Full Text

Joint
Transportation
II
JTRP
Research
Program
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
Final Report
LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION USING
UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS
Richard
Deschamps
Cary B. Lange
J.
September 1999
Indiana
Department
of Transportation
Purdue
University
Final
Report
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION USING UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS

By
Richard J. Deschamps*
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
FMSM Engineers
Lexington, Kentucky
Principal Investigator
Cary B. Lange
Research Assistant
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
*
formerly a Purdue University Civil Engineering faculty
member
Highway Research Program

Project Number: C-36-34 CC
File Number: 6-14-28
Joint
Conducted
in
Cooperation with the
Indiana Department of Transportation
and the
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
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
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907

September 1999
Digitized by the Internet Archive

in
2011 with funding from
LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation;
http://www.archive.org/details/landslideremediaOOdesc
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

Report No.
1.
2.
Government Accession No.
3.
Recipient's Catalog No.
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.
Performing Organization Code
8.
Performing Organization Report No.
Deschamps and Cary B. Lange
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/6
9.
Name and Address

Transportation Research Program
Performing Organization
Joint
10.
Work
Unit No.
1284 Civil Engineering Building

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1284

11.
Contract or Grant No.
13.
Type of Report and Period Covered
SPR-2191
12.
Sponsoring Agency
Name and Address

Final Report
State Office Building
100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis.
IN 46204
14.
Sponsoring Agency Code
Supplementary Notes
15.
Prepared
16.
in
cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal
Highway
Administration.
Abstract
A substantial amount of the Indiana

damage caused by landslide. The landslide remedial technique frequently
applied by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is the excavation and backfill method, which in most instances is
successful. However, in many cases more liberal landslide treatments may be applied that would arrest movement, provide a sufficient
safety factor, and at a lower cost. The objective of this study is to propose economically feasible landslide remedial methods that may be used
Landslides are very
State budget
is
common
within the residual soils and sedimentary rock of Southern Indiana.
spent on road repair and maintenance from
as an alternative to the excavation
and
backfill
method.
"Unconventional" landslide remedial methods describe stabilization methods that are not commonly practiced
in Indiana,
and for which
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
Relatively modest improvements in
be sufficient to stop persistent movements. Proposed landslide remedial methods are conventional horizontal drains, driven
horizontal wick drains, driven recycled plastic pins, railroad
rail piles,
lime piles, biotechnical remediation, and gravity mass retaining
systems.
landslide inventory containing various attribute information of geologic environment
and landslide geometry was compiled. The inventory

Landslide locations were entered into
includes 284 landslides with attribute information of each individual landslide.
information system (GIS) database along with geographic and geologic information.
correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic features.
It is
concluded
geographic
The constructed GIS database allowed easy
that landslide
occurrence
is
a function of topography and
bedrock geology.
Suitability of landslide stabilization
geometry of the landslide.
methods depends upon the
landslide classification
landslide classification. Eleven landslide types are
17.
characteristics of the sliding mass,
Key Words
failure,
18. Distribution
Form
DOT F
1700.7 (8-69)
This document
is
available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
remediation, slope stability
Unclassified
the geologic environment and
Statement
No restrictions.
geographic information system (GIS), landslide
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
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.
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
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
INDIANA LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
2.1 Inventory
Compilation
2.2 Landslide Attributes
3.0
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
3.1
GIS Database Construction
14
3.2
GIS
14
4.0
GEOLOGY AND LANDSLIDE CORRELATION
4.1
Overview
Application
and
of Indiana
(GIS)
DATABASE
Potential
Geology
14
16
16
4.2 Correlation of Landslide Occurrence and Geology
21
5.0
PROPOSED LANDSLIDE REMEDIAL METHODS
28
5.1
Overview
28
5.1.2 General Application Issues of Remedial
5.2 Excavation
and
Backfill
Methods
Method
5.3 Drainage
5.3.1
35
5.3.2 Horizontal Drainage Overview
Conventional Horizontal Drainage
5.3.2.1 Horizontal
Drainage using Wick Drains
5.4 Cantilever Piles

5.4.1
30
35
Overview
5.3.2.1
28
Lime Piles and Lime Cement Columns
37
38
39
42
43
5.4.2 Recycled Plastic Pins
45
5.4.3 Railroad Rail Piles
46
5.5 Gravity
Mass Retaining Systems
5.6 Biotechnical Remediation
47
48
6.0
COST SUMMARY
51
7.0
LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
53
8.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
59
9.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
61
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
62
REFERENCES
63
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Computer
Files,
Programs, and GIS Database Files
APPENDIX B
Landslide Inventory
APPENDIX C
Landslide Classification Inventory
APPENDIX D
Cost Summary
APPENDIX E KYDOT
APPENDIX F
of
INDOT
Landslide Remediation Projects
Guidelines for Railroad Rails Used as Retaining Structures
Contact Information
LIST
OF TABLES
Table
1.
Landslide Inventory Attributes
Table
2.
Summary
of Landslide Attributes Information
Table
3.
Summary
of
Table
4.
Physiographic Regions of Indiana
19
Table
5.
Landslide Density within Bedrock Formations
27
Table
6.
Remedial Method
Table
7.
Unit Cost for Excavation
Table
8.
Excavation and
Table
9.
Cost
Probable Landslide Causes
Stabilizing Action
Backfill
and
Cost
Backfill
Summary
Cost Analysis
Summary
Summary
10
29
31
34
52
Summary
Table 10.
Landslide Classification
Table 11.
Appropriate Remedial Methods Respective of Landslide Type
55
57
LIST
OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Landslide remediated using the excavation and
Figure
2.
Cross-section view of typical excavation and backfill treatment
Figure
3.
Slope Distribution
Figure
4.
Landslide Dimensions
Figure
5.
Cattails
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
6.
7.
8.
9.
method
remediated landslide adjacent

Vanderburgh County
in
to I-64 in
backfill
ditch near toe of
CPID
at head scarp
Lawrence County
of landslide
SR
37
2.1 miles north of
SR 54
in
13
Fresh ditching at the toe

Vanderburgh County
Regional structural
on
10
of
relief of
an active landslide adjacent
to I-64 in
13
Trenton Limestone
illustrating
Cincinnati Arch
17
Bedrock Age
18
Figure 10. Physiographic Regions
20
of Indiana
Figure 11. Landslide Distribution Relative to Indiana
Roadway Network
23
Figure 12. Landslide Distribution Relative to Topography
24
Figure 13. Landslide Occurrence within South Central Indiana Relative to

Bedrock Composition
25
Figure 14. Landslide Occurrence within Southeast Indiana Relative to

Bedrock Formation
26
Figure 15. Histogram
of
32
Estimated Landslide Volume
Figure 16. Unit Cost of Repair Using Excavation

Landslide Volume
Backfill
Method
33
Figure 17. Erosion along riprap lined drainage ditch at toe

miles northeast of US 50 in Martin County
of landslide
six horizontal
Figure 20. Landslide Classification Diagram
IV
on
SR
450, 8.6
37
40
Figure 18. Disposable drive cone and wick drain

Figure 19. Test embankment with
vs.
wick drains
41
54
Figure 21. Aerial Distribution of Landslide Type
56
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
Landslides are a
common
occurrence within constructed highway embankments and cut
slopes throughout Southern Indiana.

repair of major slides
repair of State
has cost as much as $2800 per
Road 56
maintenance needs
of
Stabilizing existing landslides
in
Dearborn County exceeded 10
many
very expensive;
is
lineal foot of repair.
million dollars.
The
recent
persistent
smaller slides are also very costly, consuming a substantial
The Indiana Department
of
Transportation (INDOT) typically applies the excavation and backfill method, which
in
roadway maintenance.
part of the state annual budget for
However,
most cases proves successful.

treatments
-and
at
may be
backfill
liberal
landslide
applied that would arrest movement, provide a sufficient safety factor
The
a lower cost.
landslide remedial
many cases more
in
methods
objective of this study

that
is
may be used as an
to
propose economically feasible
alternative to the excavation
and
method.
"Unconventional" landslide remedial methods describe stabilization methods that are not
commonly
practiced
in
Indiana,
and
Unconventional stabilization methods

relatively small landslides requiring
in
a delicate equilibrium.
to stop persistent
will
which
likely
design
criteria
are
not
available.
have the greatest benefit applied
modest improvements
in stability
may be
sufficient
Proposed landslide remedial methods are conventional
horizontal drains, driven horizontal wick drains, driven recycled plastic pins, railroad
piles,
lime
cement columns,
to
constant maintenance because these landslides are
Relatively
movements.
for
biotechnical
remediation,
and
gravity
mass
rail
retaining
systems.
The accomplishments
of this study are the following:
Compilation of a landslide inventory of 284 landslides within the State of Indiana,

including various attribute information of each individual landslide.
Construction of a geographic information system (GIS) database illustrating spatial

relationship of landslides with geographic and geologic information.
Correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic features using the
Proposal of cost-effective landslide remedial methods.
VI
GIS database.
Development
of
a landslide
classification
scheme, which recommends suitable
remedial solutions based upon the landslide classification.
characteristics of the sliding
mass, which include the geologic environment and geometry
and the GIS database were constructed
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
and GIS database includes 284 landslides
The
landslide.
may be
format and
landslide inventory
was constructed
revised as landslides occur
landslide attribute information
is
with attribute information of

in
each
Excel spreadsheet
and reoccur, and also be updated as
The compiled
better quantified.
landslide inventory
and
constructed GIS database are significant accomplishments peripheral to the main focus
of the
study that should prove a valuable tool that
Landslide
were entered
locations
INDOT may
ArcView,
into
GIS software,

is
a function
of
It
is
topography and bedrock geology.
distribution within Indiana is
now
and construction methods
within
along
other
with
geographic and geologic information.
occurrence
build upon.
concluded that landslide

Also,
because
landslide
well defined, the affect of standard design procedure
may be more
areas prone to landslides
closely
observed and refined within these areas.
GIS applied
a convenient means
to engineering practice offers
storage and manipulation.
convenience
of
data
This potential
retrieval,
is
correlation,
mechanism
may enable
of failure
The main focus
of
manipulation,
landslide remedial methods.
methods.
in
was upon
investigating
Considerable cost savings

is
relatively
control.
for
individual
Correlation of
drains are so inexpensive that they
may be used
in
Installation cost is
VII
methods.
and proposing
is
cost-effective
realized from the proposed
new concept and has
the focus of research at the University of Missouri-Rolla.
failed.
and
identifying applicable remedial
Horizontally installed wick
slopes that have not yet
and storage
The ease and
the user to easily identify or hypothesize the cause and
and may aid
the study
data management,
currently partially realized.
landslides offers exciting benefits to landslide analysis

landslide attributes
for
recently
been
Using driven horizontal wick
order to provide additional
stability to
estimated between 3 to 5 dollars per
and
lineal foot
installation
is
expected
technique.
to
decrease
Railroad
after
installed
piles
rails
experience allows for optimization
commonly used by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

sliding
upon bedrock. Estimated costs using
per foot of installed
Installed
rail.
rail
this
predrilled
in
to stabilize
holes are
vertical
road embankments
method are estimated
piles offer considerable cost
of the
at
8 to 10 dollars
savings compared to
the excavation and backfill method.
Finally,
a landslide
classification
scheme was developed which recommends
recognized by the classification scheme, which
1.
The landslide failure plane, whether

the soil-bedrock interface.
2.
The slope geometry,
3.
The depth
4.
The distance the

embankment fills).
The
cut slope or
it
is
Eleven landslide types are
based upon four landslide
occurs entirely within
embankment
suitable
soil
or
in
attributes.
any
part along
fill.
of the failure surface.
inventory and
landslide scarp
is
from the roadway shoulder (applies only
GIS database were created so
efficiently
managed, and
features.
Because landslide
to
enabled correlation
that landslide data could
of landslide
distribution within Indiana
is
now
to
be more
occurrence with geologic

well defined, the affect of
standard design procedure and construction methods within areas prone to landslides
may be more
construction
closely observed
technique
and
refined within these areas.
and procedure could dramatically
Refining standard
reduce
the
number
of
landslides that affect constructed roadways, reducing the impact landslide maintenance
has upon the state budget.
Furthermore, cost savings
may be
realized from the
proposed remedial methods: the proposed landslide remedial methods are

expensive than the standard excavation and
VIII
backfill
method.
typically less
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
common
Landslides are very

Indiana.
Many
of
within the residual soils
these landslides cause
damage
to
and sedimentary rock
roadways
of
Southern
within the state
and have
a very detrimental and costly impact on the state highway system. The
ranges from
requiring
relatively
minor periodic
Stabilizing existing landslides
completely out of service.
major slides has cost as much as $2800 per
Road 56
in
needs
many
of
maintenance
Dearborn County exceeded 10
lineal foot of repair.
The
methods
persistent maintenance
roadway maintenance.
that are not
commonly
practiced
in
Indiana,
are not available. Unconventional stabilization methods
benefit applied to relatively small landslides requiring constant
landslides are
in
successful. This
into
is
method
and
may be
at
which design
have the greatest
in stability
may be
by the Indiana Department
requires excavating the failed mass,
provide further
(to
portion with riprap (see Figure
landslide treatments
describe
maintenance because these
the excavation and backfill method, which
competent material
safety factor,
will likely
for
title,
movements.
landslide remedial technique frequently applied
Transportation (INDOT)
key
and
a delicate equilibrium. Relatively modest improvements
sufficient to stop persistent
The
road
recent repair of State
"Unconventional" landslide remedial methods, as termed within the report
criteria
the
putting
smaller slides are also very costly, consuming a substantial part of the
state annual budget for
stabilization
damage
very expensive; repair of
is
million dollars.
to
level of
and Figure
2).
stability),
and
However,
in
in
most instances
of
is
sometimes constructing a
backfilling the
excavated
many cases more
liberal
applied that would arrest movement, provide a sufficient
a lower cost.
The
objectives of this study are the proposal
economically feasible landslide remedial methods and, the development of a landslide

classification
scheme, which recommends applicable remedial solutions based upon the
landslide classification.
Figure
1.
Landslide remediated using the excavation and

method on SR 64 in Crawford County.
backfill
-EXCAVATED BACKSLOPE WILL BE

DEPENDENT UPON THE FINAL
CUT BACKSLOPE CONFIGURATION
FAILURE SCARP
2- FT MINIMUM NO. 2 STONE
MATCH EXISTING STABLE BACKSLOPE

PAVED ASPHALT SIDEDHCH
W:
NO.
2 STONE
B-BORROW
ORIGINAL STABLE MATERIAL
NO.
Figure
2.
8 AGGREGATE
PROPERLY SIZED PERFORATED PIPE DRAIN ENCASED

WITH 6 IN. tMINJ OF NO. 8 AGGREGATE
Cross-section view of typical excavation and backfill treatment.

'B'-Borrow is optional and may be replaced with stone.
1 .2
Project Approach
Proposed
landslide
methods are conventional
remedial
horizontal wick drains, driven
columns, biotechnical remediation, and gravity
recommend more
classification
into
railroad
recycled plastic pins,
mass
cost-effective landslide remedial
piles,
rail
driven
drains,
horizontal
lime
retaining systems.
In
cement
order to
methods, and to develop a landslide
scheme, a landslide inventory was performed and the inventory was entered
a constructed geographic information system (GIS) database. The GIS database also
Summarizing, the
allowed correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic features.
accomplishments
of this
study are the following:
Compilation of a landslide inventory of 284 landslides within the State of Indiana,

including various attribute information of each individual landslide.
Construction of a GIS database illustrating spatial relationship of landslides with

Correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic features using the
Proposal of cost-effective landslide remedial methods.
Development
of
GIS database.
a landslide classification scheme, which recommends suitable
characteristics of the sliding
mass, which include the geologic environment and geometry

landslide inventory
and the GIS database were constructed
to
the landslide.
of
summarize
The
existing landslide
data and also to realize trends and to correlate landslides with geologic environment. The
inventory
individual
and GIS database includes 284 landslides

landslide.
format and
may be
The
landslide inventory
was constructed
is
with attribute information of
better quantified.
in
each
Excel spreadsheet
The compiled
landslide inventory and
constructed GIS database are significant accomplishments peripheral to the main focus
of the study that
Landslide
should prove a valuable tool that
locations
were entered
into
INDOT may
ArcView,
build
upon.
GIS software, along
with
other
It
is
concluded that landslide
occurrence
a function
is
of
now
is
and construction methods
Also,
because landslide
well defined, the affect of standard design
within
areas prone to landslides
procedure
may be more
closely
observed and refined within these areas.
The main focus
of
landslide remedial methods.
methods.
was upon
the study
investigating
Considerable cost savings
and proposing
is
recognized by the classification scheme, which
The
realized from the proposed
scheme was development and recommends
5.
cost-effective
landslide failure plane, whether
it
is
suitable
Eleven landslide types are
based upon four landslide
occurs entirely within
soil
or
in
attributes.
any
part along
the soil-bedrock interface.
embankment
6.
The slope
type, cut slope or
7.
The depth
of the failure surface.
8.
The distance the

embankment fills).
The
inventory and
landslide scarp
is
fill.
from the roadway shoulder (applies only to
GIS database were created so
efficiently
managed, and
features.
Because
to
be more
enabled correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic
landslide distribution within Indiana
is
now
well defined, the affect of
standard design procedure and construction methods within areas prone to landslides
may be more
construction
closely observed
technique
and
and refined
procedure
within these areas.
could
dramatically
Refining standard
reduce
the
number
of
landslides that affect constructed roadways, reducing the impact landslide maintenance
has upon the state budget.
may be
realized from the
proposed remedial methods: the proposed landslide remedial methods are

expensive than the standard excavation and
Details of the landslide inventory,
backfill
method.
GIS database, the
correlation of landslide occurrence
with geologic features, proposed remedial methods,
scheme are discussed.
typically less
and the landslide
classification
2.0
2.1
INDIANA LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
Inventory Compilation
Landslides included
roadways.
in
the inventory are only those occurring adjacent to Indiana
Landslides not included
in
the inventory are those not occurring next to
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,
and are not considered
within the
scope
of the
report.
The
landslide inventory includes
284 landslides
with attribute information pertaining to
the geologic environment and geometry of each individual landslide.

attribute information
Table
1.
and the corresponding source
Landslide attribute information
classification
and also
information
not available for
is
within the inventory.
format and
may be
The
many
Adequate
and therefore remains blank
was constructed
better quantified.
in
the inventory to aid landslide
attributes of landslides
Appendix A. A hard copy
in
are included
proposed remedial methods.
landslide inventory
is
of the information
included
to aid in selection of

in
is
Specific landslide
in
Excel spreadsheet
A copy
of this file is
of the landslide inventory is included
provided on disc
as Appendix
B.
Table
Landslide Inventory Attributes.
1.
Data Source
Landslide Attribute
Landslide location
Probable cause
Remedial method implemented or considered

Correction status
Description of vegetation
field
&
width
Approximate depth to failure surface

Average depth of overburden
Estimated area and volume
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
*estimated from length, width
Availability of field
Project files on record at the
or field survey
or field survey
or field survey
INDOT files or field survey

GISH database
Borelogs or INDOT field investigations
Borelogs or INDOT field investigations
Failure location relative to entire slope
Slope type (embankment or cut slope)

Slope severity (in degrees from horizontal)
Landslide classification (Varnes, 1978)
Underlying bedrock formation
Landslide length
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT files
INDOT
surveys conducted during the
include the following:
Inventory Report
and Tests Headquarters
Division of Materials
the inventory.
summer
Information found within
landslide field
& depth
of 1998, provided
INDOT
project files
investigation forms, formal
reports of
landslide correction, borelogs, slope inclinometer data, correspondence information
other miscellaneous information.
Landslide
sketches and geometric information

within the landslide site,
Formal reports
of
field investigation
of the landslide,
and postulated cause and
forms
in
may
include
and
field
estimated depth of overburden
failure
mechanism
of the landslide.
and other subsurface
landslide correction often contain borelogs
information as well as scaled cross-sections of the landslide.
Field surveying
conducted at landslide
data for determining slope angle.

within the landslide site
field
surveying.
sites during the
summer
Qualitative observations
and the correction status
of
1998 provided
profile
such as existing vegetation
of the landslide
were also made during
2.2 Landslide Attributes
The
and landslide
summarized
Table
2.
Of the landslides, 131 are corrected, 134 uncorrected, and the correction status
is
correction status, slope type,
unknown
backfill
for
more than
little
embankments, while 135 occur

and cut slope. Cut slope
this
highway.
half
of
within cut slopes
failures are
common
the
landslides,
is
proposed by David Varnes
along
57
I-64:
in
accordance
of
134 cut slope
within
failures
1978 (Cruden and Varnes, 1996).
in
bedrock landslides. Landslide classification
is
Summary
adopted landslide
to the widely
and 132 are
2.
occur
and 3 encompass both an embankment
landslides are classified as earth slumps,
Table
146,
Landslides were classified as either earth slumps or earth
slump on bedrock landslides, which

classification
in
19 landslides. Most landslides corrected were so using the excavation and
method.
occur along
classification are
unknown
for
classified
Fifty-two
as earth slump on
100 landslides.
of Landslide Attribute Infor mation
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
Earth slump landslides are those
sediments.
some
part,
which
failure
occurs entirely within unconsolidated
Earth slump on bedrock landslides are those
along the soil-bedrock interface.
landslide classification.
The
where the
in
Inclinometer data
landslide field investigation forms

to
in
was
which
is
rarely available to aid
often obtained from
landslide failure surface
occur along the soil-rock interface. Landslides are
failure occurs, in
assumed
to
is
INDOT
often postulated
be an earth slump
if
the depth of overburden within the site
known
is
to
be
significantly greater than the size
of the landslide.
histogram
of
slope severity calculated from profile data of landslides
Three
Figure 3.
correspond to
distinct
3:1, 2.5:1
peaks occur
and
approximately 18, 22, and 26 degrees, which
at
2:1 horizontal to vertical slopes:
landslides occur within engineered
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
to failure surface (D)
For earth slump on bedrock landslides,
overburden within the
that estimated in IN
is
These
defined as the
the ground surface to the surface of rupture (Varnes, 1978).
approximated from either borelogs or slope inclinometer data
of
100%
90%
width (W), and depth (D) quantify the landslide geometry.
maximum depth from
available.
observed that many
cut slopes.
CO
20
is illustrated in
DOT
site.
If
is
assumed
if
to
such information
is
be the average depth
borelogs are not available, the depth of overburden
landslide field investigation forms.
is
is
"
^-
PLAN
W
L
L/
SECTION
Figure
The
landslide
many
volume
is
of limited available information.
ranges from 100 to 84,000 yds
which
using Equation
D (Cruden and
Varnes, 1996).
Landslide Dimensions.
4.
estimated for 163 landslides and could not be estimated for
because
landslides
3
,
half the
is
averaging 6700 yds
volume
3
.
Estimated landslide volume
Landslide volume
of the ellipsoid defined
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
considered an alternative method
of estimating
estimated as the area of an
The
ellipse,
relating
calculated area for
and the average
is
assuming the dimensions L and
274
landslides range from approximately
Most landslide areas are less than
1560 yds
2
.
photographic log was compiled coincidentally while conducting
most
and
the absence of data necessary to estimate the landslide volume.
are axes of an ellipse.
30
is
landslides, reference
within the photo log.
is
field
surveying.
For
given to where the picture of the landslide can be found
The photo
log
regarding the respective landslides.
proved to be invaluable when assimilating data
Vegetative cover
was observed
Notice
the inventory.
during field surveys
was taken
to the
wet areas where the groundwater table

the cause
may
likely
be
presence
is
described qualitatively within
which are inherent
and
therefore,
Figure 5
is
a photograph showing
a corrected landslide.
near toe of remediated landslide

adjacent to 1-64 in Vanderburgh County.
3.
Summary
of
Probable Landslide Causes.
Number of
Suspect Cause
Landslides
Slope Too Steep
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
high or perched water exists, indicating that
action should incorporate subsurface drainage.
Figure
is
of cattails,
attributed to groundwater,
cattails in the ditch line at the toe of
and
CPID
Maintenance
64
50
40
40
37
31
25
14
12
7
The suspected cause
causes
or
often obtained from
number
of the
was designed and
Perhaps routine slope
and as a
conditions
field investigation
forms.
the inventory.
in
causes.
Table 3 provides a
One
the inventory for 227 of the 284 landslides.
in
that the slope
is
INDOT
of landslides attributed to specific
causes are included
cause
most landslides are also included
have more than one suspected cause. The suspected causes
Individual landslides often
were most
of
stability
more suspected
The most common
constructed too steep for the
calculations
did
involved.
soil
not adequately model the
was constructed
the slope
result
or
list
existing
too steep for the existing
conditions.
Fifty
landslides occur adjacent to a stream.
may have
contributed to instability but
is
it
not certain
adjacent to streams. Stream bank erosion
observed
in
Erosion of the toe material of the landslide
may occur
if
this is the
case
for
all
landslides
very gradually so that settlements
the roadway are relatively insignificant over a long period of time and require
Protecting the stream bank from erosion
patching or repair infrequently.
movements such as
this,
and
may
prevent
not be effective for landslides that occur
will likely
due
to
relatively rapid loss of soil at the toe.
The suspected cause

Water
for
40
landslides
is
at the soil-bedrock interface not only
weathering and increases the
produce seepage forces
in
total
at the soil
bedrock interface.
reduces effective stress, but also
weight of the
soil.
facilitates
Also transient flow conditions
the direction of flow.
The miscellaneous drainage category

landslides are suspected to
be due
in
visible
Table 3 includes
to poor drainage.
because the slope was saturation due

groundwater seeps are
groundwater
upon the
to
forty
landslides.
These
Poor drainage may be evident
drainage outlets surfacing upon the slope,
slope, or erosion of the landslide toe
is
evident.
Thirty-seven landslides are suspected to be due to steeply sloping bedrock underlying
the
soil
mantle. Such conditions
design of
cut/fill
may
sections of roadway.
not have
of past engineering
into consideration during the
Adequate benching and drainage
ground underlying the placed embankment
common
been taken
fill
may
not have
design and construction.
11
of the natural
been provided, which was
For 31 landslides, improperly engineered
mean
that the
was placed when
fill
upon
reduction
as the probable cause. This could
conventional practice dictated that compaction occur
dry of the optimum moisture content.

strength
is listed
fill
placed as such
Fill
which
saturation,
may
susceptible to drastic
is
occur
eventually
decades
after
construction.
Failed internal drainage structures are the suspected
cause
for
25
landslides.
This often
occurs where corrugated metal pipe (CMP) drains underneath highway embankments
become clogged
due
to
The slope then becomes saturated
with debris.
Because
clogging.
this
after
always a potential problem wherever drainage
is
structures occur, the existence of internal drainage structures within
landslides
noted
is
in
water backs up
and adjacent
to
all
the inventory.
Twelve landslides are thought
to
have occurred due
in
some
part to concrete
paved
interceptor (CPID) ditches that failed. Severe erosion often occurs parallel to the ditches
between the edge

infiltrate
into
CPID and
of the
the
soil.
may
the subsurface, which
Erosion opens channels for surface water to

eventually cause failure.
photograph showing erosion along a CPID that
Finally,
caused
for
Figure 7
it
is
near the toe
of
INDOT
an active landslide.
project files,
is
difficult
to
is
suspected that many landslides
surface throughout the
embankment
loose material after the slope
height.
inadequate compaction.
in
relatively
loose material near the
These shallow sloughs occur
becomes saturated and are shallow seated
For such failures, traditional slope

is
to
achieve along the edge of the embankment
throughout the construction process, resulting
is
it
embankments may be shallow seated due
Adequate compaction
erosion control
contributed to slope failure.
which removed needed toe support from the slope.
Although not mentioned within
failures.
may have
illustrates recent ditching
occurring within
is
thought that routine ditch maintenance
seven landslides
instability,
may have
Figure 6
stability calculations
fill
within the
translational
are not applicable, and
the primary concern. Typically shallow surface sloughing such as this
economically remediated using the excavation and
12
backfill
method.
Figure
6.
CPID
at
head scarp of landslide on SR 37

SR 54 in Lawrence County.
2.1
miles north of
Figure
7.
Fresh ditching at the toe of an active landslide

adjacent to I-64 in Vanderburgh County.
13
3.0
3.1
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
(GIS)
DATABASE
GIS Database Construction
Geographic
information
systems
(GIS)
management, storage and manipulation

GIS software, was
to
utilized
provides
ArcView and
of spatial information.
construct,
means
convenient
for
the
Arc/Info,
and manage geographically
manipulate
referenced information, and allowed easy and relatively accurate correlation of landslide
occurrence with geological features.
themes
Within ArcView, constructed layers or
may be superimposed
to
of geographically
referenced information
enable correlations and realize trends.
were superimposed upon various geologic themes

occurrence with geologic features.
The
following
order to correlate landslide
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.
GIS database are provided
in
project
file
including
all
Appendix A on computer
themes used
in
the constructed
disc.
Individual landslide locations
State, interstate
and US highways
County and state
political
in
Indiana
boundaries
Hillshaded Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) topographic representation
Physiographic provinces
Bedrock geology
Surficial soil
Depth
of
Glacial
3.2
geology
overburden
advance
limits
GIS Application and Potential
GIS applied
to
engineering
practice
management, storage and manipulation

realized.
offers
new and
of data.
This potential
The constructed GIS database should prove
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.
specific large-scale topographic
with
inclinometer,
and piezometer
a GIS database.
of
data
is
methods.
failures.
mechanism
may
of failure
because landslide
affect of standard design
may be more
specific
and other information
Ideally
landslide boundaries
movement
of
such information can
more
site-
also
illustrate
and other
may even
benefits
boring,
information.
on the
coincidentally display
with precipitation.
manipulation, and storage for

analysis
landslide
to
and
control.
enable the user to easily identify or hypothesize
and may aid
Realizing trends of landslide attributes

Also,
other
displayed by clicking on individual landslide
retrieval, correlation,
exciting
offers
Correlation of landslide attributes
the cause and
site
Within the computer environment, a
locations,
of landslide
The ease and convenience

landslides
map
location then displays the individual borelog or clicking
data for correlation
individual
data,
The cued topographic map may
a mouse.
on a borelog
map
in
rainfall
inclinometer location displays the inclinometer data and

rainfall
to
to Indiana.
be stored and displayed as
Clicking
GIS may also be used
piezometer and inclinometer data, as well as large scale
topographic
locations
extensively.
in
identifying applicable remedial
may
distribution within
in
preventing future
now
well defined, the
also aid
Indiana
is
procedure and construction methods within areas of landslides
closely observed
and
refined within these areas.
15
4.0
4.1
The
GEOLOGY AND LANDSLIDE CORRELATION
Overview of Indiana Geology
advance
glacial
limits of
the lllinoian
northern and southern half of Indiana
and Wisconsin
two
in
distinct
Glacial events dissect the
northern half of Indiana consists of vast glacial plains formed from the
Wisconsin
glacial events.
Glacial
till
unconsolidated deposit beyond the glacial advance

is
where landslides are common.
shallower, typically less than 50 feet,
The bedrock
structure
The
Indiana.
Illinois
north of Indiana.
is
lllinoian
and
deposits can be hundreds of feet thick within this
region and bedrock seldom outcrops at the surface.
Indiana, which
The
geomorphologic regions.
Residual
limits within
Here the depth
soil
is
the dominant
the southern half of

to
bedrock
is
much
and bedrock outcrops are common.
defined by three major dominant structures within or adjacent to
basin
is
to the
west
of Indiana
The basins are separated by the
and the Michigan Basin
is
to the
Cincinnati arch, which extends from
the southeast corner of the state to the northwest corner as illustrated
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
age bedrock, the youngest bedrock
in
Pennsylvanian age bedrock underlies Southwest Indiana, Mississippian age
South Central Indiana followed by Devonian, Silurian and Ordovician age

Southeast Indiana. The
aerial extent of
Figure 9.
16
bedrock within the state
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
similar geologic structure
are the
Physiographic regions are areas of
divided into eight physiographic regions.
Wabash
and geomorphic
history
and contain
Lowland, Crawford Upland, Mitchell
Plain,
similar landforms; these
Norman Upland,
Scottsburg
Lowland, Muscatatuck Regional Slope, Dearborn Upland and Tipton Plain Physiographic
Landform characteristic descriptions
Regions.
provided
in
Table 4 and Figure 10
illustrates
each
of
physiographic
region
are
the boundary of each physiographic region
within the state.
Table 4. Physiographic Regions of Indiana

(As Interpreted by H.H. Gray, Indiana Geologic Survey, April 1975.).
Physiographic
Region
Description
Broad gently
Tipton
Till
Plain
about 2/3
rolling plain.
90%
of this is subject to
is
suited to general agriculture, but
wetness. Remainder
is
steep
slopes.
and low rolling hills. 80% is suited to general

about half of this is subjected to wetness.
Remainder is steep slopes.
Hilly land with cliffs and outcrops of sandstone and limestone.
65% is steep slopes. Remainder is suited to agriculture, mostly to
Broad valley
Wabash Lowland
Crawford Upland
flats
agriculture, but
pasture.
deep rocky valleys. 50%

pasture. Remainder is steep
Rolling limestone plateau crossed by

Mitchell Plain
suited to agriculture, mostly to
is
slopes.
Norman Upland
Hilly land with rocky slopes and outcrops of siltstone. 65%

steep slopes. Remainder is suited to agriculture, mostly to
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
Calumet LOCuStrine Plain

Valparaiso Moramal Area
3 Kankakee Oufo$n and Lacustrine
Plain
4 Steuben Moroinoi lake Area

5
Moumee
Locuifnne Plain
Muscatotuck Regionol Slope
Scale
5
MAP OF INDIANA SHOWING PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS
Figure 10. Physiographic Regions
20
K)
2jxc,ooo
20
30
40 MUtt
'Z^ZESSS
of Indiana (Gray, 1975).
4.2 Correlation of Landslide
Figure 11
illustrates
Occurrence and Geology
an overview
relative to the Indiana
occurrence within the state of Indiana
of landslide
highway network.
observed that landslides occur
is
It
primary clusters- South Central Indiana and Southeastern Indiana.
36 landslides
cluster of
Of the cut slope
Southwest Indiana, 23
in
failures,
all
within
soil is
cluster
this
corresponds to 2.5:1 to 2:1 horizontal to
The two primary
and
common
within this region of Indiana.
All
range from 22
landslide clusters are within relatively
hilly
terrain
28,
and correspond
illustrates
and seems
respective of the Crawford and Dearborn Upland Regions

is
to
which
vertical slopes.
Crawford and Dearborn Upland Physiographic Regions. Figure 12
topography
a small
Relatively short
landslides
of
is
two
which are failures within cut slopes.
but 2 are classified as earth slumps.
steep cut slopes within thick residual
measured slopes
of
There
in
to the
topography
to indicate that
a function of landslide occurrence, as might be expected. However, closer
examination reveals that landslides do not occur within the
hilly
terrain east of the
Crawford Upland Region, within the Norman Upland Region.
Clearly landslide occurrence
geology
of the
is
not just a function of topography.
Considering bedrock
physiographic regions, the Crawford Upland Region
is
composed
of the
Raccoon Creek, Stephensport, West Baden, Buffalo Wallow and Blue River bedrock
groups.
These bedrock groups are composed
and or dolomite, with shale being a

is
composed
siltstone
of the
of alternating layers of shale, limestone
significant constituent.
Sanders and Borden bedrock groups. These groups contain mostly
and limestone, with shale as a minor
fraction in
bedrock composition respective
As observed
in
The Norman Upland Region
constituent.
Figure 13 illustrates this
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.
35 landslides are located
embankments.
Only 3
within this area,
of the
all
but 2 of these landslides occur within
35 landslides are thought
landslides, while the landslide classification
suggests that bedrock geology
is
is
unknown
to
for
be earth slump on bedrock

14 of these landslides. This
not responsible for these landslides just east of the
21
Crawford Upland Region.
Therefore, generally
it
is
Indiana landslides are a function of both topography
Figure 14 illustrates landslide occurrence
Upland Region respective
of
observed that within South Central
and bedrock geology.
Southeast Indiana within the Dearborn
in
bedrock geology.
Landslides within the Dearborn Upland
Region occur primarily within the Kope and Dillsboro Formations, which are composed
mostly of shale.
containing
composed
al.,
1970).
The Kope Formation
of
about 30 percent argillaceous limestone and 70 percent shale (Shaver
The Kope Formation

is
and Northern Kentucky.
Indiana
is
is
notorious for the occurrence of landslides
also responsible for
In
many
failures within
in
is
et
and
Southeast
Therefore, landslide occurrence within Southeast
also function of both bedrock geology and topography.
Kope Formation have never been known

this
predominately composed of clay shale,
about 5 percent fossiliferous limestone, and the Dillsboro Formation
around Cincinnati, Ohio and

Indiana
is
Landslides within the
to penetrate into the bedrock.
Failure within
formation usually occurs along the soil-bedrock interface (Gray, 1985).
an
effort to
determine the
relative susceptibility of
each bedrock formation
occurrence, the landslide density within the bedrock formations
was
to landslide
calculated.
The
area of each bedrock formation and group exposed as an outcrop or as the underlying
was
bedrock
From
calculated within ArcView.
this the landslide density within
bedrock component was calculated; the results are presented
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
Wallow Group, which has a landslide density
of
landslides per 100 mi
2
,
followed by the Sanders
2
.
22
15 landslides per
Group
is
about 4
and West Baden Group
at
about 3
density of landslide occurrence of the Stephensport
landslides per 100 mi
40
Landslides
1-64 Landslides
1-74 Landslides
Ohio River Landslides
80 Miles
Figure 11. Landslide Distribution Relative to Indiana Roadway Network.
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.
Landslide Density within Bedrock Formations.
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
Raccoon Creek Group
it
Bedrock
Area
14
Dillsboro Formation
Blue River Group
Patoka & Shelburn Formation
So
of
that landslides within Indiana
occur
in
two primary clusters, South Central
Indiana and Southeast Indiana, and that landslide occurrence within each of these areas
is
shown
to
be a function
of both
inventory only includes those
landslides adjacent to
Indiana roadways.
induced landslides not found adjacent to Indiana roadways

inventory
and GIS database
in
The
may be
landslide
Naturally
entered into the
order to confirm or refine the hypothesized correlation of
landslide occurrence with geologic features.
27
5.0
5.1
PROPOSED LANDSLIDE REMEDIAL METHODS
Overview
The Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and

inquire
about the respective state's
of literature regarding landslide
highway departments were contacted
Illinois
typical
treatment of landslides.
remedial methods
was
information
methods
contributing information regarding the proposed
From the review
list
containing contact
is
included as Appendix
lime
cement columns, biotechnical remediation and
retaining systems.
Two
of the eight
each method being the
The
some
methods proposed involved drainage
methods are
Also, three of the eight
exception of
F.
horizontal drains, horizontal wick drains, recycled plastic pins,
piles,
rail
individuals
and applied landslide remedial methods, proposed methods
of available
include: conventional
railroad
order to learn
highway departments, and also organizations and
the
of
In
to obtain cost estimate figures,
and other professionals were contacted. A complete
contractors
extensive review
also performed.
proposed methods and
practical application issues of the
An
to
pile
of
mass
All
methods can be applied
retaining
application of horizontal wick drains
is
mass
some
cantilever pile systems, the difference
composition.
types of gravity
gravity
type.
between
the
in-situ with
systems and biotechnical remediation.
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
has applied horizontal wick drains to a
Missouri.
He has had
recycled plastic pins
direction of Drs.
Erik
There are no published results regarding

Loehr plan to perform the
summer
5.1.2
of
first full
also
within the infant stages of research
Loehr
The
under the
at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
their research,
however,
Dr.
Bowders and
Dr.
scale slope stabilization using recycled plastic pins late
1999.
General Application Issues of Remedial Methods
Conventional engineering practice

the
embankment and
favorable results from these applications.
is still
John Bowders and
test
stability of
utilizes safety factor
design and analyses to assess
slopes and for the design of remedial measures.
28
Safety factors equal to
one
theoretically indicate
a stable condition.
failing condition,
To account
for
and safety
indicate
the uncertainty within the models and
determination of shear strength, safety factors significantly greater than

required.
one
factors greater than
.0
in
the
are generally
general, landslide remedial techniques can improve the stability of a slope
by either reducing the driving forces or increasing the
resisting forces
as
illustrated in
Table 6 and discussed below.
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
increase effective stress

physical restraint
Cantilever Piles
Biotechnical Remediation
reduce
total
physical restraint,
weight
increase effective stress
Mass Retaining
Gravity
phyiscal restraint
Systems
Of the proposed remedial methods, the drainage treatments (conventional horizontal

drains, horizontal wick drains), reduce driving forces
removal
mass.
of
water reduces the driving force by decreasing the
The water pressure
resistance
is
increased.
The
is
cantilever pile
methods
increased the resistive force to
sliding.
Gravity
the landslide toe, adding resistance to sliding.
which act similar
of vegetation
restrain the sliding
horizontally within
The
plane,
local
involved,
restrain
mass
total
weight of the
rail
shear
piles, recycled plastic
the sliding
mass and
thereby
Biotechnical remediation uses inclusions
to reinforcing inclusions of reinforced earth structures to

infiltration
and when positioned
a slope, behave as horizontal drains.
of remedial
methods depends upon the depth
geology and hydrogeology, engineering characteristics
and
in
soil
retaining structures place load near
mass. Also, the vegetation reduces
and application
selection
(railroad
The
resistive forces.
also reduced such that the effective stress
and lime cement columns), physically
pins,
and increase
availability of
capable contractors.
29
of
to the failure
the material
Also, the selection of a suitable
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
many cases where
induced
the alteration
instability
associated with pre-existing or
in
much
all
There are
of the global extent of the landslide.
were excavated or placed
soils
Imperative to the stabilization of
to stabilize
a slope only to
find that
mass.
This condition
is
larger
often
relic landslides.
order to identify and quantify the variables involved
in
the selection of a remedial
method, a geotechnical investigation must be performed.
Inclinometers are typically
In
required
there
if
is
any uncertainty
of the rupture surface is
schemes.
and
It
backfill
adequate
in
for
some
geologic environments
rule,
in
which there
an understanding
design of a permanent plan
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
landslides- 611 yds
3
,
in
of the alternative
To provide a frame
proposed remedial methods,
controlling
the
remedial methods
reference for
of
a cost analysis
Also, a cost inventory of past
was performed by Brad
same
of
the
INDOT
Steckler and Tarlochan Bansi,

is
included as Appendix D.
method
is
the remedial
method most
often applied to
Therefore, to be considered, the proposed remedial methods
must be less expensive than

excavation
effective
Method
backfill
INDOT.
an
common method used
may accomplish
that
Engineering Assessment Section, and
The excavation and

landslides by
and cost
method was performed.
landslide remediation projects
both of the
application
the sections that follow.

of
of failure is prerequisite to
the most
movement. However, there are other remedial methods

objective at a lower cost.
significant local experience.
is
cause
may be
This approach
for stabilization.
smaller landslides,
of
definition
design of stabilization
efficient
failure investigation.
Within the State of Indiana the excavation and backfill

for
Adequate
very small landslides to be repaired by the excavation
method without conducting a
However, as a general
efficient
the rupture surface geometry.
a necessary component for
uncommon
not
is
in
this
method.
For comparison, a cost analysis of the
method was performed
for
three
6240 yds 3 and 19420- yds 3 referred

,
30
to
different
size
as Case
I,
idealized
Case
II
and
Case
III,
This cost analysis was completed with information provided be
respectively.
INDOT and a summary
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 w/ B-borrow
Unit Cost ($/yd
or No. 2 backfill
Case
611 yds
i-
6 Rip Rap
5
o o
7 No.
HI 5"
8 Rip Rap
08
backfill
or No. 2 backfill w/ B-borrow
w/ B-borrow
backfill
Percentage volume of excavated rock

Total Cost
(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
only possible to estimate the
and ranges from about 100
is
II
significantly
below
this
average and Case
and No. 2 aggregate have the same
same throughout
to
landslide
84,000 yds
illustrates that
3
,
and
volume
3
Figure
approximately
50%
of
80%
are below 2000
thought to represent the average estimated landslide volume, while
is
For each case, there are four different types of

No.
was
The average estimated
the inventory.
3
It
estimated landslide volumes are below about 9000 yds
Case
is
in
the inventory.
in
a histogram of estimated landslide volumes and
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
the cost analysis. 'B-borrow'
reduce the volume
III
is
fill
significantly
above
combinations that
this
average.
may be
used.
and therefore are considered the
used with aggregate

required.
backfill in
'B-borrow'
is
order to
simply
soil
excavated near or within the landslide and compacted
31
within the
fill
area.
Additionally, for
each type
Therefore, for each case there are eight
entirely within soil, or partially within bedrock.
based upon the type
different scenarios
excavation either occurs
of backfill used,
and also the type
of backfill used,
encountered. Table 7 summarizes each scenario and
lists
of
excavation
the corresponding unit cost of
each.
Estimated Landslide Volume Distribution
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...
Landslide Volume (yds
Figure 15. Histogram
Figure
'
of
1.
3
)
Estimated Landslide Volume.
6 summarizes the unit cost of each scenario relative to the landslide
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
does not increase the cost

unit cost for
of repair for larger landslides. This is
to
two reasons; the
excavating rock decreases with increasing volume of excavated rock, and
the percentage of
excavated volume.
excavation
required within
Many slope
interface, not within the rock

to
due
failures
rock
decrease with increasing
total
are believed to occur at the soil-bedrock
mass. As such,
ideally
bedrock excavation
remove only the weathered, degraded veneer on the top
32
of the
will
be required
bedrock surface.
Therefore, the percentage of required excavation within bedrock
volume
of soil
and rock excavated
landslides within the
same
compared
to the total
decrease with increasing landslide volume among
will
geological conditions
and
profile.
Total Unit Cost of Repair Using Excavation
and
53
Backfill
Method
vs. Landslide Size
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
B-borroww/ Rip Rap
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
B-borroww/ Rip Rap
backfilll-rock
&
soil
excavation
"^*^^a
90
10000
5000
15000
Landslide Size (yd
Figure 16. Unit Cost
As observed
in
of
20000
25000
3
)
Repair Using Excavation
Backfill
Figure 16, cost savings using 'B borrow' material
excavated volume exceeds approximately 6,000 yd

material
Method
3
.
This
vs. Landslide
is
not realized until the
may be because
must be compacted much more thoroughly compared
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
exceeds approximately 6,000
cost inventory of
INDOT
landslide
Steckler and Tarlochan Bansi of the
The
included as Appendix D.
remediation projects
INDOT
Engineering Assessment Section, and
cost inventory includes cost records for 31
remediation projects from 1972 to the present.
account
projects that used the
of five
is
landslide
Because costs are not adjusted
to
years were considered.
The
excavation and backfill method
was
for inflation, only project cost within the last ten
average costs
was performed by Brad
approximately $1 ,130 per foot of correction, and ranged from $517 to $2,442 per foot of
correction.
The estimated average from the
cost analysis
Table 8 summarizes the range and average cost per foot

backfill
is
$900 per
foot of correction.
of repair of the excavation
and
method as determined by the performed cost analysis and the INDOT cost
inventory.
Table 8 Excavation and

.
Backfill
Cost Summary.
INDOT Cost
Summary
Cost Analysis
(Cost Per Foot of Correction)
Case
$ 320 (max)
II
$998 (min) $1 ,239 (max)
III
$1 ,486 (min) $1 ,653 (max)
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
generally agreed that groundwater
of landslides (Holtz
slope
only
is
the single most important cause of the majority
and Schuster, 1996). Thus,
it
would seem that draining water from a
the single most effective remedial technique that
is
adds weight
weathering
to
and
of rock
the
soil,
soil,
softening
can always improve the

utilized to
stability of
is
the soil/bedrock interface
is
in
Indiana.
Water not
applied.
reduces effective stress and accelerates
also
and weakening rock and
a landslide, drainage
may
Although drainage
soil.
be most
likely
effectively
After significant strain has occurred, soil and/or the soil-
prevent landslides.
bedrock interface strength
landslides
but
may be
Groundwater near
often reduced to the residual strength.
considered the major cause of earth slump on bedrock
Because
of this,
drainage treatments are considered within the
proposed remedial methods.
may be used as
Drainage
the sole remedial technique, however
drainage systems directly control or reduce groundwater
levels.
External drainage systems act indirectly to reduce groundwater levels,
reducing
infiltration
or channeling overland flow from the slope.
stabilized using drainage almost

Internal
drainage
horizontal
sizes
always
facilitates
landslide successfully
more than one method
of drainage.
and
infiltration.
facilitates
drainage by
means
vertical wells or trench drains.
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
drainage systems must be used to control groundwater and external drainage
must be applied to reduce
Internal
in
Drainage systems can operate either
applied to drain water from within a slope.

Internal
most often used
There are many techniques that can be
conjunction with other remedial methods.
internally or externally.
is
it
Horizontal drainage systems utilize gravity flow
and
Drainage systems requiring pumping incur additional
costs and required maintenance to mechanical equipment.
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
Vertical wells are
uneconomical.
wells
in
points
design to assure long term operation.
used where the depth
groundwater
to
Vertical wells are positioned within
may
large enough,
and maintenance requirements, but they do require proper
allow horizontal
drilling within
is
such that trench drains prove
and around landslide areas, and
if
the well to connect adjacent vertical
a manner that allows gravity drainage of each vertical well to single or multiple
where water
and overlap
is
at belled
along roadways
in
pumped and removed.
may
also be closely spaced
This method has been used to stabilize large landslides
bases.
Where
vertical
depths to groundwater, drainage tunnels
may be
and Kentucky
California
wells prove uneconomical
Vertical wells
due
to large
used (Holtz and Schuster, 1996).
(Holtz
and Schuster,
996).
Large diameter drainage wells and tunnels are
expensive and are typically applied only to very large landslides requiring drainage
of
an
extensive area.
External drainage systems act indirectly to reduce groundwater levels by reducing

infiltration,
and are especially
effective in reducing short-term infiltration during periods of
External drainage systems include interceptor
intense and/or consistent precipitation.
and diversion
ditch
ditches,
and vegetation. INDOT
(CPID) near the crest
of cut
often installs a concrete
infiltration
paths within the
and thereby reduce
stability.
interceptor
slopes to divert overland flow from the slope crest.
Erosion parallel to CPID's between the drainage structure and
open
paved
soil
mass
Figure 6
is
soil
often occurs and
may
acting counter to the intention of the design
a photograph showing erosion along a CPID
that likely contributed to instability.
Erosion can also occur near the toe of a landslide due to natural or
features.
Whether a perennial stream,
intermittent stream, or
man made
drainage
drainage
ditch, during
periods of intense or continuous precipitation, water flowing at the toe of a landslide
erode
soil,
which
may
lead to
instability.
Figure 17
is
may
a photograph showing erosion at
the toe of a landslide due to a small ditch running parallel to the base of the slope.
Vegetation
is
also used
in
remedial practice to control
erosion or remediate shallow surface sloughing,
Vegetation reduces
soil
it
is
infiltration.
When
used
to prevent
termed biotechnical remediation.
moisture through evapotranspiration, impedes runoff, and also
36
reinforces soil with the roots of the plant.

in
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
Within Indiana, groundwater flowing along the soil-bedrock interface
major contributing cause
of instability
among
earth slump
on bedrock
at the bedrock-soil interface accelerates weathering of rock,
effective stress.
Draining water from this area
is
soil-bedrock
interface.
depends on several
of pipe
the
casing used,
site,
However,
long-term
factors such as frequency
pH and
and measures taken
considered the
landslides.
soil,
Water
and reduces
the single most effective measure that
can be undertaken and horizontal drainage can be very

the
weakens
is
and
effective in draining water
performance
quality of
of
horizontal
from
drains
maintenance program, type
mineral content of groundwater, lithologic characteristics of

to protect drain outlets (Smith, 1980).
37
due
Horizontal drains are susceptible to clogging
chemicals from
to precipitation of
groundwater, vegetation growth near drain outlets, build up of biological phlegm, and
may
also
clog
due
clogged drains. Experience
to clear
be cleaned once every 5
need
to
often
uses
solid sections of pipe
to prevent clogging.
in
very fine-grained
Because
may be
Routine maintenance
Schulze, 1989).
and
to 'silting' or migration of fines into the drain pipe
or
in
The
to 8 years.
community
Highways (CDH)
discourage plant growth
of pipe to
areas
heavy
of
root growth (Holtz
horizontal drains are susceptible to clogging,
professional
not hindered
most horizontal drains
California Division of
6 feet
final
is
must be cleaned more frequently when they are placed
Also, drains
soil
California dictates that
in
near the
required to insure flow
(Brauns and
upon
skepticism exists within the
effectiveness
long-term
the
and Schuster, 1996).
of
drains.
horizontal
Regardless, horizontal drainage can be an effective stabilization measure and also the
most cost-effective remedial measure
5.3.2.1
that
1939 and incorporated
polyvinyl chloride
dictates a
first
applied to stabilize landslides
steel pipe (Smith, 1980).
use as horizontal drains due
CDH
taken.
Conventional Horizontal Drainage
Conventional horizontal drains were
for
may be
(PVC) pipe,
maximum
is
design
Steel pipe
now
is
California
typically
life
of
life
used
Today,
of steel
Experience
for horizontal drains.
about 40 years
in
widely discouraged
to the materials' susceptibility to corrosion.
are expected to exceed the design
PVC
for steel pipe.
of the
cased drains
cased drains (Smith, 1980).
Most mechanical landslide treatments incorporate drainage
some aspect
in
reduce excess pore pressures from behind the retaining structure.

is
in
also applied as the sole landslide treatment.
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
above one, while
of
installed
drainage has time to take
gabion buttresses, earth and riprap
The Kentucky
fills,
and also
effect.
steel or
Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) and the Tennessee
Transportation (TDOT) often use conventional horizontal drainage to
stabilized landslides.
Jensen
Drilling,
a specialty contractor,
38
is
often
employed by KYTC
TDOT
and
to
and
drill
install horizontal
horizontal drain installation
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.
installed through the
rods are withdrawn, leaving the
drill
slot width is 1/10,000".
pipe crown 120 apart.
design depth using conventional rotary
schedule 80
then removed, and the
Standard pipe
place.
standard procedure for
as follows.
is
at the desired inclination to the
completion of the
Drilling's
positioned perpendicular to the face of the slope.
drill is
techniques.
drilling
Jensen
drains.
PVC
of slots are positioned
foot per row, totaling
88
drill
in
on the
slots per foot
of pipe.
may be
Conventional horizontal drains

Installing horizontal drains in
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
drains with a 5 to 10 degree slope
involved.
TDOT
still
may
has many 15
in
vary from 15 to
to
20 year old
is
mass, however some are
approximately $9 to $1
still
functioning.
dollars per foot.
Per
increase to $10 to $15 per foot due to site accessibility
escalate to $15 to $20 per foot
because no nearby water source
5.3.2. 1
order to reduce the number of
slope minimizing the time needed to complete drain
of the slide
cost
in
a fan pattern.
Drains older than 25 years are typically clogged or are
installed drain
TDOT,
done
on center. Horizontal drain spacing
feet
functioning horizontal drains.
The
is
installs horizontal
depending upon the
broken due to movement
installed in parallel fashion or in
if
water has to be imported
for drilling
exists.
Horizontal Drainage using Wick Drains
Wick drains are
flat,
geotextile-coated plastic channels that are
vertically to accelerate settlement.
became more popular

channels
concept
still
the 1970's
in
originally used.
They were
The
originally
when durable
developed
plastic
and development stages under
University of Missouri-Rolla.
39
in
installed
the 1930's and
replaced the cardboard
application of horizontal wick drains
within the research
commonly
is
relatively
new
Dr. Paul Santi at the
The
installation
technique
is
as follows: a jackhammer, hydraulic shovel, bulldozer or
trackhoe works from a prepared platform cut

pipe into the slope.
The annulus
the slope to push small diameter steel
in
of the steel pipe
is
preloaded with wick drain, which
attached to a disposable drive cone at the advanced end of the pipe.
photograph showing the disposable drive cone and wick drain.

pipe
is
pushed
or driven to target depth, the steel casing
is
Figure
is
is
After the loaded steel
removed, abandoning the
disposable drive cone and leaving the wick drain.
Figure 18. Disposable drive cone and wick drain (Santi, 1999).
Horizontal
have been successfully controlled water levels
wick drains
embankment
in
Missouri.
Figure 19
is
a photograph
the installed horizontal wick drains.
piezometers and 16
and
results
short-term
show
the drains were
from the
in
drains were installed
controlling long-term
in
with
a fan
in
in
the wick drains are effective
levels in natural slopes
and
fill
embankments.
the embankment.
in
It
where
was concluded
controlling long-term
groundwater
Also, to successfully control short-term
shallow drains should have a closer spacing than deeper drains.
40
patter,
tight pattern.
less effective controlling short-term infiltration higher on the slope
more widely spaced and deeper
six
groundwater levels and
near the face of the slope where the drains are
field test that
infiltration,
The wick
test
embankment showing
The embankment was instrumented
moisture meters.
the drains are effective
infiltration
The drains are
soil
of the test
of
Wick drains have also been
installed
an instrumented landslide near Booneville,
in
Cost
Missouri, however, results are yet to be published.
on the Boonville landslide are $3-$5 per

experience of wick drain
decrease as the
installation
Preliminary results from

control
installation.
The cost
field application of
Though the degree
depends
upon the
any natural
landslide
in
during the
or
fill
embankment
of
of
wick drains show that they
1999.
in
in
it
is
is
expected
in
in
may be
to
controlling
soil
type.
applied to
slopes and
natural
fill
groundwater levels
believed that wick drains
slope of any
Attempts to
may be
stabilize
applied
another
Colorado using horizontal wick drains are scheduled
Wick drains have yet
bedrock landslides, however wick drains

landslide
infiltration
effectiveness
soil drainability,
Missouri and also
summer
wick drain installation
of
crew gains experience.
embankments.
to
wick drain installation based
using equipment operators without prior
foot,
long-term water levels and short-term
largely
of
will
Colorado during the summer of
be applied
be applied to earth slump on

to
an earth slump on bedrock
999.
_.\*
Figure 19. Test embankment with
to
-i&*"~c is
II
^l-Is^
six horizontal wick drains (Santi, 1999).
41
5.4 Cantilever Piles
Predrilled or driven steel

predrilled railroad rails,
movement. Driven
stabilizing
stabilizing
piles,
cast
and timber
piles either
piles
may be
deep-seated
piles,
precast concrete
in
have been successful
in
(Morgenstern,
landslides
for
pile walls
Unanchored
1982).
anchorage system such as a
between adjacent
tied
or
pile
pier
depth to failures greater than 18' due to design
Restraint of deep-seated landslides are best obtained using
Soil arching
piles,
installed within the slope to retard soil
shallow landslides and anchored or bored
limitations.
may be
place concrete
placed contiguously or closely spaced can be effective
systems are seldom recommended
active
in
back
some
type of
wall.
piles prevents soil
movement between
piles.
Lagging
incorporated between installed piles to increase the confining effect of the
system. Load
is
moving wedge
transferred from the length of pile within the
embedded
length of the pile
in
competent material
general approximation, the length of
pile
of soil to
facilitating cantilever action.
embedded
within
competent
soil
the
As a
or rock
is
typically greater than 1/3 the total length of pile.
Based on
experience within the Ohio River
local
8" to 30" inch reinforced concrete piers
constructed with
where the depth
of failure is less
designs using
drilled pier walls
material below the failure plane.
walls are
valley, drilled pier walls
spaced 5
than 20 feet (Nethero, 1982).
to
are typically
7 feet on center
Nethero also states that
are usually limited by the strength of the competent
The costs associated
comparable to the costs
of other reinforced
with construction of drilled pier
concrete structures (Nethero,
1982).
Traditionally, the application of pile
been reserved
However,
the
and
for high risk situations,
cantilever
pile
pier structures for landslide stabilization
were high costs are
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
and Lime Cement Columns
and lime cement columns both
each method delivers lime
upon lime
rely
to stabilize the soil,
however,
Lime
piles are
subsurface by different methods.
into the
bored holes backfilled and compacted with quicklime.
cement columns, which are columns
of
mixed
soil,
lime
They are
and cement
different
from lime
that require in-situ
mixing techniques.
Lime has often been used
Cation exchange and stabilization within
to stabilize soft soil.
Cation
the clay facilitated by the addition of lime are the basis of the treatment.
exchange begins
changing
it's
after the addition of lime
plastic
a more
characteristic to
and
Stabilization occurs over time
is
and causes clay

friable
caused by the
one,
particles to flocculate,
increasing the strength.
crystallization of calcium silicate
hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate gels that form following dissolution of clay
minerals
Lime
in
piles
increase
in
a high
PH
environment (Rogers and Glendinning, 1997(a)).
have been used
to stabilized shallow slope failures
has a
effective cohesion
Lime
seated failures.
relatively large influence
piles are typically installed
in
Glendinning,
1997(b)
stabilization using lime
recommended
outlines
cement columns. The authors
on the
in
part
because an
stability of
shallow
a grid patter at a density and
diameter sufficient to raise the factor of safety to the desired
and
due
level.
design
A paper by Roger
guidelines
for
slope
state that lime piles stabilize by
the following distinct mechanisms.
Generation of negative pore-water pressure caused by quicklime
drawing
in
water from the surrounding
Increased strength
in
the piles
soil;
of the clay in the
shear zone from overconsolidation of the
shear plane or zone due to the increase
in
effective stress
as a consequence
of
the negative pore-water pressure;
Increase
in
pile strength
due
to progressive hydration
and
crystallization of the
lime;
Increased strength of the clay
in
a small annular zone surrounding the
piles
migration of calcium and hydroxyl ions and a subsequent lime-clay reaction.
43
due
to
Standard design procedures addressing the specifics

slope
stability
are available
in
for the application of lime piles for
and are not covered here.
literature
Rogers and
Glendinning, 1997(b) describe design parameters and other considerations for lime
stabilization.
design procedure
brief outline of
for the application of lime piles
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.
desired factor of safety

Piles should
met.
is
selected and the treatment
be designed
to
pass through
all
is
slip
possessing a marginal factor a safety.
Are lime
Lime
a suitable treatment?
piles
Lime
shallow landslides.
piles are
piles are less effective
most
when
effective in stabilizing
deep seated
applied to
failures.
4.
5.
Pile intensity,
which
the spacing, number, and position of the rows of
is
decided. Often, the pile diameter
is
Compare
of safety
worst-case factor
initial
piles,
is
dictated by available equipment.
and the improved
factor of safety to
see
the degree of improvement.

6.
Define specific design parameters.
Lime cement columns can
stabilize soft clay or loose
sand mixing lime and cement with
indigenous material by a dry, air-driven process, that was developed

during the past 25 years
columns are
United States.
foundation
lime
in
Although
in
this
is
for
120
psi,
upon several
Scandinavian countries.
million linear
Stabilator
construction,
embankments and other
and
in
meters
USA,
is
Inc. is
new
of
to the
the United States
structures,
no
specific
to remediate landslides.
mixed with unslaked lime(quicklime) and cement
depending on the depth
this is usually 0.8
About 6
the literature concerning the application to landslides. However,
suitable for the particular application

to
Japan.
process has recently been practiced
cement columns may be applied
Indigenous material
in
cement column design and
improvement
soil
examples were found

lime
recently
installed annually in the
specialty contractor
for
and more
Scandinavia
in
meters
in
and
proportions
injected under air pressure varying from
of the
diameter.
in
column.
The
variables.
44
The mixing
tool
used
strength of the resulting
to
30
psi
accomplish
column depends
Type
Granular indigenous material
of indigenous soil.
greater strength than organic
will
produce a column
soils.
The water/cement
The
strength provided by the hydration and hardening of the injected cement.
The
strength provided by the pozzolanic-like reaction between the lime,
and
used.
cement
clay.
The strengthening
ratio
of
as water becomes
effects of water content reduction of the soil
bound by the lime and cement.
The
effects of ion
exchange reactions
Lime cement column application
is
most appropriate when modest strength and modest
cost are desired and where sufficient water
cement.
limitations of installation
Mac Kenna,
is
5.4.2
in
the ground to hydrate lime and
installed to
equipment used by Stabilator USA,
a depth
The
Inc.
82 feet due to
of
unit cost of lime
published as $45 per cubic meter to $65 per cubic meter (Esrig and
The general
1999).
USA,
cost figure considered by Stabilator
Inc. is
about
Recycled Plastic Pins
The use
is still
Erik
of driven
4 inch by 4 inch recycled
Loehr at the University
and work
technique that
materials
will
likely
Missouri-Columbia.
under way
account
compared
RPP's most
is
of
to
John Bowders and
application
similar to
is
for the strength, ductility
and creep differences
of plastic
to concrete or steel.
cannot be driven
sufficient distance
soil.
The
of Drs.
modify conventional design and construction
to
an adequate depth within bedrock
on bedrock landslides, but are best suited
competent
plastic pins (RPP's) for landslide stabilization
under the direction
within the infant stages of research
micropiles
in
present
per foot of lime cement column.
$1
is
cement columns can only be
Also, lime
cement columns
of the clay minerals.
above bedrock
Dr.
for
Dr.
adequate embedment
Loehr plan
stabilization using recycled plastic pins late
45
slump
minor earth slump landslides that occur at
to provide
Bowders and
for earth
of the plastic pins
to perform the first
summer
of 1999.
If
full
scale slope
successful, recycled
may
plastic pins
provide an attractive economic solution for the stabilization of minor
earth slumps.
5.4.3 Railroad Rail Piles
Railroad
are installed
rails
a row or rows
in
with aggregate or grout after
landslides occurring
side
in
placement
scarp surfaces within the roadway.
of the
Railroad
the shoulder to allow easy access for truck
soil
mass down
pile wall
to prevent erosion of the retained soil
are
piles
rail
of the soil
resulted
in
bedrock when
continued
An Excel spreadsheet program

A.
stabilizing
movement
of the soil
KYTC
is
included
in
Appendix
are typically
movement
of
to protect the
rail
often incorporated as lagging
E.
used
by
the
Kentucky
drive railroad rails to refusal,
rails
did not acquire
adequate
earth slump on bedrock landslides, which
mass.
by the
written
Also, "Guidelines for Railroad Rails
publication,
is
KYTC would
however, experience showed that often driven railroad

in
rails
mass down slope from
treatment
landslide
the past,
In
landslide
mass.
common
Transportation Cabinet (KYTC).
embedment
Because
drill rigs.
mass. Used guardrail
soil
to remediate
where the
Care must be taken
rails.
movement
erosion after
exposes the retained
Railroad
hilly terrain,
used
are installed parallel to the road near
mounted
slope of the installed
mass from
retained soil
rails
typically
shoulder of the roadway, they do nothing to prohibit
installed next to the
the
and are
rail,
sections within
cut/fill
hill
of predrilled vertical holes that are backfilled
KYTC
is
provided on the disc
Used as Retaining
Empirically
Structures",
in
Appendix
KYTC
internal
based design charts included
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,
and the number
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
should only be used where the depth of failure plane
Therefore, this method
failure surface less
is
only applicable to landslides with a depth to
than 23 feet where the railroad
mentioned previously,
is
rails
are to be installed.
railroad rails are only applicable to road
46
Also, as
embankments where
the
distance of the surfacing scarp
surface where
failure
Railroad
provided
to
$8
to
To reduce
rails.
$10 per
Department
foot.
KYTC
occur.
will
often furnish
has had success with
(TDOT)
is
rails,
this
lowering installation costs
method and the Tennessee
currently collaborating with
KYTC
regarding the
piles.
mass
retaining
systems
The systems considered
toe.
less than the depth of
is
Mass Retaining Systems
5.5 Gravity
Gravity
KYTC
rail
to the shoulder
costs are $12 to $14 per foot installed for contractor
costs,
of Transportation
application of railroad
roadway
the
embedment will
installation
pile
rail
pile
in
stabilize landslides
way
is
of loading the landslide
include gravity retaining walls, mechanically stabilized
earth walls, and tieback walls.

limited right of
by means
Gravity
available to grade
mass
systems are
retaining
embankment
fills
utilized
and cut slopes
whenever
to the required
slope geometry to maintain a sufficient safety factor.
Gravity retaining walls can be constructed of gabion baskets, rock or riprap, reinforced
concrete, or masonry.
friction
the
angle of
fill.
fill,
Conventional gravity retaining wall design
which requires designs to compensate substantial
wall height of
10 meters
to
the upper
is
Because
walls (Morgenstern, 1982).

limited
utilizes
limit of
the residual
lateral force
from
conventional gravity retaining
of this, conventional gravity retaining walls are
smaller slides and are seldom effective
in
controlling
larger
landslides
(Schuster and Fleming, 1982; Morgenstern, 1982).
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls

construction
in
the
Earth," generically called
in
walls.
frictional
MSE
of
soil
application to highway
reinforcement
was
first
France and patented throughout the world as "Reinforced
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE).
application of reinforced soil

of high-density
became a popular
The modern concept
1970's.
developed by Henri Vidal
first
is
Geogrid, a geosynthetic grid composed
retaining walls.
polyurethane (HDPE),
is
the most
walls require granular backfill
in
force between the reinforcement and
variety of wall facing elements.
commonly used reinforcement
in
MSE
order to develop adequate interface

backfill.
The most popular
47
The most popular
Geogrid can be used with a
wall facing
element used
is
any
variety of precast concrete paneling.
Gabion baskets, which are rock
filled
steel cages,
are also used as wall facing.
MSE
walls are
more
develop the
necessary
to resist
frictional
movement.
fact require
in
force between the reinforcing inclusions and soil

Also,
MSE
may be
walls
greater than conventional gravity retaining walls.
upon the
systems such as
retaining
rigid wall
They can endure much more deformation and
concrete gravity walls.

strain to
than conventional
flexible
wall facing used, but vary from
$15
$35
to
Cost
constructed to heights
MSE
of
much
walls vary depending
square foot
of wall facing.
pile or pier walls that
are anchored
dollars per
Tieback walls are steel H-pile or reinforced concrete
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
within the underlying
competent
soil
fill
or rock mass. Wall facing
between
is
piles
concrete or precast concrete panels, shotcrete, stone or other construction
material.
Tiebacks are
down slope
installed in
side of the pile wall,
within undisturbed material
by
rows
on the
holes as
and extend beyond and
failure
level.
excavated from the
soil is
failed
After the grout
injecting grout.
tensioned to a predetermined stress

effective stress acting
of predrilled
mass, and are anchored

has
dried, the tieback
is
Tensioned tiebacks increase the normal

Tieback walls
plane of landslide.
expensive than other methods, but are often the only method that
may be more
may be used
to
effectively stabilize large landslides.
5.6 Biotechnical
Remediation
Biotechnical remediation, also called bioengineering,

stabilization,
structures
stream bank
and revetments
stabilization
to
improve
and
stability
is
is
most
the use of
often
and also
to
in
the ground to resist
surficial
plants
incorporated
in
in
slope
retaining
enhance appearance.
plants are imported to the job site, or are collected from the vicinity
arranged and embedded
live
Live
and are purposely
erosion and to prevent shallow
mass movement.
This method
is
not new, the use of plants for erosion control
ago, the application of biotechnical remediation
48
was
is
centuries old.
non-existent
in
A decade
the United States,
however, the application
commonplace. Biotechnical remediation

to
remediation
biotechnical
of
is
United States
the
in
driven by regulators
because
minimize environmental impact, and because of the aesthetic appeal,
Most
by community.
importantly,
solution for erosion control
Vegetation
acts
in
and
off
by intercepting
variety
embedded
in
rainfall.
remediation
is
now
considered
encouraged
a viable engineering
is
to prevent shallow sloughing.
reinforcement, and by reducing

run
biotechnical
is
it
is
of
ways
infiltration
improve
to
slope
root
through evapotranspiration, and also impeding
Immediate reinforcement
is
gained from woody stems
the ground that act as tensile inclusions. Stability
rooting occurs from the vegetation.
through
stability-
Embedded brush
layers
increased with time as
is
may
also act as horizontal
drains or wick drains to alleviate excess pore pressures from the slope or structure.
adds aesthetic appeal
Additionally, vegetation
Biotechnical remediation incorporates
degree angle
at the
base and driven
top of the stake, which
placed
in
horizontal
lifts
is
as
live plant
MSE
structures
is
remediated areas.
stakes, which are plant stems cut at a 45
Vegetation
into the slope.
Rows
cut flush before placement.

fill
construction progresses.
place of secondary reinforcing strips within

within
to
MSE
will
of
then grow from the
brush layers can be
Often, brush layers are used
structures.
in
Secondary reinforcement
included to help resist shallow sliding. Just as geogrid provides
reinforcement, brush layers develop frictional resistance with the
soil
and
resist shear,
however, the vegetation also acts as horizontal drains to alleviate excess pore pressures
and provide drainage.
This method
is
particularly well
compaction along the edge
of
suited to arrest shallow slumping
constructed embankments. Often sufficient compaction
embankment
not achieved near the edge of the

results
in
poorly
embankment.
with vegetation (Gray
banks
to
and
sliding
may
Sotir, 1995).
is
during the building process, which
compacted zone along the
Deep-seated
caused by poor
entire
face
of
the
require geogrid reinforcement
This method
is
in
constructed
combination
also often used along stream
prevent toe erosion and to quickly re-establish vegetation destroyed or
damaged from
construction.
Riprap
is
often placed below biotechnically remediated
areas at the stream bank toe where the stream bank occurs at an outside bend, where
erosion occurs.
49
As
previously mentioned,
biotechnical
traditional
retaining structures, but
landslides
and erosion
Fuller
few
per row.
most often incorporated
Per Mr. Athanasakes,
live
five
Live brush layers are estimated to cost
landslide correction.
50
surficial
of
years of experience using
plant stakes cost
Typical bioengineering treatments cost from
into
George Athanasakes
feet of soil.
Mossbarger Scott and May Engineers has
dollars per stake.
is
can also be applied solely to remediate
affecting only the top
biotechnical remediation.
$5
remediation
$250
$15
to
to
$2
$20
to
as
much as
dollars per feet
$400 per
lineal foot of
COST SUMMARY
6.0
summary
cost
methods
is
included as Table
drainage and cantilever

gravity
mass
precisely
including
table
pile
9.
of
of
all
Cost estimates are provided
methods, and
retaining systems.
compare costs
approximate costs
in
Because
dollars per
mass systems
51
square foot
pile
remedial
dollars per linear foot for

of wall facing for
of the different cost units,
drainage and cantilever
systems. However, generally gravity
in
recommended
methods
to
are more expensive.
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
LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
methods are dependent upon
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
of the landslide attributes required to
methods are quantified
the applicability of the proposed

inventory spreadsheet,
Many
type,
conditions.
remedial methods and landslide attributes dictate the
remedial method for each landslide.
(permeability),
conditions
geologic
site
assess
landslides within the
such as
soil drainability of
soil
drainability
each landslide was
not possible from available information.
The
classification
scheme
is
represented by the flowchart illustrated
in
Figure 20.
Eleven landslide types are defined from the following four landslide attributes included
in
the landslide inventory.
Varnes landslide
classification (earth
slump or earth slump on bedrock).
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.
Slope type (embankment or cut slope).
4.
Distance landslide scarp surfaces
in
(applicable only for landslides occurring
roadway from the roadway shoulder

embankments).
the
in
Figure 21 illustrates the aerial distribution of the landslide types.

landslide types (Type
3,
4 and
8) are
The most common
represented as various colored triangles and
other landslide types are represented as various colored dots.
Table 10
number
which
is
is
a summary
of the respective attributes of
of landslides categorized in
each landslide type. Seventy landslides are Type
an earth slump on bedrock landslide occurring within a cut slope with a depth
overburden less than 20
feet.
Most
of
8,
of
which are earth slump slides occurring
an embankment or cut slope having a depth
eighty feet.
these landslides occur within I-64 cut slopes (see
Figure 21). Twenty-eight landslides are Type

within
each landslide type and the
Twenty-six landslides are Type
53
1,
to failure surface
between 20 and
which are earth slump on bedrock
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
landslides occurring within
The remaining
Type
7.
unknown
No
for
classification
among, Type
classified landslides are distributed
landslides are classified as
115 landslides due

for
each landslide
20
feet.
1b, 2, 4, 5, 5b,
and
with a depth of overburden less than
Type 6
Type
or
9.
The
landslide type
to lack of information essential for classification.

in
the inventory,
information for which the classification
is
based,
including
is
provided
is
The
the respective attribute

in
summary
table
in
Appendix C.
Table
Summary.
Shoulder to
Depth of
Scarp
10. Landslide Classification
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
earth slump on bedrock
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
not yet applicable, scarp
70
20
is
below road shoulder
not applicable
"one or more attributes essential for classification
55
is
not
known
284
Landslides- classification types
Type
Type 1b
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 5b
Type 7
Type 8
unknown
Figure 21. Aerial Distribution
56
of Landslide
Type.
Table 11
summarizes,
methods.
As observed,
in
landslide
type,
in
methods are considered applicable
highly plastic clays they
have not been
horizontal drainage treatments are suitable for
proven otherwise. Also, biotechnical remediation
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
are limited by the type of landslide, the distance the

is
from the shoulder, and the depth to
fills
in
conventional
areas accessible to
drilling
drill
of soil retained is limited to the

of the
roadway.
in
The
limiting
the roadway
failure
techniques, they are

typically
rigs,
near the
area between the railroad

distance of the roadway
was assumed
to
be about 20
piles applied to larger slides that affect both driving lanes are usually
Finally,
although railroad
usually incorporated with traditional
retaining
installation requires
and the center lane
Railroad
the inventory unless
retaining
shoulder to the landslide scarp surfacing

feet.
Therefore, proposed
retaining systems.
the roadway
roadway shoulder. The mass

rail
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
landslide scarp surfacing
installed within
in
landslides.
all
Appropriate Remedial Methods
application of railroad
plane.
is
landslides
listed
poorly drained
in
beneficial.
Remedial Methods Respective
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
considered a suitable treatment for landslides
with the application of gravity
Table
proposed remedial
applicable
has successfully applied conventional horizontal drainage
however,
The
all
and biotechnical remediation are not
horizontal drainage
Horizontal drainage
Table 11.
TDOT
each
for
as dictated by design, the depth to
rail
piles
23
failure
plane
is
have been successfully applied by
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
plane depth used
methods was assumed
at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
plastic pins
feet.
is still
John Bowders and
Erik
For the purpose of including recycled
as an applicable remedial method within the landslide classification scheme,
the limiting depth to failure plane

piles.
be 20
the landslide
driven recycled plastic pins for landslide stabilization
within the infant stages of research under the direction of Drs.
Loehr
to
in
was assumed
to
be 20
feet,
the
same as
Also, driven recycled plastic pins are best suited for minor earth
that occur at a sufficient distance

plastic pins in
competent
Lime cement column
above bedrock
installation
cannot penetrate
Also,
cement columns can only be
depth was rounded
to
rail
slump landslides
adequate embedment
of the
soil.
applicable to earth slump landslides.

dictate that lime
to provide
railroad
80 feet
thought to have a depth to
in
into
equipment
installed to
rock,
therefore
limitations
a depth
of
failure surface greater
58
than 80 feet.
is
only
used by Stabilator
82
the landslide classification scheme.
it
feet.
No
This
limiting
landslides are
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.0
amount
substantial
repair
annual Indiana State road maintenance budget
of the
roadways damaged by
The
landslides.
typically repairs landslide using the excavation
proves successful, but
cases more
typically costs
liberal landslide
and
backfill
may be
methods are proposed, and a landslide

suitable remedial solutions
is
most cases
foot of correction.
In
many
applied that would arrest movement,
provide a sufficient safety factor, and at a lower cost.
recommends
method, which
more than $1,000 per
treatments
spent to
is
classification
Alternative landslide remedial
scheme was developed which
based upon the landslide
landslide types are recognized by the classification
Eleven
classification.
scheme, which
is
based upon four
landslide attributes.
The
1.
following
is
Development
summary
of findings/deliverables
from
this study:
a landslide inventory/database that includes attribute information

and geologic environment for each of the 284
landslides documented.
of
pertaining to landslide geometry
2.
Development of a geographic information system (GIS) database including

geographic and geologic information relative to all landslide locations included in the
inventory.
3.
database, concluding that landslide occurrence

topography.
4.
GIS
bedrock geology and
Correlation of landslide occurrence with geologic features using the constructed
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
horizontal wick drains,
cement
columns,
driven
biotechnical
retaining systems.
scheme, which recommends
classification
suitable
The
inventory
and GIS database were created so
efficiently
managed, and
features.
Landslides are observed to occur
to
enabled correlation
Central Indiana, and Southeast Indiana.

with bedrock geology
in
of landslide
occurrence with geologic
two primary clusters
Landslide occurrence
and topography. Because the landslide
59
be more
in
the state, South
was shown
to correlate
is
now
well defined, the affect of standard design
within areas
areas.
prone to landslides
may be more
procedures and construction methods
closely observed
Refining standard construction techniques
and
refined within these
and procedures could dramatically
reduce the number of landslides that affect constructed roadways, reducing road
maintenance costs associated with landslides.

realized
may be
from the proposed remedial methods: the proposed landslide remediation
methods are often
less expensive than the standard excavation
60
and
backfill
method.
9.0
The
1.
following
RECOMMENDATIONS
recommendations are provided based on the
Employ and update the

operations.
landslide
The constructed
database as part
may be
inventory
and updated as landslide
reoccur,
results of this study.

of
INDOT's standard
the
revised as landslides occur and
attribute information
is
better quantified.
constructed landslide inventory should prove a valuable tool that
A copy
upon.
spreadsheet
2.
of the
inventory
is
provided on disc
Appendix A
Implement the geographic information system (GIS) software
to
implement GIS software
The constructed database should prove
hazards
more
utilize
common
in
extensively.
to Indiana.
landslide locations
disc
an Excel
in
into the
INDOT's
Most State transportation departments have implemented, or
have taken steps required
upon and
build
file.
standard operations.
3.
in
INDOT may
The
to
into their operating
be a valuable
tool that
GIS may also be used
The ArcView (GIS
to
procedure.
INDOT may
map
software) project
build
other geologic
file
containing
and associated geologic and geographic themes are provided on
Appendix A.
Implement the proposed alternative landslide remediation methods and, based on

performance
these applications, refine the developed landslide classification
of
scheme.
4.
Modify standard construction specifications and design procedures within areas
prone to landslides
in
number
order to reduce the
of future landslides affecting
constructed roadways. Clearly, the existing standard specifications are not adequate
in all
geologic environments.
The need
to
modify the existing specifications to be
applicable within specific geologic environments
important findings from this study and could

in
5.
likely
is
viewed as one
save the INDOT
of
the most
millions of dollars
road maintenance costs associated with landslides.
Develop a
similar
roadway system
etc.
database
of other
geologic hazards that impact performance of our
including, peat deposits, soft clays,
The databases would provide
abandoned underground mines,
excellent information for use
roadways and would provide guidance as
to
when
are inadequate for specific geologic environments.
61
in
routing of
new
existing standard specifications
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would
like to
thank the
members
of the
These persons are Vladimir
helpful support.
Thompson, Dave Ward and Nayyar
Zia.
llyin,
Study Advisory Committee
for their
Athar Kahn, Ed Ratulowski, Brad
Special thanks
to:
Dan Chase, INDOT
Project
Geologist, for providing assistance and guidance during the inventory construction and
field investigation
industry contact
phase; Nayyar Zia,
names
Engineer Supervisor,
for
INDOT Geotechnical
Field Operator, for providing
proposed remedial methods; Vladimir
for providing assistance for the excavation
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.
Long-Term Effects in Drainage Systems of Slopes.

on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
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.
Lime Cement Column Ground

and Mac Kenna, Peter E.
1999.
th
Lake City. 34 Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology
Stabilization for 1-15 in Salt
and Geotechnical Engineering.
W. and Lane, Michael

Sigma Gamma Epsilon,
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.
Outline of the Geology of the Louisville Region.
Highway Geology Symposium,
Proceedings of
pp. 2-1 3.
Gray, Henry H. 1975. Indiana Geologic Survey,
April,
1975.
Hausmann, Manred R. 1992. Slope Remediation. Stability and Performance of Slopes

and Embankments-ll. ASCE Specialty Conference Proceedings. Vol. 2, pp. 1274-1317.
and Schuster,
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
Supports to Stabilize Slopes.

Two Sessions of the
Committee on Earth Retaining Structures of the Geotechnical Division of the American
Morgenstern,
N.R.
1982.
Analysis
of
Wall
Application of Walls to Landslide Control Problems, Proceedings of
Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 19-29.

Nethero, M.F., 1982.
Slide Control by Drilled Pier Walls. 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. 61-76.
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.
Rogers, C.D.F. and Glendinning, S. 1997(b). Stabilization of Shallow Slope Failures

Lime Piles. Transportation Research Record No. 1589, pp. 83-91.
with
63
Santi, Paul M.
1999. Personal Communications.
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
Research Record 783, pp. 39-45.

Varnes, David
and
Control:
J.
1978.
National
Slope Movement Types and Processes: Landslides, Analysis

Academy of Sciences, Transportation and Research Board,
Special Report 176, pp. 11-33.
64
APPENDIX A
(Computer
Files,
Programs, and GIS Database Files on

Separate Zip Disk)
APPENDIX B
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTORS
Vegetation Descriptors
Abbreviations
A#
BL
reference to designated area
borelogs
c- cut
t-
s-
trace
g- grass (typically
sparse
b-
tow weeds
st-
sma// frees
m- moderate
slope
Crawfordsville
CMP
corrugated metal pipe
d-
dense
vd- very
t-
<S/or
mowed)
/cw brush
frees
dense
cne- correction not effective
CPID
concrete paved interceptor ditch
csu- correction status
unknown
Bedrock Type
D - estimated depth to failure surface

DO- district office
DOC- Dan Chase, INDOT geologist
e- embankment
E
e/c
cut
ERRF
earliest reported record of failure
es
earth slump
es-r
east
and embankment slope
Fl- field investigation
FS
failure
GW
groundwater
ID-
surface
number
identification
L- length of landslide
og/pic- log ft/picture

n-
no
Muscatatuck Group
Dm New Albany Shale

-
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
02
03
04
P1
Borden Group
Sanders Group
6/ue fl/Ver Group
Wesf Baden Group
Stephensport Group
Buffalo Wallow
Kope Formation
Dillsboro Formation
P2
P3
P4
Group
Wri/fewafer Formation
Raccoon Creek Group

Carbondale Group
Patoka & Shelbum Formation
Bond Formation
north
nc- not corrected
nya
not yet applicable
nyc- not yet corrected
Failure Position
I
OB- overburden depth

pc- partially corrected
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
(bench)- Upper, lower etc.
and ;s nof
is
relative to
a bench
in the
slope
relative to the entire slope.
1/3,1/3,3/4- ratio of failed slope length to total slope length
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.
Junct. Mt. Pleasant Rd.
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
active slide, wedged, leveled and monitored by subdistnct
Dearborn
engi(3or41
87 Per
DO
active slide, wedged, leveled and monitored by subdistnct
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
wedged, leveled and monitored by subdistnct Per SV

uneven
Per DO active slide, wedged, leveled and monitored by subdistnct. Per SV
73
pavement throuqh slide area very uneven
Per DO active slide, wedged, leveled and monitored by subdistnct. Per SV
76
pavement through slide area very uneven
Per
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
slide area very uneven.
Dearborn
046
active slide, wedged, leveled
toe s or 41
Area 3
.
DO
SV
slide that includes entire hillside
10/14
26/32
bedr
wedged, leveled and monitored by subdistnct Per

uneven.
slide area very
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
slide area very
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
37. 0.8 mi S. Patoka River
7 mi
of
Crawford
creel.
W 64
Oct-91 Per
DO
under construction Dec
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
Slow movement over years: more movement

hiqh
8/96. Per
DO
moves 2-37yr
priority.
Previous recommendation
ot
LS remediation m 1979 Per
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
Junci. Ml. Pleasant Rd.
1.
Area 2
10/17
creek erosion
sloping bedrock
of toe.
report
-.
26/32
46 mi S
I.
Pnbble Rd,
of
possible water line leak, sloping
Dearborn
10/16
Dearborn
10/14
Dearborn
rock butlress.
bedrock
VO mi N
Guillord
Rd
Dearborn
10/1 B. 19 creek erosion of loe. sloping
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-,
backfill 3:1. or isolated OniieO piers
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
saluration of slope from
CMP
rock backilii
do.mfc.
nc
CMP
rock
dg.mb
L3/4
27
172
67
9.051
Dearborn
9/24
saiuraiion of slope from
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
37 SR37, 1,0-1.3 mi NI-64. Area
creek
Monroe
8/10
Orange
4/17
Orange
S/l
road realignment
ioe
possibly due to blocked drainage

siruciure behind bridge beni
sloping bedrock.
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
blocked culvert, creek eroding loe
GW
backfill
1/
31/90
ifi
31/90
Area 3
19
31/90
20
21
22
loe
creek
loe
rock backlill and bin wall
m-di beyond loe
creek
loe
m-dt beyond toe of
r/r
Crawford
creek
loe
m-dl beyond loe of
r/r
--
Crawford
creek
loe
rock backfill
and
bin wall
m-dt beyond toe of
r/r
Crawford
creek
loe
rock backfill
and
bin wall
m-dt beyond loe of
r/r
Crawford
creek
loe
PC
Crawford
37 SR37,
1.0-1.3 mi NI-64, Area 2
Crawford
37 5R
Crawford
37 SR37. 1.0-1.3 mi NI-64, Area 4
31/90
37 SR37, 1.0-1.3 mi NI-64. Area5
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
wedged, leveled and moniiored by

uneven
subdistrict.
Per
SV
slide area very
wedged, leveled and moniiored by subdismci. Per SV

slide area very uneven May be pan ol a much larger
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,
wedged, leveled and moniiored by subdismci.
<25
25
33 or 41
87 Per
DO
aciive slide,
wedged, leveled and monitored by
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
under construction Dec
<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,
slope saiuraied by clogged median
shoulder drain
outlet, slope saturated by clogged
shoulder drain
creek loe. laiiure Shoulder dram
shoulder drain
creek toe. laiiure shoulder drain
shoulder drain
creek toe. failure shoulder dram
outlet, slope saiuraied by dogged
shoulder dram
creek loe. laiiure shoulder dram
shoulder dram
creek loe. laiiure shoulder drain
shoulder drain
loe, failure
3,927
np rap
DO
riprap
and
DO
Jun-80 Per
1.842
slope saturated by clogged

shoulder drain
creek
Jun-80 Per
25
3,534
14
outlet,
outlei
25
14
8-20
slope saturated by dogged

Shoulder dram
creek loe. failure shoulder drain
6/2
8-20
10
outlet,
.awrence
15
572
cracks in rd
of
DO
DO
hiqh pnoritv.
Jun-80 Per
28,236
'97,
Slow movemenl over years: more movemenl 8796 Per
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
wedged, leveled and moniiored by
slide
20-25
Lawrence
creek
active slide,
line
loe, lailute shoulder drain outlet,

slope saiuraied by clogged shoulder
creek
esr
active slide,
DO
pavement throuqh
line
outlet,
abandoned waier
ol r/r
nc
DO
wedged, leveled and moniiored by subdismci Per SV

area very uneven
Per DO active slide, wedged, leveled and moniiored by subdislna Per SV
76
pavemen! Ihrouqh slide area very uneven
Per
line
creek
27
fill

creek
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'
rock buttress, rock key. or isolated
Dearborn
SR
of
comp
GW
1.0.53 mi
es-r
r/r
ft
2.5:1
sloping bedrock, inadequate benching.
SR
.
26/32
es-r
dt outside
borrow key. rock key

dg.
rock key for hill
rock buttress, rock key 2:1 or

rock key 2
leaky box culvert crossing road
26/32
Ar,;i
10'15
,lifjf
failing,
t)'
or drilled piers,
toe ditched by railroad, sloping bedrock
fi
still
ft
date of
road
isolated dniied piers
fill
SR
backfill
recomm. rock butlress or
f)
*s
slide lhat includes entire hillside.
1.0.15 mi SolPnbbleRd.
SR
Rip rap or rock
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
movement? Many scarps
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
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 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
not effective; not atlectmg road or ditch, 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
May have been due to poor compaction during

SV no apparent sign of failure.
repaired 1997,
construction of road
tool
Perry
DO
of
slides. Per DO moves 4 times/yr; High pnonty.

5/20/98 2 active areas dumping soil on shoulder below by
movement? Many scarps visible Apparent dip of bedrock 2.
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
crei. 30. 35.
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
48 SR 48, SR 148-US 50, Area
60
9/109
48 SR 48, SR 148-US 50. Area 2
61
9/109
48 SR 48. SR 148-US 50, Area 3
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
48. Industnal drive
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
48, Industnal drive
in
Lawrenceburq. Area 5
US
dnve
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
slope and asphalt to road, seems not to be

patches and cracks, fresh scarp or erosion to
1992 new road construction. Per DOC and

problem. Per DO beinq monitored
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
Slope failure during construction of US 50. Per

maintenance forces- monitored regularly.
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
by maint. contract-wall needs extending.
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
active slides. Old canal at toe.
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
being monitored.
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.
problem. Per DO being monitored
problem. Per DO beinq monitored.
1992 new road construction Per DOC and DO bypass project will fix
problem Per DO being monitored
slit
71
In
will fix slides.
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
slides. Per DO moves 4 times/yr, High pnonty

S/20/98 2 active areas dumping soil on shoulder below by
movement? Many scarps visible. Apparent dip ol bedrock 2
correction by INDOT not effective, not alfectmg road or ditch, not
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
across from A-4
SR 37 SR 4B interehanrje,
A/ea 2 across from A-4
SR 37 SR 48
interchange.
Area 3, across Irom A-4

SR 37 SR 48 interchange.
37 A/ea 4. across Irom A-1. A-2, A-
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
rock backfill to match existing slope
<10
es
dg
rock backfill
backfill
10
'
pnoniy.

A/ea 1 across Irom A-3
37
Area 2 across Irom A-3
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
Old SR 37 over Seaboard RH,

Area 3 across Irom A-!. A-2
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
SR 46/SR 37 juncl, Area
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
occurs adjaceni to culvert

over former quarry
inlei.
ntersection modification
will fix failure
dg. cattails
mersection modilication
will fix failure
s-mt, dg
Duiil
m md
slope
SR 46/SR 37
Area 2
junct.
ailure
occurs adjacent to culvert ouilel
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
48 SR48, SR 14B-US50, Area
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
US
4B, Indusinal
dnve
in
.awrenceburg. Area 4
US
48. Indusinal
dnve
in
US
48. Industrial
dnve
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
Dan's die taken
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
in 1988 lor proposed realignment. Per DO

under contract in 1998
1992 new road construction Per DOC and DO bypass project will lix
problem Per DO being moniiored.
problem. Per DO beinq monitored
1992 new road conslrudion Per DOC and DO bypass project will In
problem Per DO being monitored
problem Per DO being monitored.
Per OOC and DO bypass project will lix
1 992 new road conslrudion
problem. Per DO being monitored
1992 new road conslrudion Per DOC and DO bypass project will lix
problem Per DO being moniiored
1992 new road conslordron Per OOC and DO bypass project will lix
problem Per DO beinq moniiored
Geotech report completed
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
Slope failure during construction ol US 50

maintenance forces-monitored regularly.
db-l outside
92
r/r
es-r
Pi
U3/4
35
125
50
4.909
13
2-16
92
dg, s-mt ouiside
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
creek erosion of loe, too steep, sloping

bedrock, box culvert at flank of slide
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/
caused scour, sloping bedrock,
engmeenng
72
report
Ml/3
slide 1
71
in
Dtj'M-; rr>:.-:'- -.,.
Geolech
fixing
poor drainage.
CMP. creek
Geotech report compieied
o2
nc
drainage outlet onto slope within
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
Sloping bedrock, crnp outlet in cenier ol rock backfill
stone lo slope and asphalt to road, seems noi lo be

AP patches and cracks, fresh scarp or erosion to
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
25, 30, 35.
Par
Industrial drive in
-awrenceburq. Area 2
US 48.
sloping bedrock,
w/m
Dearborn
ouiside LS. dg
LS
metal bin retaining wall
ol toe
dg w/in
LS
engmeenng
70
dt outside LS;
dt
creek erosion
nr
vdi
reiocaied
ailed
7/10-12
69
rock backfill proposed, bul road
SB
;>.
creek 6 ic* inadequate benching K

drainage
67
consiruded by maim, coniraci-wall needs extending

toe
ol
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
Per DO active slides Old canal

Oct-85
subsurface
Per DO active slides. Old canal
29
May-93
toe Thick sandy gravel layers
in
at toe Thick sandy gravel layers

subsurface. Failure looks regressive
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
monitored regularly by maint forces This slide may extend through

it may be as long as about 125'
Per file erosion problem onty, per SV looked like failure. Per DO regularly
monitored by maint forces Repon says area of glacial ouflwash, >50"
sand and gravel.
Per DO monitored regularly by maint. forces Per SV 7/98. road was
freshly patched
failure in weathered shale
Per DO has been basically stable. Water Co
talking about moving tower Remediation proposed tor slope above road at
base of water tower, did not include slope below highway
Slide occurred dunng road relocation Per DOC. corrected Onginal failure
on emb corrected by excavation and backfill about 2 yrs ago New LS on
cutslope outside previous area Per DO stable at this time
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
first correction differed from that recommended in repon and

Per DO. stone added to slope, active In weathered shale. Per SV
Soil sat @ bottom of slope even though not in low lying area.
Per DOC, first correction differed from that recommended in report and
89 failed Per DO. stone added to slope, active In weathered shale. Per SV
Soil sat @ bottom of slope even though not in low lying area
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
repairs by maint. forces, areas
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
Sep-82 multiple small slides here
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
correction tailed. Per
DO
distnct forces
wedge,
rip
rap
shoulder and
to stabilize but not very successful,
AP
pipe running
to stabilize but not
W down
continues to
hill.
very successful, continues to
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
failure '75. reportedly
and monitor area-active

Per DO didn't find where problem was. Per SV
7/14
Crawford
Initial
shift
Vigo
5/2
forces,
level
clog
fail!
by maint
Per DOC. area was corrected on

Mar-84
complete
infill
Crawford
wedge
repair=S1 Million;
repairs
too
7/13
of
DO corrected
8/21
Vigo
once/yr, est cost

continue to wedge
Aug-83 Per
Clark
7/15
will
bed
too
Vigo
toe along ditch
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
SR 63, 0.2 mi S Tecumsen-New

Gashem Rd
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
multiple small slides here
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
drainage ouUet adjacent to failure,

engmeenng ot fill, siop-ng Bedrock,
conditions
adverse
(ill. sloping bedrock,
adverse
conditions
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
bin wall or reinforced earth wall
at
nc
bm
wall or reinforced earth wall
dt
bm
wail or reinforced earth wail
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
bin wail or reinforced earth wall
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
GW table, removal ol loe Oy
high
9/21
adverse
temp
bedrock
railroad, sloping
engineering ol
Franklin
Area
fill,
wall using driven
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
SR62. 0SmiESR131. Area
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,
drilled pier wall
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
dg, dt near toe
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
mentioned as probable cause)
backfill
rock backfill
loe
creek
toe,
engmeenng
Gw
ol
-,;
s/r
miedace.
creek erosion ol toe. too Sleep, sloping
oo steep
GW
bedrock slope,
6
removal ol toe bulge
ol Ml.
s/r interlace,
drainage, sloping
creek at toe (not mentioned as

probable cause), sloping bedrock
clogging ol CMP. curb broken allowing
8/20
7/1
105
82
|V1
SR 63,
Vigo
7/13
ailed pipes
may have saturated
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
rock backfill, corrected with
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
monitored regularly by mamt. lorcos Per

patched
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
toe along ditch
Per DO aciive. INOOT wedges once/yr, esicosl

cost^S 1000/yr,INDOT will continue to wedge
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
J an -90 mulliple small slides here
SO-100
75
66
Sep-82
50-100
75
66
66
Sep-82 multiple small Slides here
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
75. roportodly Irom dilching.
correction (ailed. Per
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
Per DOC, area was corrected on new bridge
nc
installed 8/83
complete.
98 Per
wodgo
ropair=Sl Million;
by maintenance contract.
es
nc
at
relocation Per DOC, corrected Onrjmai lailuro

excavation and backlill about 2 yrs ago Now LS on
cuislope outside previous area Per DO stablo el this lime
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,.'
weathered shalo. Per DO has boen basically siabie Waicr Co

81 talking aboul moving lower Remediaiion proposed lor slope abovo road
base ol water tower, did not include slope below hiqhwa>
nc
scarp, rock backfill within
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
vdb above wall;

lankmg wall
retaining wall, report
113
lib
dt,
vdt
Vigo
'
slope flattening and
DO
Slide occurred
dg. m-dt
bridrje
Clark
107
backfill,
a<led
2.9m.Eo1SR3
63, Area
rock
',
Per
monitored regularly by mainl. lorces This siido may o*tend through

terrace to nver. it may be as long as about 125'
Per lile erosion problem only, per SV looked liko lailuro Per DO regularly
Aug-83 monitored by mami forces Report says area ot glacial outlwash, >S0'
sand and qravei
Feb-84
fill
SR 63, 0.2 m. 5 Tecumsen-New

Gashem Rd.
1
vdt
borrow
11.539
Per DO monitored regularly by rnaini forces This siido may oxiond

through lonace to river, ii may be as long as aboul 200'. Movement as
Feb-84
much as 44' depth
too (SI 5262). this is In shalo. A1 and A2 may be
lailure in
into rock
vdb
w and Wo B
rock backfill
63
SR
backs
rock backlill
oo steep
>
tie
relocated road, considered rock
creek erosion
ol
w/
considered
216
63, 7.9
toe
Inclinometers and piezometers on site installed at least as early as 3/81

DO monitored regularly by mainl lorcos. They say it's a 'shallow
lailure. bui SI 5201 was pinched at 24', this may be part ol a larger slide
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
sloping bedrock, creek
Ohio
Crawford
unction near Sulphur)
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
multiple small slides here
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
24.15 EB. Area 2
Vanderburgh
14/13
eng
67
Apr-93
131
106
64.1
24.15 EB. Area 3
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
73.3 EB, Area
Perry
13/19
GW
73
Oct-82
142
27
64
73.3 EB, Area 2
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
641 73.5 EB MEDIAN
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
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)
lence row. comtield

lop
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
23.79 WB, Area
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
24.15 EB. Area 2
Vanderburgh
14/13
engineering
olfill
rock backfill
131
106
64.1 24.15 EB. Area 3
Vanderburgh
14/13
engineenng
of
rock backfill
13?
27
54
64
133
24.16 EB, Area
'
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
64.1 73.3 EB. Area
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
dg. vdb. dsi
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
too sleep, terrace above slide allowed

GWinftllratJon
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
Od-82 Per SV no apparent
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
dg outside LS. vdb w/m
hill
64.1 80.9
160
rm
dg outside LS. vdb
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
Sep-82 Per SV no apparent sign
177
new
64
92, Exit 92,
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/Scon

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
repaired by state forces
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
Per
DO
line.
Clark
8/18.19
toe,
requires yearly wedges, settles 2"/yr
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
maint. forces have placed np rap and monitor these places
continually active,
SR
58
DO
of
regularly
DO
66
192
Per
Jan-86 Per
58
mi
Per SV appeared to be erosion only, erosion

forces have placed np rap
55
GW
184
.3
of failure
taile
Area 2 across trom A-4
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
most slides still active, ditched

rocks removed from road periodically
Per DO most slides still active, ditched
rocks removed from road penodically.
Per DO mosf slides still active, ditched
rocks removed from road penodically
rocks removed trom road penodically.
rocks removed from road penodically.
yr..
trees
and large
1-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and large
1-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and large
-2
times per
trees
and large
1-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and
large
-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and
large
-2 times per
yr..
trees
and
large
1-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and large
1-2 times per
yr..
trees
and large
1-2 times per
yr.,
trees
and large
1-2 times per yr
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
70.1 I-70, 0.1 mi
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
156.6 EB. Area
Ripley
14/16
205
74.1
156.6 EB. Area 2
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,
Jul-85 Underlain by limestone bedrock.
Apr-86
NE comer
ot
endbent
of
STR
70-74-26A,
requires ditching 2/yr

location,
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
saturated slope, noticed
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
65. 2.4 m. S Clarfc/Scoli

6718,19
s/r
iniertace
CPID and subsequent
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
66 SR66. 2.3rrWSR70, Area 3
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
mWSR 70, Area 4a
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
repaired by siale lorces
ml
32
330
70
18.143
"
"
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
repaired by slate forces.
ml
32
430
70
23.640
58-59
Oct-87 Per
DO
repaired by state lorces
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
Sloping bedrock, spnngs preseni
jinwall or
remlorced earth wall
di
nc
es-r
Pi
LI/7
13-38
240
135
25.447
0-18
5.655
32
Apr-85
bnallo, ^forced ee,ll
d.
nc
es-r
Pi
L1/7
13-38
165
120
15.551
0-18
3.456
32
bmwall or reinforced earth
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
possibly mine subsidence, creek
s/r
rock key or bin wail or remlorced earth

vdt
spnnq emerqmq from slope
wall
removal-serrated slopes
interface
ice
vdb-mi
removal' serrated slopes
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?
toe rock backfill
ml
r/r.
top
Slope
vdg-b; vdt
zone
relocating creak channel
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
creek erosion of toe
rock backfill
dg outside
ol
creek erosion ol toe
14/14,
too sleep, erosion ol
203
74.1 156.0
WB
Ripley
14/15
too steep
206
74.1
159.7
207
74.1 160.5
rock backfill
ol
db, dg. msi near top.
CPID
rock backfill
14/16
loo steep
rock backfill
R.pley
14/16
too sleep
reck back.,11
EB
Dearborn
14/17,18 too steep
WB
Dearborn
14/19
too steep
S-dt outside
rock backfill
Ripley
di
slope saiurated by drain oullet
Ripley
156.6 EB. Area 2
NBL
DO maint
roquires yearly wodgos. sorties 27yr
150
42,412
25
25
20
20.944
nc
appeared np rap was
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
Per DO most slides still active, dilched

rocks removed Irom road penodically
Per DO mosl slides still active, ditched

rocks removed from road penodiC.llly
Per DO mosi slides slill active, dilched
Apr-85
dt
-.-
1;
..-
Per DO mosi slides still active, dilched

rocks removed from road periodically.
Per
00 mosi slides
still
yr
!.
,m,|
trees
and large
i.ni,,.
tiees
and largo
-2 limes per yr., trees
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
active, dilched 1-2 times
per
yr.,
yr.,
yr
trees and large

trees and large
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
rocks removed from road ponod catly
Old coal nine underneath
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.
requires ditching 2/yr
Per
DO
no mainienance done
no immediate concern.
landslide,
Jul-85 Underlain oy limestone bedrock
Apr-86
Per
slide stable unlil 3/97 Hood, cracking currently, requires
Engr Report daied 1/97 discussing various remediation lechmgues and

costs Per DO currently being repaired by contract
.'<;:*
:'.:
25
L"J "-.':
Per DO mosl slides sliil active, dilched 1-2 times poi

Apr-85
Per DO most slides siill active, dilched 1-2 times per
Apr-85
rocks removed Irom road periodically.
nc
EB
Ml
Por
maint lorces have placed np rap and monitor thoso places
70
nc
dt
sloping bedrock
7/24
-
rock key. bin wall, remlorced eanfi
74.1 155.4
74.1 156.6 EB. Area
DO
regularly
ol
of toe.
small shoulder dram
202
205,
Per
310
dt
sloping bedrock
SR 64
204
SV appeared to be erosion only, erosion ol cpsd

lorces have placed np rap
Per
31
13-16
dt
7/1
m W SR 66. Area
m W SR 66. Area 2
rrt
ol failure
binwali or remlorced earth wall
Area 6 Spencer
70
rrESR243
apparent sign
Ui/'
LS
ol
SV no
P3
vdi outside consiruction
196
in incorrect location
ml
siopmg bedrock, spnngs preseni
sloping bedrock,
SR 70
of
lilt,
7/2
rr.
2 mi E
673
ol
Spencer
mWSR 70. Area 7

W SR 70. Area 8
193
60
Spencer
66. 2,1 mi
fill,
beneath emb
mied CPID subsequeni erosion
66 SR
SR
rock backfill
np rap or rock
CMP How inlet
56
In incorrect location
ol
smaller area
CPID and subsequeni
lor engineering of
220
66, 4 6 mi
till,
erosion
dt
st
Comments
here has shoulder dram to Hank

lino.
1H.I
dg.
nadequate drainage and benching,
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
si. sg throughout slope,

m-di top slope
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
92, Exil 92,
65. 2.4
S Clark/ScoM
65.1
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,
does noi seem
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
171.2 EB( 171.1 EB)
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
150. 0.5mi E of Natchez
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
failure in thick brush, fresh
in
road and parapet
Apr-86
77
DO
new SR
repaired with
1 1
road reconstruction
1991 proposed realignment of road, inclinometer data also Per

active slide, road wedged periodically
Jul-93 Slide
Jan-90 Per
is
DO
Per
10 yrs old
DO
DO large
small slide caused by creek, not a pnonty
repaired by subdistnct 1993
Per
SV no apparent
sign ot failure.
Per
SV no apparent
sign of failure.
67
Jan-90 Per
DO
repaired by subdistnct 1993
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
has not moved
yrs.
W oi SR 57,
Area 2
SR
67
too
226
219
Jun-85 Mostly erosion features, small sump induced by severe erosion.
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
where problem was
R95
Mar-86
R95
tmd where problem was

DO
Mar-86
slope and corrected w/ np rap
Per
46.48
Jul-79
W75
May-90
Per
SV
standing water at toe of
Per
SV
standing water
Per
SV
standing water at toe ot
at
toe ot
slope and corrected w/ np rap

didn't
Sinkhole nearby7 ? Per

movements in last year
Per
US
o!
where problem was
slope and corrected w/ np rap.
DO
R/W
slide is off
cut slope
DO
does not endanger 231 but

.
with toe
Bedrock 12-22'
US
under
R/W
is at
231shouider.continually moving,
May have been caused by
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,
Bedrock 12-22' @ toe of slide

Per DO subdistnct forces wedge, level and monitor Unsure
to creek Per SV tresh asphalt segments through failed area
to creek Per SV fresh asphalt segments through tailed area
to creek. Per SV fresh asphalt segments through failed area
to creek. Per SV fresh asphalt seqments throuqh failed area
cut slope
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
262 SR 262. 3.5 mi S
Dearborn
11/13
creel
subdistnct repaired, wedged, leveled, and monitors
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,
SR 350. 6 7 mi
of US 50.
ot Milton
236
47
350
237
47
350
238
101
443 SR 443. 0.5 mi N SR 43
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
Failure while rehab work performed on Structure No. 275-2-5641
Per
DO
slide repaired-monitored by subdistnct
Per
DO
being monitored by subdistnct

Nov-80
also 2 other areas of slides near here
Per DO being monitored by subdistnct
Nov-80
near here
76
Jun-93 Per DO. no
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995.
slide
Per
SV no apparent
Per
SV
sign ot failure,
2 other areas ot slides
has been noticed since coneclion
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
area. '94. another Fl required
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
clay over siltstone
2 places were culverts
area. '94. another Fl required
due
section.continually movinq, hiqh priority.
siltstone.
to
siltstone
12/94 water coming out of ground

blocked.
Recompacted clay over
450, 8.9 mi E of
of
addressed LS's
FC
79 movement
SR
'79
section.continually moving, high pnonty.
Ohgmal
eng
Martin
995
movement. Recompacted clay over

Onginal report
246
in
to
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY
DATA
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
171.2 EB( 171.1 EB)
SR
111, juncf vil
Ml Tabor Rd.
96
111
2)2
227
145
SR
145.
21S
97
145
SR
145, 4.6 mi
/14
226
145 SR 145. 6.9T.SSR56. A/eal
215
226
145
SR
US 150. 0.5mi E of Natchez

SR 16B,53mWolSRS7,
?1.,
51
150
,-T,'
45
168
45
166
11
225
i.i
'
720
11
225
221
11
225
8s
eroaon
of
CPID
dg. mb. sst outside

at
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
db. rrvdt outside
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
too steep, removal ol vegetation,

slopinn bedrock
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
Jun-85 Mostly erosion features, small sump induced by severe erosion.
May-86 Per SV
Apr-93 Per
67
couldn't
see
lailure in thick brush, ftesh
77
DO
repaired with
new SR
1991 proposed realignment

active slide, road
wedaed
DO
<20
20
67
Jan -90 Per
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
road and parapel
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
small slide caused by creek, not a prtoniy.
by subdisinct 1993
Per
repaired by subdistrict 1993. Per
has not moved
in
SV no apparent
SV no
sign ol lailure
apparent sign of failure
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.
erosion ol toe by creek
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
maintenance, too steep
rock backfill w/and w/o B-borrow
d:
Per DO didn't Imd where problem was

Slope ana corrected w/ np rap
Per DO didn't find where problem was
Mar-86
slope and corrected w' rip rap
Per DO didn'i Imd where problem was
Mar-86
!.*. and correcied
np rap
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
Sinkhole nearby?? Per

movemenis in tasi year
Per
toe along fence row
at
loe ol
Per SV standing wafer
ai
loe ol
Per SV standing water
at
loe of
.-.
outside
top
Per SV standing water
Mar-86
30,
DO
does not endanger 231.
R/Wtmo. no
but is al
DO Slide is Oil RAM wtlh loe under US 231shouldoncontinually moving,

Bedrock 2-22' loe ol slide May havo been caused by ditch
cut slope
cuttinq
224
16
231
US
231 4.5 Sol
US
50, Area lb
Manin
4/12
ditch maintenance, too steep
22S
16
231
US
231 4.5 Sot
US
50, Area 1c
Manm
4/12
;?>.
16
231
US
231 4.5 Sol
US
50, Area 2
Manin
>:>;
,,4
;'.:;
SR250,
:
::;>
114
250
22S
114
250
230
114
250
.fl
1-
Wol SRI 56,
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-
crook ai toe (not

probable cause)
creek at loe (not
probable cause)
creek at loe (not
probable cause)
creek at toe (not
probable cause)
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
loe alonq fence row
dg
(paslure); m-dt
toe alonq lence row
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
23 shoulder continually moving,

1
loe ol slide
DO subdistrict lorces wedge, level and monitor Unsure it slide emends

creek Per SV Iresh asphall segments through toiled area,
Per DO subdisirict lorces wodge, level and moniior. Unsure ii slido oxionds
Jan-98
to creek Per SV Iresh asphall soqments Ihrough failed uroa
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
231 shouldor.connnuolly moving,
loo ol slido.
Per
dd
US
to
m-dt
creek
231shouldorcontmually moving,
loe ol slide
with toe
d-vdi
vdb, 0:
US
with too under
FtVW with loo under
Bedrock
DO slide
cul slope
RAV
Bedrock 12-22'
Per DO subdisirict lorces wedge, level and monitor Unr.uro

lo creek Per SV Iresh asphall seqnvnlr, Ihrouqh failed area
Per DO subdisincl lorces wedge, level and moniior Unsure
creek Per SV iresh asphall segmenis through failed area
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
Jun-93 Per DO. no
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,
across from A-2
350, 6.7 mi
Wol US
SO,
Area 2 across Irom A-l
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
20m 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
soil/rock interlace, too steep,
sloping bedrock
GW e
slopir
line)
6.7 mi
11/11,12
GW
loe
rock backfill
soil/rock inlertace. loo sleep,
i-
d-st car.aii-;
vdg vdb.
d-si cattails
11/11.12
Dearborn
10/13
possibly due to drainage Irom median

and roadway which saturated slope
rock backfill
dg-db outside
Dearborn
11/5
CMP
regraded?
dg
Doaroom
11/6
CMP outlet within failure
rock backfill
np rap or rock
Tippecanoe
>-"
loe in ditch
Dearborn
inlet within lailure
diici
vdg vdb.
soil/rock interlace, loo steep.
; Dedroct
GW
vdg. vdb. d-si cattails
rock backfill
backfill,
still
tailing
dg
r/r
-.
gabion wall
200-250
225
74.
R93
56
Feb-87
Failure while rehab work performed
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
has been noticed since
too steep, engineenng ol
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
too steep, engineenng of
fill
8 borrow backfill and
llanen slope
dg
es
m2
U3/4
19
490
70
26.939
13
40
40
8.647
76
Apr-83 Per
DO
repaired 1995
loo steep, engineenng ol
lill
8 borrow backfill and
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
on Siruclure No 275-2-5641 Per
DO
slide repaired-moniiored
Lawrence
6/7
too steep, engineenng
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
rock backfill or B-boirow
dg. SSI
es-r
m4
26
160
100
12,566
IS
6-57
33
4,654
76
79
Martin
4/16
engineenng
of
fill
rock backfill or B-borrow
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,
olhcr areas ol slides
correct/on.
Ongmal report in 79 addressed LS'S in area '94. anolher Fl required due

movement flecompacted clay over siltsfone
Ongmal report m 79 addressed LS's in area. Per OO slide in fill
10
section .continually rrwvmg. high pnoriiy flecompacted clay over siltstone.

loe in 2 places were culverts
FC 12/94 wafer comng out of ground
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
Recompacted clay over
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,
anolher Fl required due to
section .continually moving, high pnoriiy
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
extremely weathered shale
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
545 SR 545. 5.5 mi N
ol
SR
164
Dubois
4/21-26
GW
83
254
56
545 SR 545. 8.5 mi N
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
545 SR 545. Area 3b
Dubois
6/12
83
255
62
545 SR 545. Area
256
62
545 SR 545. Area 2
257
62
545
258
259
62
545 SR 545, Area 3c
Dubois
6/12
GW
GW
GW
83
Jun-84
260
62
545 SR 545. Area 3d
Dubois
6/12
GW
83
Jun-84
261
62
545 SR 545. Area 4
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
Clark Slate Forest Rd;

Henryville
of
CR
600. over 1-64

mark. A1
35 9 mi
CR
600. over I-64

mark. A2a
35 9 m.
CR
600. over I-64

mark, A2b
35.9 mi
CR
600. over I-64

mark, A3a
35.9 mi
CR
600. over I-64

mark, A3b
35 9 mi
CR
600. over I-64

mark. A3c
35 9
CR
600. over I-64

mark. A4a
35 9 mi
CR
600. over I-64

mark, A4b
35.9 mi
CR
35.9 mi
600. over I-64

mark. A4c
CR Sec
2-1
marK Area
CR Sec
2-1
near 1-64 59,9 mi

near 1-64 59 9 mi
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
French Ridge Road. Area
276
63
French Ridge Road. Area 2
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
Bnstow-St Memrad Rd from CR

42toSR 145. Area 1
Bnstow-St Memrad Rd from CR
42toSR 145. Area 2
Bedford Unit Access Rd.
1 mi
N SR 158 in Bedford
CR 3 (German Ridge Rd.) N SR
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
Reported to have ongmally occurred in 78. Near a former coal mine

entrance Could not locate dunng SV.
DO
Lawrence
6/6
Apr-88 Per
Perry
7/3
Nov-93 Geotech invest performed 6/95
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
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
545 SRS45, 5.5miNofSR 164
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
Clark Slate Forest Rd;
76
....
76
76
.-...
76
.i.-i
27Q
76
75
I',-!
Cfl 600, over 1-64
35 9 m.
1,011
I'-
76
272
61
273
61
274
61
,,V,...
V.I
Cfl 600, over 1-64
3S9rr.
A2b
Cfl 600, ovor 1-64 it 35 9
mart
600, ovor 1-64

mark, A3b
Cfl 600, over 1-64
mark. A3c
CR
35.9 m.
600, ovor 1-64

mark. A4a
tt
CR
600. ovor 1-64
600. ovor 1-64

mark. A4c
Sec
CRSoc
.urt
35.9 mi
35.9 m.
59 9
2-1. near 1-64 59 9
A.IM
Sec
35.9 mi
2-1, near (-64
mark. Area
CR
35 9
Ml
CR
CR
rrt
A3.i
CR
,,.,.1-
271
6/15-17
Ctark
6715
broken warertine. abandoned cisiem
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
2-1, near 1.64 59.9 m.
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
Per SV no apparent sign ol
'
72
Jan-85 Remediated
tall
1997
PorSV no apparent
72
Jan-85 Remediated
lall
997
Per
SV no
appareni sign ol
"
72
Jan-65 flemediaiedlaii 1997
Per
SV no
apparent sign ollailuro
rock backfill
63
French Ridgo Road, Aroa
Perry
'
:'::' a-.
dg (lawn) on top
r/r;
recommended
of
Win fop nail ol LS;

win bottom halt of LS
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
apparent sign ollailuro
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
Per SV no appareni sign
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
vdb; msl outside
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
vdb; msl outs.de
r/r;
.'.'-.''
db oulside
r/r.
dt
backfill
lop
slope
vdst.
vdb w/m LS;
vdt
276
63
French Ridgo Road. Area 2
Pen,
6/21.22
?.t;
63
-ronch Ridgo Road, Aroa 3
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
rench Ridgo Road, Area 4
Bnslow-St Moinrad
42IOSR145. Area
Bnstow-SI. Meinrad
42loSR
145.
Rd IromCfl
Rd IromCR
Area2
1
(Gorman Ridge Rd.) N SR
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
in drainage conditions due to

conslruction of apartment comple*
46
19-25
Vanderburgh
change
130
P1
es-r
rock backiili
6/6
14
ol slope
Bodiord Uo.i Access Rd.

NSR 156 m Bedford
Cfl 3
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
vdb, vdg; m-df patchy
over area
-.'
dt.St
wan
IT.";
27S
s-
218
rock backfill
lailure
931
degraded
toe
315
<5
rock backiili
<5
Reqraded''
scour Irom pipe oullel wilhin
<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/"
--
a pnonty Failure witim bedrock or
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.
Reported to have onomally occurred in 78. Near a lormor coal

enlrance
Cou d nol locale dunng SV
DO not active.
Nov-93 Geoiech invest performed
May-86 Per
Oct-83 Per
DO
active
DO shde
6/95.
and a pnonty.
repaired by contract
mne
APPENDIX C
LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY
ID
CLASSIFICATION
Shoulder to
Scarp
Distance
Landslide Classification Break-down
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

Shoulder to
Scarp
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
nya- not yet applicable; scarp

roadway shoulder
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
GUIDELINES FOR RAILROAD RAILS

USED AS RETAINING STRUCTURES
Railroad
landslides along
rails
have been used
roadway shoulders
of the problems with the use of
The
construction procedures.
embedment
are being
stable material
piles
years on
have been variable.
Probably a major portion
has been the lack of standardized design and
rail size, rail
maximum
maintenance projects involving
spacing,
efficiency.
It
maximum
is to this
length and required
purpose these quidelines
available.
It
piles operate in
rail
results
variables of
are critical in obtaining
made
The
for
has been found from engineering experiences and analyses that laterally loaded
an optimum fashion when they are embedded
and are
have been driven
not allowed to
to refusal
become
overstxesscd.
which may not always be
at least
minimum
Very often,
satisfactory for
rails in use as piling
complete embedment.
Also, too large a space between the piles will not allow the soil to "arch", thus the
through them.
Rails used at too great a depth will
These guidelines are an
where
to use rail piles
install
them.
length into
become overstressed and
soil will slide
fail.
effort to assist maintenance engineers in their choice of
and how to design for
soil
82
arching,
rail
spacing, and
how
to correctly
GENERAL GUIDELINES CONCERNING THE USE OF RAILS AS PILING
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-
The design charts and

surface to be
at
typical details included in these guidelines
The determination of
the depth to rock.
assume the
failure
the depth to rock should be
made with auger bonngs.

C.
If
the depth of the failure surface
is
known
be used
D.
to
have underlying firm
less
is
than the depth to rock, and
stable soil, then the
if
the failure surface
depth to the firm stable soil
may
in the charts in lieu of the depth to rock.
The minimum
embedment
into rock or firm stable soil shall be approximately

(The free end length being the distance from the ground
to the assumed failure surface.) This is to assure proper fixation of the rail. The depth
of the hole should be slightly greater than the length of rail to be installed. Debris falling
into the hole may fill up a portion of the bottom and prevent proper embedment length.
length of
one-half the free end length.
E.
The maximum spacing of
the rails should
be 121.920 cm (48 inches) from center-tonot flow between the piles. The minimum
This is to insure that the soil will

spacing of the holes should he 60.960 cm (24 inches) center-to-center.
center.
F.
When more
shown on
than one row of
rails is
the attached drawing.
required, the holes should be staggered evenly as
The spacing between
the rows should
spacing of approximately 60.960 cm (24 inches)

allow ihe rows to act as a unit in retaining the sliding mass.
possible.
G.
Care must be taken
to insure the flanges
direction of the landslide to utilize the
H.
on the
full
rails
is
be as close as
desirable in order to
are positioned perpendicular to the
strength of the rail cross section.
After the rail has been placed in the hole, the hole
is
to be backfilled with concrete, sand,
peagravel, crushed limestone, or crushed sandstone as availability and economics dictate.

Generally, auger tailings are not permitted as backfill materials. The backfill is to be
shoveled or dropped
around the
in
small amounts into the hole to prevent voids from forming
rails.
83
GENERAL GUIDELINES CONCERNING THE USE OF RAILS AS
PILING
(CONTINUED)
I.
If
to
roadway and shoulder is necessary, care should be used not

during placement and compaction of the backfill. Lightweight fill
backfilling in the affected
damage
the rails
materials such as lightweight concrete or flyash should be used
J.
In
some cases
may require
wood lagging is
backfilling
when
possible
the attachment of lagging to the rails to retain the
wood should have adequate size,

as lagging. Geogrids, such as
may
used
Used guardrail
be
strength, and durability.
Tensar Biaxial Geognd BX1100 (or equal) may also be used. If a geognd is used, the
backfill material.
If
to
be used, the
gradation of the backfill must be large enough to prevent us passing through the geognd.
K.
The slupes beneath
the supported sections
must not be subject
erosion control must be established on the slope
84
if rail
piling
to
is
severe erosion. Suitable

to
be used.
If
TYPICAL SECTION DEPICTING INSTALLATION OF

RAILROAD RAIL PLACED IN DRILLED SOCKET
FOR LANDSLIDE CORRECTION
/-"Break
-^
concrete is used
rft
as the backfill
material, guardrail
post may be
inserted in
fresh concrete
Material
may
conti
-Railroad Rati
Backfill
around
railroad
rail
may
concrete, sand, pea gravel, crua

limestone or sandstone
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
Design Chart for 130
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
ALTERNATE SCHEMES FOR INSTALLING

RAILROAD RAILS _PLACED IN DRILLED SOCKETS
Scheme
I
Typical 10"
3'
12" diameter hole
max.
Rail should
Approx. 2
ft.
always be oriented with flanges
perpendicular to landslide movement
One row may be used when
the effective spacing
varies from approximately 2
88
ft.
ALTERNATE SCHEMES FOR INSTALLING

RAILROAD RAILS PLACED IN DRILLED SOCKET)
Scheme n
Typical 10"
-
diameter hoi
ft.
Two
2- 4
or
Rail should always be oriented

with flangea perpendicular to
landslide movement
ft.
more rows should be used when the
effective spacing
is
89
less than 2 feet.
IDENTIFICATION OF
RAILROAD RAIL SIZES
1.
Typically classified
Examples
155 lbs/yd, 140
In
units of Iba-per-yard.
2.
Each
lbs/yd, 132 Ibe/yd,
90
has a classification stamped
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
should not be greater
(23 feet).
Restricted to slides affecting one driving lane.
Severe erosion of slopes cannot be allowed.
Assumes
No
failure surface at depth of formation.
Factor-of-Safety included into design
charts.
91
APPENDIX
CONTACT INFORMATION OF PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMIC

PERSONNEL INQUIRED
Railroad Rail Piles
Doug Smith
Kentucky Department
1236 Wilkinson Blvd.
Conventional Horizontal Drains

Jeff Jensen
Jensen Drilling
230 Cusick Road
Alcoa, TN 37701
Phone: (423) 984-4627
(423)970-3151
Fax:
Frankfort,
KY 40601-1200
Phone: (502) 564-2374
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
Horizontal Wick Drains

Dr. Paul Santi
Department of Geological and Petroleum
Engineering
P.O. Box 2468
Pikeville,KY41502
Phone: (606) 433-7791
University of Missouri-Rolla
Fax:
129 McNutt Hall

Rolla,
of Transportation
MO 65409
Office:
e-mail:
(573)341-4927
(573)341-4867
(573)341-6935
psanti@umr.edu
www.umr.edu/~psanti
Gravity Mass Retaining

John Wolosick
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
John Sidney Davis
e-mail:
web:
Vice President
Schnabel Foundation Company
1654 Lower Roswell Rd
e-mail: ed.forte@stabilator.com
web:
www.stabilator.com
Driven Recycled Plastic Pins

Dr. Erik
Marietta,
GA 30068
Phone: (770)971-6455
Fax:
(770) 977-8530
e-mail: isiddavis@cs.com
www.schnabel.com
web:
Loehr
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

University of Missouri-Columbia
Phone: (573) 882-6269

Fax:
(573) 882-4784
e-mail: eloehr@missouri.edu
Mechanically Stabilized Earth

David Wheeler
Wheeler Corporation
841 Elston Drive
Shelbyville, IN
46176
Phone: (317)398-7500
(317)298-0282
Fax:
e-mail: wheeler@theinnet.net
92
Biotechnical Remediation
Other State Departments of

Transportation Inquired
George Athanasakes
FMSM
Engineers
1901 Nelson Miller Pkwy.
Louisville,
Illinois
KY 40223-2177
Dr.
Phone: (502)244-6519
Fax:
(502) 244-8826
Wahab
Head Geotechnical Engineer

126 East Ash
Springfield, IL 62704
qathanasakes@fmsmenq.com
e-mail:
Department of Transportation
Riyad
Phone: (217)782-7207
(217)782-2572
Excavation and Backfill Method

Cost Estimate and Cost Summary
e-mail:

Tarlochan S. Bansi
Ohio Department of Transportation

Jean Gieger
Supervisor Engineering Assessment Section

Preliminary Engineering and Environment
Geotechnical Design Coordinator
Fax:
1600 West Broad St. Rm. 2033

Columbus, OH 43223
Phone: (614)275-1318
Fax:
(614)275-1354
e-mail: qeiqer@odot.dot.ohio.gov
Division
IGCN
100 N. Senate Ave. Rm. N848
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2218
Phone: (317)232-5470
Fax:
(317)232-5478
e-mail:
tbansi
Tennessee Department of Transportation

Leonard Oliver
Engineering Manager-Geotechnical Division
TDOT Materials and Tests Division
@ indot.state.in.us
Brad Steckler
Manager Engineering Assessment Section
Preliminary Engineering and Environment
6601 Centennial Blvd.

Nashville,
Division
TN 37243
Phone: (615)350-4101
Fax:
(615)350-4128
IGCN
Phone: (317)232-5137
Fax:
(317)232-5478
West
Virginia
Department of
Transportation
Greg Bailey
e-mail: bsteckler indot.state.in.us
Vladimir
wahabrm@nt.dot.state.il. us
Head Geotechnical Engineer

West Virginia Department of Transportation
State Complex Bldg. 5 Rm. 650
1900 Kanawha Blvd. East
Charleston, WV 25305
llyin
Highway Engineer Supervisor

Design Division
IGCN
Phone: (304) 558-0601

Fax:
(304) 558-4344
e-mail: qbailev dot. state. wv. us

Phone: (317)232-5228
Fax:
(317)233-4929
93

Full Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joint

LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION USING

LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION USING UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS

formerly a Purdue University Civil Engineering faculty

Highway Research Program

Cooperation with the

Indiana Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

West Lafayette, IN 47907

Digitized by the Internet Archive

2011 with funding from

LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation;

Indiana Department of Transportation

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

Government Accession No.

Recipient's Catalog No.

Performing Organization Code

Performing Organization Report No.

Deschamps and Cary B. Lange

Name and Address

1284 Civil Engineering Building

West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1284

Contract or Grant No.

Type of Report and Period Covered

Name and Address

Indiana Department of Transportation

State Office Building

100 North Senate Avenue

Sponsoring Agency Code

cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal

A substantial amount of the Indiana

within the residual soils and sedimentary rock of Southern Indiana.

spent on road repair and maintenance from

as an alternative to the excavation

and for which

Relatively modest improvements in

horizontal wick drains, driven recycled plastic pins, railroad

lime piles, biotechnical remediation, and gravity mass retaining

landslide inventory containing various attribute information of geologic environment

and landslide geometry was compiled. The inventory

includes 284 landslides with attribute information of each individual landslide.

The constructed GIS database allowed easy

a function of topography and

geometry of the landslide.

methods depends upon the

landslide classification. Eleven landslide types are

characteristics of the sliding mass,

available to the public through the

National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

remediation, slope stability

the geologic environment and

geographic information system (GIS), landslide

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

INDIANA LANDSLIDE INVENTORY

2.2 Landslide Attributes

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM

GIS Database Construction

GEOLOGY AND LANDSLIDE CORRELATION

4.2 Correlation of Landslide Occurrence and Geology

PROPOSED LANDSLIDE REMEDIAL METHODS

5.1.2 General Application Issues of Remedial

5.3.2 Horizontal Drainage Overview