
lailure
931
degraded
toe
315
<5
rock backiili
<5
Reqraded''
<5
1.767
rock backfill
erosion
7.540
50
Reqraded''
6/18
2,553
80
45
rock backiili
6718
50
120
17
Hegraded''
Spencer
65
17
rock
Spencer
33
RegradeC
toe
LI/"
--
Regraded'
P1
stable, noi
es-r
es-r
and
nc
rock backfill
CPID
es-r
slide is small
top of slope
dniied pie'
Wamck
itertace
dt
-'.','.:
L.ii-
26
No1
Dubois
lop of slope
DO
s/i
vdg'b, dt
Honryvillc
,'.
:..'.
545, Area 4
r/r
Per
rock backfill
','-,:
;>t.i
r/r
ec-r
72
390
225
68.919
27
203
59
9.407
39
170
90
12.017
20
14
15
5-20
<50
SO
5-14
10
3-15
11,093
23.824
4.451
ol lailuro.
ol lailuro
holding.
DO not active.
May-86 Per
Oct-83 Per
DO
active
DO shde
6/95.
and a pnonty.
repaired by contract
mne
APPENDIX C
ID
CLASSIFICATION
Shoulder to
Scarp
Distance
LANDSLIDE
>
Depth of
Earth
(ft)
(ft)
CO
OB/FS
Slump
on Bedrock
SO
Earth
Slump
CM
00
Q>
tt
1=
10
es-r
32
Type 4
225
es-r
20
Type 2
65
es-r
30
Type 4
10
es-r
26
Type 4
unknown
es-r
23
unknown
10
es-r
12
unknown
nya
es
12
Type 5b
nya
es
25
Type 8
10
es-r
12
Type
11
es-r
14
Type
12
unknown
25
unknown
e/c
Type
unknown
1=
1=
tt
tt
1 5
c
3
unknown
unknown
unknown
Type 5
es
20
es-r
17
Type
15
15
es-r
17
Type
16
15
es-r
28
Type 4
17
es-r
15
Type
18
es-r
14
Type
19
es-r
14
Type
20
es-r
14
Type
21
es-r
14
Type
es-r
14
Type
22
15
23
nya
18
unknown
unknown
24
18
unknown
unknown
25
18
unknown
unknown
26
18
unknown
unknown
27
18
unknown
unknown
28
18
unknown
unknown
29
unknown
unknown
30
18
unknown
unknown
31
nya
18
unknown
unknown
32
nya
unknown
unknown
33
nya
18
unknown
unknown
34
18
unknown
unknown
35
18
unknown
unknown
18
unknown
unknown
nya
1=
tt
15
36
14
13
tt
unknown
CO
tt
37
es-r
35
Type 4
38
es-r
23
Type 4
39
unknown
unknown
unknown
40
10
unknown
unknown
41
10
unknown
unknown
42
20
unknown
unknown
43
10
unknown
unknown
73
ID
Shoulder to
Scarp
tt
Distance
IS
t
CO
(ft)
44
LANDSLIDE
c
o
CLASSIFICATION
Depth of
OB/FS
S
c
*>
<n
Earth
(ft)
on Bedrock
10
Slump
unknown
Earth Slump
CM
tt
tt
1= 1=
tt
tt
tt
1 1
tt
tt
3
1
nya
es
18
Type 5b
46
nya
es
18
Type 5b
es
18
Type 5b
47
nya
48
nya
es
18
Type 5b
49
nya
es
25
Type 8
Type 8
50
nya
es
25
es
15
Type 5
52
nya
es
10
Type 5b
53
nya
es
15
Type 5b
54
nya
51
Type
es-r
16
55
es
14
Type 7
56
es
50
Type 8
tt
unknown
45
i
o
CO
57
20
es-r
20
Type
58
20
es-r
25
Type 4
59
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
60
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
61
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
62
10
es-r
10
63
es-r
15
Type 3
64
15
unknown
unknown
65
15
unknown
unknown
Type
66
15
unknown
unknown
67
15
unknown
unknown
68
15
unknown
unknown
15
unknown
unknown
69
70
71
37
72
es-r
13
Type
es-r
23
Type 4
es-r
25
Type 4
73
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
74
unknown
18
unknown
unknown
14
unknown
unknown
75
unknown
unknown
unknown
77
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
78
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
79
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
80
unknown
37
unknown
unknown
81
unknown
34
unknown
unknown
82
unknown
25
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
30
unknown
unknown
44
Type 4
76
83
84
unknown
85
86
10
es-r
74
ID
Shoulder to
Scarp
Distance
CLASSIFICATION
Depth of
.1
OB/FS
Earth Slump
(ft)
(ft)
CO
87
89
Type 4
50
unknown
10
es-r
17
e/c
es-r
20
es-r
25
es-r
92
es
93
94
95
96
30
90
91
on Bedrock
fe-S
S3
20
88
LANDSLIDE
c
o
o>
Type
Earth
to
01
01
Oi
unknown
unknown
Type 5
20
unknown
unknown
15
unknown
unknown
75
unknown
unknown
20
unknown
unknown
Type 4
97
es-r
30
98
es
75
Type 8
99
es
75
Type 8
es-r
33
Type 4
101
15
es-r
12
Type
102
unknown
100
unknown
unknown
unknown
103
17
unknown
unknown
104
30
unknown
unknown
105
10
unknown
unknown
106
10
unknown
unknown
107
es-r
10
Type 3
108
es-r
12
Type 3
109
es-r
12
Type 3
110
es-r
Type 3
111
es-r
25
Type 4
es
unknown
es
75
Type 8
es
75
Type 8
115
es
75
Type 8
116
es
75
Type 8
117
es
75
Type 8
118
es
75
Type 8
119
es
75
Type 8
120
es
75
Type 8
121
es
75
Type 8
122
es
75
Type 8
123
es
unknown
124
es
75
Type 8
125
es
75
Type 8
126
es
75
Type 8
127
es
75
Type 8
128
es
75
Type 8
es
75
Type 8
112
113
114
129
nya
i
o
c
c
a
Type 2
10
1 1 1
1=
unknown
in
CM
Slump
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
75
ID
Shoulder to
Scarp
LANDSLIDE
5
Depth of
OB/FS
Distance
Earth Slump
(ft)
(ft)
CO
on Bedrock
25
to
CM
1 1
es
75
Type 8
es
75
Type 8
132
es-r
Type 3
133
es-r
Type 3
134
es-r
10
Type 3
135
es-r
Type 3
136
es-r
Type 3
131
nya
unknown
unknown
138
unknown
es-r
unknown
unknown
139
es-r
10
Type 3
140
es-r
Type 3
141
es-r
Type 3
142
es-r
Type 3
es-r
Type 3
es-r
Type 1 b
145
es-r
Type 3
146
es-r
147
es-r
unknown
148
es-r
Type 3
149
es-r
Type 3
150
es-r
Type 3
151
es-r
12
152
es-r
Type 3
153
es-r
Type 3
154
es-r
Type 3
155
es-r
Type 3
156
es-r
Type 3
157
es-r
Type 3
158
es-r
12
Type 3
Type 3
Type
unknown
159
es-r
Type 3
160
es-r
Type 3
161
es-r
Type 3
162
es-r
Type 3
163
es-r
Type 3
es-r
Type 1b
165
es-r
14
166
es-r
Type 3
167
es-r
13
Type 3
168
es-r
Type 3
169
es-r
Type 3
170
es-r
Type 3
171
es-r
Type 3
172
es-r
12
Type 3
164
nya
Type
es-r
unknown
1=
nya
i
o
unknown
143
1=
O)
137
144
to
Earth Slump
130
CLASSIFICATION
76
ID
Shoulder to
Scarp
Distance
()
LANDSLIDE
CLASSIFICATION
Depth of
5
c
OB/FS
Earth
(ft)
Slump
on Bedrock
Earth
Slump
CM
o>
<0
tt
0)
o>
4)
4)
1=
1 1
i
o
c
a
CO
SO
173
es-r
Type 3
174
es-r
Type 3
175
es-r
Type 3
176
es-r
15
Type 3
177
es-r
178
25
unknown
unknown
179
25
unknown
unknown
13
19
Type
Type
1= 1=
1=
1=
180
10
181
nya
unknown
unknown
unknown
182
nya
unknown
unknown
unknown
183
nya
unknown
unknown
unknown
es-r
184
es-r
12
Type 3
185
es-r
10
Type 3
186
es-r
Type 3
187
es-r
Type 3
188
es-r
Type 3
189
es-r
Type 3
190
es-r
25
Type 4
191
es-r
Type 3
192
es-r
25
Type 4
es-r
193
194
unknown
195
10
196
unknown
es-r
Type 3
unknown
20
unknown
Type
unknown
unknown
198
es-r
20
Type
199
es-r
20
200
es-r
20
es-r
20
Type 3
13
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
204
es
30
205
es
30
es-r
18
Type 1 b
es-r
unknown
unknown
unknown
19
unknown
unknown
unknown
nya
203
206
nya
207
208
209
nya
es
Type 3
es-r
202
197
201
unknown
Type
Type
Type 8
Type 8
1
I
Type 5b
18
210
25
unknown
211
unknown
unknown
unknown
212
e/c
es-r
17
unknown
unknown
es-r
10
Type 3
213
214
20
unknown
unknown
215
20
unknown
unknown
77
ID
CLASSIFICATION
Shoulder to
Scarp
Distance
CO
Depth of
OB/FS
4)
(ft)
0}
Earth
(ft)
Slump
on Bedrock
so
Earth Slump
es-r
13
Type
217
es-r
10
Type 3
218
es-r
219
es
unknown
unknown
unknown
220
es
unknown
unknown
unknown
221
es
unknown
unknown
unknown
222
es-r
14
10
CM
17
Type 3
unknown
unknown
15
unknown
unknown
225
15
unknown
unknown
15
unknown
unknown
227
10
unknown
unknown
unknown
228
unknown
unknown
unknown
229
10
unknown
unknown
unknown
230
10
unknown
unknown
unknown
231
20
es-r
12
232
es-r
Type 3
233
es-r
Type 3
234
es-r
10
Type 3
es
236
nya
237
238
es
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
239
es
40
240
es
10
Type 5
241
es
13
Type 5
Type 5b
242
nya
es
13
243
nya
es
Type 5b
es
Type 5
Type 4
38
Type 4
39
Type 4
unknown
unknown
es-r
33
246
nya
es-r
247
nya
es-r
c
3
unknown
nya
1= 1=
unknown
unknown
245
Type 8
244
1=
Type 5b
223
nya
1=
tt
224
235
1=
0)
Type 3
Type
tt
1 1 1
15
226
1=
216
LANDSLIDE
248
20
249
20
unknown
unknown
250
20
unknown
unknown
251
20
unknown
unknown
252
20
unknown
unknown
253
es-r
23
Type 4
254
es-r
Type 3
255
es-r
Type 3
256
es-r
Type 3
257
es-r
Type 3
258
es-r
Type 3
78
ID
Distance
()
CLASSIFICATION
Depth of
Earth Slump
(ft)
on Bedrock
CM
es-r
Type 3
es-r
Type 3
es-r
unknown
unknown
unknown
261
262
unknown
unknown
unknown
nya
unknown
unknown
unknown
265
nya
unknown
unknown
unknown
266
unknown
unknown
unknown
267
unknown
unknown
unknown
268
unknown
unknown
unknown
269
unknown
unknown
unknown
270
unknown
unknown
unknown
271
unknown
unknown
unknown
272
10
50
unknown
unknown
273
nya
50
unknown
unknown
274
nya
50
unknown
unknown
275
15
unknown
unknown
276
16
unknown
unknown
17
unknown
unknown
278
20
279
20
unknown
unknown
es-r
unknown
unknown
unknown
280
nya
es-r
20
281
nya
es
50
282
es-r
283
284
Type
unknown
unknown
embankment
slope
es- earth
es-r- earth
e/c-
slump
slump on rock
embankment &
cut slope
LEGEND
c- cut
is
Type 3
15
Type 3
14
1=
Totals
e-
1=
Type 8
unknown
es-r
1 1
264
15
1=
Type 3
260
277
01
Earth Slump
i
o
-a
OB/FS
en
es-r
259
263
LANDSLIDE
below
79
26
70 20
11
28
75
APPENDIX D
to
r-
CO
(A
>
v>
in
o
in
tf>
in
>
CO
W
CM
r*.
CO
r^
CM
CO
M
o>
r*.
CO
o
CO
m
CD
0)
CO
ES
CO
r^
cn
to-
t^
</>
c^>
CO
t*.
CO
o
cn
r-
CO
CO
CM
CO
V*
^t
o
CO
to
in
w
cm"
CM
vt
CjO
W>
"*
cn
w
o
CM
^n
cc
CO
CO
CD
CO
cc.
cn
CO
cn
CM
cv>
CM
t/>
69
ft
v>
to
oo
1c
\-
o
LU
to
CD
CO
J=
CD
to
JZ
ex
C
o
N
o
CD
.c
E
o
n
CD
<t:
TT
tt
LU
to
ez
CO
GC
CO
<D
JZ
CO
It
CO
CD
cc
CD
CO
3
To
to
c
cd
'5
"5
CD
CD
Q.
S
CD
2
CO
"o
CD
0.
CO
CD
CD
Q.
*D
'to
CD
c
o
cn
"to
CM
CD
a
o o c
Z
X3
TD
~7>
c\i
CO
in
CO
TT
CO
CO
CD
O*
to
CO
w
CO
O
o
CO
o
in
CO
01
CO
CM
CV>
c
o
CD
10
>>
CD
a
o
s
c
55
.o
,_
[".
0)
CO
C3
CO
CO
CM
CO
0)
2o
to
cm
Cfi
CD
en
o
in
CO
"to
CO
TD
Is
_j
CD
CD
cn
CO
o
CD
LO
to
to
CO
q
o
o
c^
CO
CD
0}
CO
to
X3
>
-
LU
CD
TO
CO
CD
13
TD
to
c
Q. o I
u 1
cu
o
TD
CD
c
o
DC
CC
a
c
0*
CD
CO
CO
UJ
o
Z
g
i<
E
CD
~i
CI
(D
TD
c/>
O)
o
in
CO
o
in
CM
>
-T
CD
co
C\J
o>
cn
"E
3c
-
"5
JC
cvi
CO
CM
V
cn
in
r-
cz
CD
o
CO
</>
*A
>
CJ
CD
to
CI
>.
>
CD
T3
>>
CO
iri
i*
o
^
T
o
in
CO
in
0)
oi
CM
CM
CO
*T
in
r>T
CO*
0)
CM
CO
CO
^
^
v>
V>
</*
CO*
CO
fao
CD
-i
CO
m
CM
in
CO
cn
CO
CM
m
r-
CO
O
in
v
<A
o
o
r^
cr
p
0>
CD
<r>
CM
O
CO
in
CM
<o
CM
tf>
cn
v
r-T
01
CD
CO
CO
V>
ty
v
in
o
o
o
o
h".
CO
o
w
in
a
*
o
o
CO
CO
in
ft
U
10
CM
CO
CD JZ
CD
TD
u o
5 o
C -D
0)
.-
CM
CO
r*.
CD
m
O
cc"
CO*
CD
^~
CM
CM
^
in
CD
Q.
'a.
CI
_CD
CD
"E
13
a.
to
o
to
JO
CJ
o
r^
CO
CD
en
Cn
heo
0)
CM
o
t:
r*-"
vt
V*
CO
JO
CM CO co
^>
(A
>.
CD
in
d
T3
^
OJ 0)
to
a.
S=5 C
CD
CO
10
Co
CO
CO
CD
r*-
0)
CO
CO*
CO
CO
co"
r*
CO
'a.
CO
y>
>
CD
ID
TD
o
CO
o
o
5
c-
o
o
o
o"
r"
CO
CO
CO
CM
-J
c/)
CJ
CO
03
&
o
C
o
2
J5
J?
"5
CD
CD
CD
>*
">
<D
CD
CD
C0
<o
^
Q
CO
CD
CD
CD
CO
"1
'>
5
CD
CD
to
CO
>
3
1
>.
CD
CD
cn
CO
D
O
CO
CO
CD
CO
CD
to
CD
c
c
CD
CD
CD
>
>
>
CD
CZ
o
u
c
>
O
E
>>
=1
to
CD
CD
CD
CD
>
>
c
c
CD
CD
CD
CO
to
CO
to
to
CD
c
c
0)
>
CD
CD
(J
">
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
to
VI
c
c
CD
u
c
>
3
E
3
o
E
3
1
o
>>
>.
tD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
to
I- CGQ
CC
CD
o
c
.g
CD
CD
^
CO
CO
CD
r-
0)
CTj
CO
2
lO
m
CO
_o
TO
o
a
S
<D
(J
ra
ffl
CD
LP
cc
CO
in
en
0),
CD
^
to
>.
O
LL
E
to
c
E
o
CD
CD
Q-
0-
^
OJ
ffl
^T
in
c
CD
CD
c5
Q.
CD
r^
cn
CD
CO
0)
CM
o
to
CD
E
o
CO
CD
c
o
to
CD
^
O
m
CM
CM
r-
o
o
^
CC
CO
0)
o
(0
CD
E
o
CO
CD
to
tD
c
o
CD
CO
U
o
"53
o
o
o
o
m
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
cn
CO
TD
TO
TD
03
to
TO
CD
tD
CD
1
CO
o
o
CZ
JO
CO
CD
D.
^>
CO
CO
m
CO
o
CO
CO
in
^
tn
r-.
CO
CO
CM
CD
CD
CO
CO
to
to
O)
CM
in
CC
CO
CC
CO
CC
CC
CL
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
0)
CD
0)
CM
_1
TO
LL 8
iS
CO
T3
in
CO
cc
CM
CD
CD
TT
*!
CM
JJ
CC
CO
CM
CO
CO
CC
CO
o
^
CO
V
CC
CD
1)
CO
~>
CM
CM
p-
in
CE
CO
CO
CD
CD
in
CC
CC
LX
CO
CO
CO
r-
s.
CD
CD
r-
t^
CO
CO
CO
in
o
in
CC
CC
LX
cc
to
CO
CO
CO
CO
X)
CC
CO
o
m
o
^
O
CO
r*
^
CO
CO
CO
0)
CO
cn
1^
CO
O
CO
in
0}
CO
o
o
in
CO
o
to
m
CO
0}
CM
CO
CO
0)
cn
cn
CO
CD
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
LX
cc
CC
CO
in
CO
o
o
CO
CO
cn
CO
m
o
o
r*.
in
CO
CO
CO
CD
CO
in
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
1*-
CO
o
CO
cn
CO
0>
CO
CO
Ul
CO
r-
(/>
o
o
o
0>
CC
CN
^-
in
._
r-
CM
cn
CO
CO
0)
CO
0)
CD
o
0}
cn
cn
CO
0)
0)
CC
CC
CC
cc
CC
GC
CC
CO
CO
,_
CO
ai
0)
CO
CO
CO
in
in
CO
CO
f*-
cn
CC
CC
CC
h-
CO
CO
t
CO
in
CO
CO
CM
r^-
CC
CC
CO
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
CD
CM
CC
CC
CC
CO
CM
CM
CC
CC
CC
CO
CO
cn
cn
t
m
CM
r*
CM
>
CC
-T
o
m
CO
h
1^
cn
cc
CC
CC
CO
CO
in
CM
to
CO
CO
CM
CC
cc
CD
CD
CO
cn
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
a.
CL
CL
CM
CO
u
to
c
o
o
CN
a
e
i
*
5
fc
CO
LO
CM
C\J
CO
CO
rr
t
r
fc
t
o
m
CM
o
cy
P"
o
o
<N
CO
5
CO
t
r^
^
en
oo
cn
to
t
cn
CO
iD
to
CM
CO
r-
-J
CO
CT-
*tf
ca
3
CM
CO
in
SO
CO
?5
in
to
in
o
CO
^
in
^
CM
CO
t^
CM
to
r^
in
in
CO
CO
en
en
6
CM
CM
r*-
cn
CM
C
in
CM
CD
^
CD
o
OJ
o
>
cc
<
co
CO
c
O
CD
t3
CO
0)
CO
>
JC
o
o
TD
O 5M
Q o
LU
h-
55
"a
CD
CB
CO
LU C
cc O)
C
LU
CD
TO
CD
o
o
o
o
o
CO
tA
o
CD
CO
5
CD
i:
APPENDIX E
Guidelines for
Railroad Rails
Used
as
Retaining Structures
81
Railroad
landslides along
rails
roadway shoulders
The
construction procedures.
embedment
are being
stable material
piles
years on
maximum
spacing,
efficiency.
It
maximum
is to this
available.
It
piles operate in
rail
results
variables of
made
The
for
has been found from engineering experiences and analyses that laterally loaded
and are
not allowed to
to refusal
become
overstxesscd.
at least
minimum
Very often,
satisfactory for
complete embedment.
Also, too large a space between the piles will not allow the soil to "arch", thus the
through them.
where
install
them.
length into
fail.
soil
82
arching,
rail
spacing, and
how
to correctly
A.
rail piling is intended for use on landslides affeenng roadway shoulders and a
amount of the driving lanes. If the distance from the shoulder to the furthest
breaks in the pavement is greater than the depth to rock, the use of rails may not be
Railroad
limited
practical.
B-
at
The determination of
assume the
failure
If
is
known
be used
D.
to
less
is
if
may
The minimum
embedment
length of
E.
be 121.920 cm (48 inches) from center-tonot flow between the piles. The minimum
center.
F.
When more
shown on
rails is
possible.
G.
H.
on the
full
rails
is
be as close as
desirable in order to
After the rail has been placed in the hole, the hole
is
shoveled or dropped
around the
in
rails.
83
PILING
(CONTINUED)
I.
If
to
damage
the rails
J.
In
some cases
may require
wood lagging is
backfilling
when
possible
backfill material.
If
to
be used, the
gradation of the backfill must be large enough to prevent us passing through the geognd.
K.
84
if rail
piling
to
is
be used.
If
as the backfill
material, guardrail
post may be
inserted in
fresh concrete
Material
may
conti
-Railroad Rati
Backfill
around
railroad
rail
may
85
'
Design Chart
for
136
to
140
"
'
Ib./yd. Rails
i
!
|
i
48-
Ut
ft
i
1
mil rn
CL
^3
|3
4^
o __
-O __
uC
5c
._
.1
t- 1,
-c
"*
J ~^T^
-ti** -
30-
Ht'
i
>
24 -
-Minimunl-
)
|
_]~
_
1
10
20
15
Depth of Rock
86
n.
(ft.)
25
CD
tniim
"
o
m
CO
tr
xz
t^
zx
zt
zx
I
ZLn
Jb./yd. Rails
.
-
<
pr
tr
f^
1
4x1
A
03
U.'~
fa
a.
133
to
<p
^_
CO
_,
r^
u
_l [1-D _ "~
O "~~
ff
i*
t*
O
c
^5
,-v
C.Q
30-
"^~
<1~"'
5vS
zXMX
24-
/ in
6 ififi) (l
m-1
]
1
-L
J_
j
i
10
Depth of Rock
87
20
15
(ft.)
26
I
Typical 10"
3'
max.
Rail should
Approx. 2
ft.
88
ft.
diameter hoi
ft.
Two
2- 4
or
ft.
effective spacing
is
89
IDENTIFICATION OF
RAILROAD RAIL SIZES
1.
Typically classified
Examples
155 lbs/yd, 140
In
units of Iba-per-yard.
2.
Each
90
rail
Example
RE
11_25
lbs/yd
In
web.
Weight
In
OH
lbs/yd
90
ILLINOIS
USA
1935
Mil!
LIMITATIONS
Depth
to formation
than 7.010
(23 feet).
Assumes
No
charts.
91
APPENDIX
Jensen Drilling
230 Cusick Road
Alcoa, TN 37701
Phone: (423) 984-4627
(423)970-3151
Fax:
Frankfort,
KY 40601-1200
e-mail: sales@jensendrillinq.com
564-4839
Fax:
(502)
e-mail:
dsmith2@mail.kytc.state.ky.us
www.jensendriliinq.com
web:
John Bowlin
Transportation Engineer, Branch Manager
Kentucky Department of Transportation
Pikeville,KY41502
Phone: (606) 433-7791
University of Missouri-Rolla
Fax:
of Transportation
MO 65409
Office:
e-mail:
(573)341-4927
(573)341-4867
(573)341-6935
psanti@umr.edu
www.umr.edu/~psanti
Secretary:
Fax:
(606) 433-7765
ibowlin@mail.kvtc.state.ky.us
Systems
Lime Piles
Edward Forte
Stabilator USA, Inc.
Maspeth, NY 11378
Branch Manager
Hayward Baker Inc.
419 Crossville Road, Suite 101
Roswell, GA 30075-3000
Phone: (770) 645-9400
Fax:
(770) 645-9401
e-mail: irwolosick@haywardbaker.com
Phone: (718)786-3350
Fax:
(718)786-3329
e-mail:
web:
Vice President
Schnabel Foundation Company
1654 Lower Roswell Rd
e-mail: ed.forte@stabilator.com
web:
www.stabilator.com
Marietta,
GA 30068
Phone: (770)971-6455
Fax:
(770) 977-8530
e-mail: isiddavis@cs.com
www.schnabel.com
web:
Loehr
46176
Phone: (317)398-7500
(317)298-0282
Fax:
e-mail: wheeler@theinnet.net
92
Biotechnical Remediation
George Athanasakes
FMSM
Engineers
1901 Nelson Miller Pkwy.
Louisville,
Illinois
KY 40223-2177
Dr.
Phone: (502)244-6519
Fax:
(502) 244-8826
Wahab
qathanasakes@fmsmenq.com
e-mail:
Department of Transportation
Riyad
Phone: (217)782-7207
(217)782-2572
e-mail:
Fax:
Division
IGCN
100 N. Senate Ave. Rm. N848
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2218
Phone: (317)232-5470
Fax:
(317)232-5478
e-mail:
tbansi
@ indot.state.in.us
Brad Steckler
Manager Engineering Assessment Section
Preliminary Engineering and Environment
Division
TN 37243
Phone: (615)350-4101
Fax:
(615)350-4128
IGCN
100 N. Senate Ave. Rm. N848
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2218
Phone: (317)232-5137
Fax:
(317)232-5478
West
Virginia
Department of
Transportation
Greg Bailey
Vladimir
wahabrm@nt.dot.state.il. us
llyin
IGCN
93