Slope instability due to pore water pressure increase

S. Leroueil
Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

J. Chu
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

D. Wanatowski
The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: Chu et al. (2003) developed a framework based on specific stress paths followed in slopes subjected to pore water pressure increase and concepts of soil instability and critical state. This framework applies to loose as well as dense sands. In this paper, these concepts are slightly extended and confirmed on the basis of physical model observations and case studies. Practical implications related to the evaluation of slope stability and the significance of calculated factor of safety are then discussed. 1 INTRODUCTION Flow slides associated with heavy rainfalls are often devastating, causing many casualties in many parts of the world. However, their development has not been well understood until recently, in particular because the stress paths followed in slopes subjected to pore pressure increase were not considered and the concepts of instability of cohesionless soils were not well understood. When a slope is subjected to pore pressure increase due to infiltration or rising water table, total stresses and shear stresses remain essentially constant but effective stresses, mean effective stress in particular, decrease. This corresponds to a specific stress path which, examined within the concepts of critical state and instability, provides a general framework for understanding slope behaviour in both loose and dense soil deposits (Chu et al. 2003). The first part of the paper focuses on the onset of slope instability (i.e. development of plastic strains), and post-failure as such is not considered. In the second part, evidences from physical models and case histories supporting the framework are presented. Finally, there is a discussion on the practical implications of the framework on the evaluation of slope stability. soil is consolidated, isotropically or anisotropically, in a triaxial cell and then subjected to an undrained compression test, the stress-strain curve shows a peak and then moves towards an ultimate state, often called steady state or critical state. Figure 1 presents such stress paths in a q/pcs vs p/pcs diagram, in which pcs is the mean effective stress at the critical state. Sladen et al. (1985b) called the line joining the peaks obtained in CIU tests to the critical state (CS) the Collapse surface. At a given void ratio and in a p vs q diagram, that would be a collapse line; at a different void ratio, the collapse line is different. Lade (1993) defines these lines as instability lines (IL). The zone bounded by the IL and the critical state line (CSL) is the zone of instability in which loose sand becomes unstable when an undrained condition is imposed (Chu et al., 2003; Wanatowski et al., 2009a). The IL also appears to be a state boundary surface that is followed by soil elements that reach it to move towards the critical state. This was evidenced by Sasitharan et al. (1993) who performed constant shear drained (CSD) tests, with constant deviatoric stress and decreasing mean effective stress from initial stress conditions at point I, on loose Ottawa sand (Fig. 2). The specimen collapsed at point Y, well below the (CSL), at a void ratio of 0.809. The collapse (or instability) line corresponding to the same void ratio is also shown on the figure. It can be seen that yielding in the CSD test has been obtained when the stress path reached the instability line, indicating that instability is associated with the same effective stresses and void ratio, regardless of drainage conditions.

2 MECHANISMS LEADING TO SLOPE INSTABILITY Before considering slopes, it is useful to examine some aspects of cohesionless soil behaviour. When a

value and decreasing p value called constant shear drained (CSD) tests (Brand, 1981; Anderson & Riemer, 1995). Such tests had been performed by Anderson & Riemer (1995) on colluvial soil and by Santos et al. (1996) on residual soil. On the basis of the results, Leroueil (2001) indicated that instability is not controlled by initial stress conditions at point I (Fig. 3) and the corresponding value but rather by the relative position of the point at yielding Y (Fig. 3) with respect to the CSL. Chu et al. (2003) suggested calling this difference the modified state pa__

rameter (Fig. 3). In fact, the value of in a slope varies with seasons whereas slope instability and
__

possibly failure depends on .

From Sladen et al. (1985b)s data (see Fig. 1), it turns out that, if stress conditions on the collapse surface are described by an angle of strength mobilization mob (e.g. corresponding to M6.9 for the test consolidated at 6.9 pcs), this angle is lower than the critical state friction angle cs and increases towards its value when the consolidation stress p/pcs decreases towards one. Been & Jefferies (1985) proposed the state parameter for characterising the behaviour of sands. is defined in a e vs p diagram (Fig. 3) as the difference between the current void ratio eo (at a point such as I) and the void ratio on the steady state line (or CSL), ess(I), under the same mean effective stress, = eo ess. Positive values of are associated with contractant soil behaviour whereas negative values of are associated with dilatant soil behaviour. In the context of slopes subjected to pore water pressure increase, the stress paths followed are at an essentially constant shear stress with decreasing effective stresses. In the laboratory, such stress paths can be simulated by drained tests with constant q

Chu et al. (2003) performed a series of triaxial tests, including CSD tests, on Changi sand having a mean grain size of 0.30-0.35 mm and a uniformity coefficient of 2.0. In the interpretation of the tests, Chu et al. (2003) defined the term instability as behaviour in which large plastic strains are generated rapidly due to the inability of a soil element to sustain a given stress or load. Figure 4 illustrates instability under CSD tests. Two specimens of loose sand (ec = 0.94), DR7 and DR10, were anisotropically consolidated at p = 200 kPa (point A for DR7, Fig. 4a) and then sheared at an essentially constant deviatoric stress at a rate not allowing the development of pore pressure during the test that was thus fully drained. From A to B, there were little axial and volumetric strains (Fig. 4b). However, at point B, these strains started developing at a faster rate, indicating unstable behaviour. As shown in Figure 4a, the instability point B is well below the critical state line, at an angle of strength mobilization mob lower than cs.

ever, at point E, the axial strain started increasing, indicating the onset of instability; as shown in Figures 4b and 4c, this latter instability was associated with dilation of the dense soil specimens. It can be seen that in these cases, instability is reached at an angle of strength mobilization mob larger than cs. Figure 4c shows the location of the instability points for the previously mentioned tests in an e vs log p diagram. The critical state line is also shown on the figure. It can be seen that the modified state
__

parameter is equal to about 0.060 for the loose specimens and about -0.186 for the dense specimens. From these tests and other triaxial tests performed on the same sand, Chu et al. (2003) defined the relationship between the effective stress ratio at instabil__

ity, IL = q/p, and (Fig. 5a). It can be seen that IL, equal to 1.35 at critical state, varies from about
__ __

0.70 for > 0.10 to about 1.50 for < - 0.15. Wanatowski & Chu (2007) and Wanatowski et al. (2009b) performed plane strain tests on the same Changi sand and observed a general behaviour similar to that obtained in triaxial conditions. However, the critical state lines obtained in both tests were different with, in particular, M values equal to 1.35 for triaxial tests and 1.16 for plane strain tests. The relationships between the effective stress ratio at insta__

Two specimens of the same sand, but dense (ec = 0.65), DR39 and DR40, were anisotropically consolidated at about p = 260 kPa (point D for DR39, Fig. 4a) and then sheared at an essentially constant deviatoric stress. As shown on Figure 4b, from D to E, the axial and volumetric strains were small. How-

bility, IL, and were also different. However, Wanatowski et al. (2009a) showed that, when normalised with respect to the M value obtained in the relevant type of test, triaxial or plane strain, both curves come on a unique one (Fig. 5b). From these results, Chu et al. (2003) developed a general framework for understanding the instability of slopes in loose or dense sand subjected to pore water pressure increase. Leroueil (2004) summarised it by using a q/pcs vs p/pcs diagram in which the CSL and IL (linear for simplicity) were drawn (Fig. 6). C is the normalised critical state, at the intersection of the CSL and IL. For normalised q values larger than the one at C (generally relatively loose sands for slopes of precarious stability), initial conditions will be at a point such as Ils in Figure 6 and instability will be reached at a point such as Yls, below the CSL. At Yls, the soil will have a tendency to move towards its critical state C. As the deviatoric stress at C is smaller than that due to gravity forces in the slope (q at Ils), there will be static liquefaction of the soil and collapse of the slope. Major consequences of this phenomenon are that failure is triggered at an angle of strength mobilization smaller than the critical state friction angle and that instabil-

ity (at Yls) is followed by an increase in pore water pressure since p decreases. If soil in a slope is at Ids, at a normalised q value smaller than the one at C (generally relatively dense sands), and is subjected to pore water pressure increase, the stress path will move towards Yds where there is development of plastic strains and then have a tendency to go towards its critical state C. However, this can only be achieved if the soil dilates and q/pcs increases, which takes time.

This framework can be described in more details by referring to Figure 7. When a loose sand is sheared along a q = cst path starting from point I (Fig. 7a), instability occurs at point Y, on the IL at
__

the corresponding value. If the pore water pressure can dissipate freely (i.e. under drained condition), the stress path will eventually reach the failure state at point C1, on the critical state line that is also the failure line for loose sands. During this process,

large axial and volumetric strains will develop and the void ratio of the soil will decrease (Fig. 7b). If failure is reached at C1, as there is then equilibrium between the applied shear stress and the critical state strength, the available kinetic energy will be small and the rate of movement should be small (Leroueil et al., 1996). On the other hand, if the pore-water pressure cannot dissipate freely, the stress path will move towards the critical state associated with its current water content, i.e. C2 under undrained conditions. As the corresponding strength is smaller than the applied shear stress, the kinetic energy available at yielding will be large. There will thus be runaway failure and development of flow. For dense sand, the stress path moves from point I to point Y, where the soil becomes unstable (Fig. 7b). For dense sand, instability is reached above the CSL but below the failure line. If the pore water pressure can dissipate freely (i.e. under drained conditions), both axial strain and volumetric strain (dilative in that case) will start increasing at point Y, and the stress state will move towards the failure line at a point such as F1. If failure is reached, post-failure could be essentially undrained, with a stress path moving towards point C4 in Figure 7b. As the corresponding strength may be smaller than the shear stress applied by gravity forces in the slope, there may be development of flow at the post-failure stage. If at point Y, dilation cannot be accommodated, such as for undrained conditions, negative pore water pressure will develop (see Wanatowski et al., 2009a) and the stress state will move towards point C3 (Fig. 7b). The soil will then remain stable; it could however become unstable and the slope could possibly fail when pore water pressure will dissipate. In such a case, failure is delayed. Figure 7c shows a particular case in which instability is reached at the same time as the CSL, at

point C5. In that case, instability is associated with failure. However, as there is then equilibrium between the applied shear stress and the critical state strength, the available kinetic energy will be small and the rate of movement should also be small.

3 EVIDENCE FROM PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS The framework previously described has important implications for slopes: In loose sand, the onset of failure can be obtained at an angle of strength mobilization, mob, smaller than cs; in such case, and if essentially undrained the onset of failure is followed by an increase in pore pressure. In dense sand, the onset of instability is reached at a mobilized friction angle, mob, larger than cs; however, instability is then associated with a tendency of the soil to dilate before failure can be reached. That framework has been established for saturated conditions. It is more complex for unsaturated soils since, with infiltration, matric suction (ua uw) decreases, (p uw) decreases and the strength envelope is lowered. In addition, there does not seem to have detailed information on what happens to instability lines with changing suction. However, and as indicated by several reported case histories, the concepts previously described apply. Olivares & Damiano (2007) specify that when the soil is susceptible to static liquefaction and is essentially saturated

at the onset of slope failure, post-failure will evolve into a flow slide as for saturated soils. These authors also mention that if the soil is not saturated at the onset of failure, then post-failure may not evolve into a flow slide but rather into a slide or debris avalanche, with smaller runout distance. As suggested by the US National Research Council (NRC 1985), failure may also result from redistribution of void ratio within a globally undrained sand layer or spreading of excess pore water pressure in a slope. These latter possibilities are not examined here. Also, it is tried to avoid in this paper cases where failure could be associated with erosion or excavation at the toe of slopes. Such cases involve different stress paths and possibly a quasi-undrained or partly drained behaviour (e.g. failure at the Jamuna Bridge, Bangladesh, (Hight et al., 1999) and failure of the Mississippi riverbanks (Torrey & Weaver, 1984)). Several cases from the literature are examined hereunder in comparison with the implications of this framework. Nerlerk berm. The Nerlerk berm was constructed over two seasons in the Beaufort Sea, where the depth of water was approximately 45 m. The berm consisted of Ukaler sand core overlaid by Nerlerk sand. The slope angle of the berm was approximately 13. At the turn of July and August 1983, several slides occurred, involving only Nerlerk sand. This sand was assumed to have a relative density of

30% (Lade, 1993) and a friction angle at critical state of 31. Back analysing the failures, Sladen et al. (1985b) found a mobilized angle of strength of 1316, indicating instability considerably below the CSL at a friction angle of 31. Coking coal stockpile physical model. Eckersley (1990) examined flow slides in coking coal stockpiles. The coal particles ranged from fine sand and silt sizes to gravel with a critical state friction angle of 40. Instability was induced in 1 m high stockpiles by raising the water level within the slope (Fig. 8a). For the experiment considered here (Experiment 7), the coal was placed for the bottom 400 mm at 9% water content with no compaction (dry density of 0.7 Mg/m3); the remaining 600 mm was placed dry at a dry density of 1.0 Mg/m3. Failure occurred in three stages as indicated in Figure 8a. Stage 1 comprised two shallow slides over a 2 s period. It was followed by Stages 2 and 3 that occurred in the 4 following seconds along the shear zones shown in Figure 8a. Pore water pressures observed during experiment 7 at locations indicated in Figure 8a are shown in Figure 8b. These pore water pressures became positive during raising of the water table and were slowly increasing at the time of failure. What can be seen is that pore water pressures mostly increased after the onset of failure defined on the basis of video camera pictures (arrows in Fig. 8b). Eckersley (1990) concluded: Excess pore pressures are a consequence of failure initiation rather than a cause, and static liquefaction is therefore a post-failure phenomenon. He also back calculated a mobilized angle of strength at the onset of failure of 24-27, much less than the critical friction angle of 40 obtained from laboratory tests.

Centrifuge tests. Zhang & Ng (2003; also reported by Ng, 2008) have performed centrifuge tests for examining the failure mechanisms of sandy slopes subjected to rainfall and rising water table. The material used was Leighton Buzzard fine sand that shows pronounced strain-softening in undrained triaxial shear tests performed on loose specimens. The model was 305 mm high with a slope of 29.4 and built with the soil at a relative compaction of 68%. However, when the model was subjected to an acceleration of 60 g, the slope was densified to 80% of the maximum relative compaction and flattened to 24. At 60 g, the slope was de-stabilised by rising water level and the soil liquefied statically and flowed. Unfortunately, the pore water pressures reported by Ng (2008) are not very detailed. Flume tests. Wang & Sassa (2001) and Damiano (2003) examined rainfall-induced flow slides in laboratory flume tests. The two materials tested were silica sandy silt and pyroclastic sand respectively. Failure was induced by sprinkling water on the surface of the soil models. Figures 9a and b show typical results obtained on these materials in loose conditions. It can be seen in both cases that pore water pressures slowly increased before the onset of failure and rapidly increased after, similarly to Eckersley (1990) observation (Fig. 8b). Wachusett Dam. The construction of the dam was completed in 1907 and failure occurred in the upstream slope during the first reservoir filling. According to Olson et al. (2000), the upstream fill consisted primarily of fine sands that were placed without compaction. Failure occurred in drained conditions as filling of the reservoir was very slow

and was followed by a flow of the upstream fill soils over a distance of about 100 m into the reservoir. Back analysis of the failure performed by Olson et al. (2000) indicate that failure occurred at average shear strength between 37.6 and 41.9 kPa, corresponding to a mobilized angle of strength that was close to the critical state friction angle of the sand (30). Kinetics analysis also indicated a post-failure strength of approximately 16 kPa, slightly less than half of the strength at failure. A practical conclusion from Olson et al. (2000) is that sandy fills that subsequently will be saturated should not be placed without compaction. Cernivara landslide. The Cervinara landslide occurred on 16 December 1999 along a steep slope of about 40 covered by about 2.5 m of pyroclastic soils and developed into a flow slide that travelled over several kilometres, stroke several houses and killed 5 persons. The volcanic soils include layers of pumice and volcanic ash classified as sand. Detailed studies of the mechanical behaviour of volcanic ash have been performed at the Seconda Universit di Napoli. Olivares & Picarelli (2001, 2003) showed that: (a) strength significantly increases with matric suction; (b) critical friction angle is of 38; (c) the material is highly susceptible to liquefaction when saturated (see Fig. 10). Suction measurements made on the same site give values of 20 to 50 kPa during the dry season and 4 to 8 kPa during the wet season. The stability of the slope was thus insured by matric suction. However, it is thought by Olivares & Picarelli (2003) that on 16 December 1999 slope failed because suction vanished. The mobilized angle of strength was then probably very close to the critical state friction angle of the soil. In addition, as volcanic ash is very susceptible to liquefaction (Fig. 10), the landslide turned into a flow slide. Sau Mau Ping landslides. Two landslides involving man-made fill slopes occurred after heavy rainfall on 18 June 1972 and 25 August 1976 at Sau Mau Ping in Hong Kong (Ho & Sun, 2009). For the 1972 landslide, the slope was 40 m high and inclined at 34 with the horizontal, and the debris slid down at high velocity, killing 71 persons; the 1976 landslide took place in a 35 m high and 33 steep slope, and turned into mud flow, killing 18 persons. The slopes were made up of decomposed granite. Investigation of the 1976 landslide showed that the fill was extremely loose (d = 1.35 Mg/m3, corresponding to about 75% standard compaction) to a depth of at least 2 m below the slope; beyond the crest, d was also low and variable, between 1.65 and 1.2 Mg/m3 (90% and 70% relative compaction), to a depth of 7 m and about 1.5 Mg/m3 down to 20 m. Laboratory direct shear box tests carried out under a vertical consolidation stress of 25 kPa showed a contractant behaviour for dry densities lower than 1.5 Mg/m3; other laboratory tests indicated a critical state friction angle of 36.8. It was estimated that the fill could have been saturated to depths between 2 m and 6 m under the 25 August 1976 rainstorm. Also, numerical analyses showed that failure could have been triggered if 3 m

of loose fill became saturated, but for strength conditions below the critical state strength envelope. The recommendation following this investigation was that the soil has to be compacted to not less than 95% of standard maximum dry density for manmade fills (Ho & Sun, 2009). Evidences of dilatant behaviours. The possibility of dilatant behaviour of soil masses prior to some post failure movements is also supported by observations: (a) Casagrande (1975) indicates that prior to liquefaction and flow of large masses of rather dense granular talus in the alps, brooks emerging from the toe of the talus stopped flowing; (b) Fleming et al. (1989) report observations of time lags between the beginning of landslide movements and the initiation of debris flows; (c) in three slides that Harp et al. (1990) triggered by artificial subsurface irrigation, they observed abrupt decreases in pore pressure 5 to 50 minutes before failure.

Considering instability, what are the mobilizable strength parameters that should be considered in stability analyses of a slope subjected to pore water pressure increase? What is the representativeness of the factor of safety calculated by effective stress analyses? Even if extremely important, post-failure behaviour is not considered here. A major practical question concerns the location of the instability line relative to the critical state line or, in other words, what is the angle of strength mobilization to be considered. The answer is given by a diagram such as Figure 5a and the ratio between IL
__

at relatively large values and M. It seems how__

ever that the IL/M vs relationship is soil specific.

__

4 DISCUSSION The cases presented in the previous section confirm the soil model and its implications for slopes. In loose sandy soils, the onset of failure can be reached at an angle of strength mobilization lower than the critical state friction angle (Nerlerk berm; Coking coal stockpile; probably Sau Mau Ping slope) or close to the critical state friction angle (Wachusett dam; Cervinara slope); where measured (and if the soil is not too pervious), instability is followed by pore water pressure increase (coking coal stockpile; flume tests); in all cases, there was strain-softening of the soil and development of post-failure flow slide; in all cases also, development of flow slide is very rapid. In the cases of dense soils, there is evidence of dilatant behaviour and delay between the onset of instability (development of plastic strains) and failure as such. For the two slope cases reported here that were generally unsaturated (Cervinara and Sau Mau Ping), it seems that failure was initiated when the matric suction was close to zero. It can be thought however that some slopes failure can be reached when they are still unsaturated (in loess in particular); Olivares & Damiano (2007) indicate however that in these conditions, the possibility to have a flow slide is smaller. 4.1 Practical application of the framework The framework and its implications being accepted, the two main practical questions are as follows:

IL/M at large values is about 0.5 for Changi sand (Fig. 5b), about 0.55 for Leighton Buzzard sand (Fig. 1) and about 0.9 for Cervinara volcanic ash (Fig. 10). Testing 3 different Japanese sands, Orense et al. (2004) concluded that instability was reached at mobilized friction angle mob such that tan mob = 0.73 to 0.83 tan cs. IL/M thus appears to be variable
__

from soil to soil and also with . Also, for the time being, there is not enough data available to be able to correlate IL/M with some physical characteristics of the soils. A simplified approach of the problem does not seem to be accessible for the time being. On the other hand, it appears difficult to develop a rational and practical methodology for the approach proposed by Chu et al. (2003) and described here. There are several reasons for that: (a) the number of tests that is necessary for determining the CSL and the ILs at different void ratios is important; (b) natural soil variability may also be a difficulty; (c) if reconstituted soil is used, the mode of preparation of the specimens may significantly influence the test results (e.g see Vaid et al., 1995). It is thus recommended, when possible, to take undisturbed samples, reconsolidate them under stresses close to in situ stresses and then shear them at constant deviatoric stress and decreasing mean effective stress, in CSD tests. It is thought that the test results are the best indicators of the behaviour of a slope under increasing pore water pressure and can be directly used. For comparison, it is also suggested to define cs for the considered soil. 4.2 Representativeness of a calculated factor of safety Another practical aspect is the representativeness of a calculated factor of safety for a given slope. As

previously indicated and as illustrated by the stress paths IY in Figs. 2, 4 and 7a, the initiation of failure may be obtained for an angle of strength mobilization smaller than cs in loose sandy soil. This phenomenon is amplified by conventional limit equilibrium stability analyses. In these analyses, the factor of safety is calculated by comparing the applied shear stress to the shear stress at failure under the same normal effective stress, which implicitly assumes an effective stress path such as IG in Figure 11 (see Tavenas et al., 1980), thus very different from the stress path leading to failure, i.e. IY. The calculated factor of safety for a slope in loose sandy soil may thus significantly overestimate the real stability; for the case schematised in Figure 11, that would mean a calculated factor of safety of about 2 (from I to G) whereas the slope is in fact close to collapse (from I to Y).

soils, instability is reached at an angle of strength mobilization that is smaller than the critical state friction angle. If perfectly drained, failure is reached at the critical state with a rate of movement that should be small. If not perfectly drained, soil instability is followed by pore water pressure increase, flow and runaway failure. For dense soils, instability (development of plastic strains) is reached at an angle of strength mobilization slightly larger than the critical state friction angle. If perfectly drained and dilation allowed, failure is reached on the failure line and may be followed by runaway post-failure. If dilation cannot be accommodated, negative pore pressures develop and the slope will not fail. Observations made in physical model tests and interpretations of case histories confirm this framework. The practical application of these concepts is however difficult to apply and it is suggested, when possible, to take undisturbed soil samples, reconsolidate them under in situ stresses and then shear them in CSD tests in order to evaluate their behaviour. It is also shown that calculated factor of safety of slopes in loose sand can strongly overestimate real stability.

6 REFERENCES
Anderson, S.A. & Riemer, M.F. 1995. Collapse of saturated soil due to reduction in confinement. J. of Geotech. Engng., ASCE, 121(2): 216-219. Been, K. & Jefferies, M.G. 1985. A state parameter for sands. Gotechnique, 35(2): 99-112. Brand, E.W. 1981. Some thoughts on rain-induced slope failures. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engng., Stockholm, Vol. 3: 373-376. Casagrande, A. 1975. Liquefaction and cyclic deformation of sands, a critical review. Proc. 5th Panamerican Conf. on Soil. Mech. and Found. Engng., Buenos Aires, Vol. 5: 79133. Chu, J., Leroueil, S. & Leong, W.K. 2003. Unstable behaviour of sand and its implication for slope stability. Canadian Geotech. J., 40: 873-885. Damiano, E. 2003. Meccanismi dinnesco di colate di fango in terreni piroclastici. Ph.D. Thesis, Second Univ. of Naples, Italy. Eckersley, J.D. 1990. Instrumented laboratory flowslides. Gotechnique, 40(3): 489-502. Fleming, R.W., Ellen, S.D. & Algus, M.A. 1989. Transformation of dilative and contractive landslide debris into debris flows An example from Marin County, California, Engng. Geol., 27: 201-223. Harp, E.W., Weels, W.G. II & Sarmiento, J.G. 1990. Pore pressure response during failure in soils. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 102(4): 428-438. Hight, D.W., Georgiannou, V.N., Martin, P.l. & Mundegar, A.K. 1999. Flow slides in micaceous sands. Proc. Int. Symp. on Problematic Soils, IS Tohoku, Sendai, Vol. 2: 945-958.

4.3 Solutions to decrease the possibility of instability and flow slides As suggested by Olson et al. (2000) and Ho & Sun (2009), a solution for decreasing the possibility of soil instability and liquefaction is to increase the angle of strength mobilization by compaction. Ng (2008) and other authors suggest reinforcement of the slope by methods such as nailing.

5 CONCLUSION The framework established by Chu et al. (2003) and re-examined here provides a unified way to study the instability, failure and post-failure mechanisms of loose and dense sandy slopes. For loose cohesionless

Ho, K.K.S. & Sun, H.W. 2009. The Sau Mau Ping Case Study. Sub-chapter 9.1 of the book Understanding Landslides through Case histories under preparation, Eds. Leroueil & Picarelli; Pub. Taylor & Francis. Lade, P.V. 1993. Initiation of static instability in the submarine Nerlerk Berm. Canadian Geotech. J. 30(6): 895-904. Leroueil, S. 2001. Natural slopes and cuts: movement and failure mechanisms. Gotechnique, 51(3): 197-243. Leroueil, S. 2004. Proc. 9th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 1: 863-884. Leroueil, S., Vaunat, J., Picarelli, L., Locat, J., Faure, R. & Lee, H. 1996. A geotechnical characterisation of slope movements. Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Trondheim, Vol. 1: 53-74. National Research Council (NRC) 1985. Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Commission on Earthquake and Technical Systems. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Ng, C.W.W. 2008. Deformation and failure mechanisms of loose and dense fill slopes with and without soil nails. Proc. 10th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Xian, Vol. 1: 159-178. Olivares, L. & Damiano, E. 2007. Postfailure mechanisms of landslides: laboratory investigation of flowslides in pyroclastic soils. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Engng., ASCE, 133(1): 51-62. Olivares, L. & Picarelli, L. 2001. Susceptibility of loose pyroclastic soils to static liquefaction : Some preliminary data. Proc. Int. Conf. on Landslides: Causes, Impact and countermeasures, Davos. Olivares, L. & Picarelli, L. 2003. Shallow flowslides triggered by intense rainfalls on natural slopes covered by loose unsaturated pyroclastic soils. Gotechnique, 53(2): 283-287. Olson, S.M., Stark, T.D., Walton, W.H. & Castro, G. 2000. Static liquefaction flow failure of the north dike of Wachusett dam. J. of Geotech. and Geoenviron. Engng., ASCE, 126(12): 1184-1193. Orense, R., Farooq, K. & Towhata, I. 2004. Deformation behaviour of sandy slopes during rainwater infiltration. Soils & Foundations, 44(2): 15-30.

Sasitharan, S., Robertson, P.K., Sego, D.C. & Morgenstern, N.R. 1993. Collapse behaviour of sand. Canadian Geot. J., 30(4): 569-577. Sento, N., Kazama, M., Uzuoka, R., Ohmura, H. & Ishimaru, M. 2004. Possibility of postliquefaction flow failure due to seepage. J. of Geotech. and Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE, 129(8): 727-737. Sladen, J.A., DHollander, R.D., Krahn, J. & Mitchell, D.E. 1985a. Back analysis of the Nerlerk berm liquefaction slides. Canadian Geotech. J., 22(4): 579-588. Sladen, J.A., DHollander, R.D. & Krahn, J. 1985b. The liquefaction of sands, a collapse surface approach. Canadian Geotechnical J., 22(4): 564-578. Tavenas, F., Trak, B. & Leroueil, S. 1980. Remarks on the validity of stability analyses. Canadian Geotech. J., 17(1): 6173. Torrey, V.H. & Weaver, F.J. 1984. Flow failures in Mississippi riverbanks. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Landslides, Toronto, Vol. 2: 564-578. Vaid, Y.P., Uthayakumar, M., Sivathayalan, S., Robertson, P.K. & Hofmann, B. 1995. Laboratory testing of Syncrude sand. Proc. 48th Canadian Geotech. Conf., Vancouver, Vol. 1: 223-232. Wanatowski, D. & Chu, J. 2007. Static liquefaction of sand in plane strain. Canadian Geotech. J., 44: 299-313. Wanatowski, D. Chu, J. & Lo, R.S.C 2009a. New types of failure mechanism for flowslide. Geomechanics and Geoengineering. Submitted for publication. Wanatowski, D., Chu, J. & Loke, W.L. 2009b. Drained instability in plane strain. Canadian Geotech. J. Submitted for publication. Wang, G. & Sassa, K. 2001. Factors affecting rain-induced flowslides in laboratory flume tests. Gotechnique, 51: 587599. Zhang, M. & Ng, C.W.W. 2003. Interim Factual Testing Report I SG30 & SR30. Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (ref. by Ng, 2008).