The Little Smoky Landslide

S. THOMSON
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G7
AND
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.

D. W. HAYLEY
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 14535 -118 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5L 2M7
Received December 17, 1974
Accepted May 12, 1975

The west abutment of the Little Smoky River bridge in central Alberta showed evidence of
movement toward the river. Subsequent investigations revealed that the landslide on which the
bridge was built was moving slowly. The Little Smoky River occupies a broad preglacial valley
eroded in Upper Cretaceous clay shales and is re-excavating tills deposited during glaciation. The
site was instrumented with tiltmeters to define the failure planes. Soil strength parameters were
determined on samples obtained from boreholes. Analysis revealed that the failure mechanism
consisted of a series of blocks each acting as a separate entity but all merging to a com,mon lower
shear zone. The key to understanding the failure is the failure of the individual blocks progres-
sively from the toe to the scarp. The slow movement allows the bridge to be kept in service. Since
the first block is subject to river erosion, its stabilization would be a step in stabilizing the slope.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

La culee ouest du pont sur la rivibre Little Smoky dans le centre de I'Alberta presentait des
signes de mouvement en direction d e la rivibre. Des etudes ulterieures ont rCvElC que le glisse-
ment de terrain sur lequel le pont est construit se dCplace lentement. La rivibre Little Smoky
occupe une large vallBe preglaciaire qui a CtC Brodee dans des schistes argileux du crCtac6
superieur, et recreuse son lit dans des dep6ts glaciaires. Le site a CtC instrument6 avec des
inclinombtres pour determiner les plans de glissement. Les parambtres de resistance du sol ont
CtC determines 8 partir d'tkhantillons pr6levCs dans des forages. L'analyse a r t v t l i que le
mecanisme de rupture se compose d'une strie de blocs agissant les uns sur les autres individuel-
lement mais ayant un plan de cisaillement infkrieur commun. Le glissement de terrain ne
s'explique que si on considbre la rupture des blocs individuels qui se developpe progressivement
depuis le pied du talus jusqu'8 I'escarpement sup6rieur. Le mouvement est suffisamment lent
pour que le pont puisse Stre maintenu en service. Le premier bloc etant soumis B 1'6rosion de la
rivibre, sa stabilisation serait une premibre mesure vers la stabilisation de la pente entibre.

Introduction Physiographic Setting and General Geology of

In 1956, the road link from Valleyview
(some 300 miles (480 km) northwest of Ed-
monton) northward to the town of Peace River
in the Peace River District of Alberta was up-
graded and paved. Part of this project involved
a bridge across the Little Smoky River about
30 miles (48 km) north of Valleyview. The
bridge was completed early in 1957 and the
following year the west abutment showed evi-
dence of movement toward the river. Subse-
quent investigations revealed a landslide of
considerable magnitude which has been the
subject of study over the ensuing decade. The
purpose of this paper is to review the latest
exploration and instrumentation and to present
an analysis of the slide. The site is shown on
Fig. 1.
Can. Geotech. J . , 12,379(1975)
the Site
The general area is characterized by rolling
uplands and deeply entrenched river valleys.
The long period of subaerial erosion during
the Tertiary period resulted in a mature topog-
raphy with wide river valleys having long gently
sloping walls. A large thickness of bedrock,
consisting of all of the Tertiary and part of the
Upper Cretaceous sediments, was stripped
from the vicinity of the bridge site (Henderson
1959).
During the Pleistocene, the area was invaded
from the north and northeast by continental
ice. Basins and river valleys were infilled with
till and associated glacial sediments. Many
areas at prairie level were mantled by lacustrine
deposits. In postglacial time, rivers rapidly cut
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975

about 50 ft ( 15 m) per mile. In the immediate

vicinity of the bridge, the bedrock is the marine
Smoky River Group which is near the base of
the Upper Cretaceous sequence. The group
consists of three members briefly described as
follows. The Lower Smoky Formation is in the
order of 800 ft (245 m) thick and consists of
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.

thin bedded, dark blue-grey to black clay shales.

It has been referred to as the Kaskapau Forma-
tion (McLearn and Kindle 1950). Henderson
(1959) attributes slumping of the valley walls
of the Smoky River to this member. It is over-
lain by the Bad Heart Formation which is a
dark reddish sandstone 15 to 25 ft (5 to 8 m)
thick. The Upper Smoky River Formation rests
on the sandstone and is similar to the lower
member. These latter two formations were
eroded during the Tertiary and the Little Smoky
River at the bridge site is in the Lower Smoky
River Formation. A geologic profile illustrating
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

the bedrock as mapped by Rutherford (1930)

FIG.1. Location of Little Smoky landslide.
into the unconsolidated glacial sediments pro-
ducing a somewhat more rugged topography
than had previously existed. The rapid post-
glacial river erosion resulted in landsliding
along many miles of the rivers in the general
area.
The bedrock of the area consists of inter-
bedded shales and sandstones of Upper Cre-
taceous age that dip gently to the south at
is shown on Fig. 2.
As was noted, the Pleistocene glaciation in-
filled the preglacial valleys with glacial deposits.
Some of the present day rivers are re-excavating
these deposits whereas other buried preglacial
valleys have been abandoned and little or no
surface expression exists to reveal their loca-
tion.
The Little Smoky River is re-excavating its
preglacial valley in the area of the bridge site
but a large proportion of the glacial deposits
still occupy the valley. Several sites in nearby
areas have till sections in excess of 100 ft
(30 m) thick exposed along the valley walls.
The original bedrock walls of the river channel
are not exposed and their location is unknown
in detail.
Henderson (1959) identified three till sheets

U
ZE ELEVATION .
..l

(feet) (metres) 2 I
Q
U_

WAPITI
C
t
A
2000 .......
-700 lyN i -
.................... ............ ................
"J.i5FIMox?~&"'?% SMOKY ............. .......
......
IOOO-
- 3oo ....................................................
........................
DUNVEGAN
l I l I I I I
5 0 5 10 15 20 25 (miles) 30
I I I , I I I I I I 1 I I
10 0 10 20 30 40 50
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (kilometres)

FIG.2. North-south geologic section, Little Smoky River (after Rutherford 1930). Note:
Bad Heart sandstone and Pleistocene are too thin to be shown at the scale used.
 THOMSON AND HAYLEY: LITTLE SMOKY LANDSLIDE
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.
FIG.3. Air photo of the Little Smoky River bridge site.
in the area which represent three ice advances,
all of probable Wisconsin age. The upper till
has a somewhat higher clay content due to the
re-advance of the ice over proglacial lake sedi-
ments. The two lower tills are coarser in tex-
ture. For the purposes of this paper, the two
lower tills have been considered as a single
unit. Since they are similar, their differentiation
from borehole samples is difficult. Sand seams
of varying thickness are present that may repre-
sent outwash or terrace deposits accumulating
during glacial retreat phases. The slumping of
these tills and subsequent toe erosion appears
to be the mechanism for removal of the glacial
material from the old valleys.
Site Description
In the immediate vicinity of the bridge the
river is flowing in a general northwesterly direc-
381
tion and does not appear to be incised into the
bedrock to any considerable depth. The depth
of the valley measured from prairie level to the
west to approximately river level is some 320 f t
(98 m ) . For many miles both upstream and
downstream from the bridge site there has been
considerable landslide activity. Judging from
the surface topography of these slides their age
varies from fairly recent to many hundreds of
years.
An air photo of the bridge site, which can
be viewed stereoscopically, is given on Fig. 3.
The two survey lines referred to subsequently
and shown on Fig. 6 are clearly visible. North
is toward the top of the picture which is an
enlargement from Government of Alberta Air
Photos No. AS1 252-9-21 8 and AS 1252-9-219
taken in 1973. Figure 4 is a general view of
the landslide area of interest to this paper taken
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.
FIG.4. General view of the Little Smoky River landslide.
from across the river. The slide scarp is on the
skyline and is outlined by the snow. The west
end of the bridge is just visible on the extreme
left of the photo. A general view of the bridge
structure is shown on Fig. 5. The photographs
of Figs. 4 and 5 were taken in 1968.
In view of the fact that there are innumerable
landslides it is virtually impossible to select an
acceptable bridge site that does not cross a
landslide. The bridge, which has an overall
length of 900 ft (275 m ) , was constructed
during the fall of 1956 and the spring of 1957
and was designed with one abutment and one
main bridge pier on the west bank (Hardy et
al. 1962). However, soft subsurface soil con-
ditions were encountered in the construction
of the main bridge pier and therefore the bridge
was lengthened by an additional short span and
an abutment to avoid overloading the bank
above the pier. The pier was constructed on
timber piles 21 ft (6.4 m) long driven to a
nominal 20 ton ( 18 t) bearing capacity. They
were, in fact, driven to refusal in the clay
shale. The two abutments were carried on steel
H piles about 40 ft (12 m) long. These pene-
trated into the clay shale for a distance of about
20 ft (6 m). Early in 1958 movements towards
the river were observed in the pier. They were
recorded as 24 in. (61 cm) toward the river
and 2 in. ( 5 cm) in the upstream direction.
The supporting timber piles were also found to
be twisted out of plumb. However, no move-
ment was observed in the two abutments.
During the summer of 1958 the pier was pinned
with steel H piles and was extended so that the
movements of the pier could be accommodated
by adjusting the bridge bearings on the top of
the pier.
It was clearly recognized that the site was
an old slide area and during construction
measures were taken to improve the surface
drainage. The scarp of the landslide is at
prairie level and is about 2000 ft (610 m)
west of the left bank of the river. The west
abutment is about 400 ft (120 m ) from the
left bank of the river. Generally, the slopes are
heavily wooded although the trees, which are
largely second growth aspen, seldom exceed 6
to 8 in. (15 to 20 cm) at the butt. The average
slope from prairie level to river surface is in
the order of 7'. A considerable number of
exploratory boreholes had been drilled in the
area (Hardy et al. 1962). In the summer of
1966 additional drilling was done and five in-
clinometers and three piezometers were in-
stalled. In June 1967 five additional inclinome-
 THOMSON AND HAYLEY: LITTLE SMOKY LANDSLIDE
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.
FIG. 5 . The Little Smoky bridge.
ters were installed. A general site plan showing
the location of the 1966 and 1967 boreholes
and instrumentation is shown on Fig. 6.
Results of Laboratory Tests
A brief description of the major profiles of
the soils is as follows (Hayley 1968):
(1) Upper till, plastic with some pebbles;
ranging in depth from 10 to 75 ft ( 3 to 25 m)
across the site.
(2) Uniform medium brown sand ranging
in thickness from 0 to 15 ft ( 5 m ) .
( 3 ) Lower till with streaks of grey clay and
many pebbles. Cobbles and boulders which
could not be sampled were encountered during
the drilling. Abundant selenite crystals were
encountered in the sandy phases of the ma-
terial.
(4) Clay shale whose condition as noted
during drilling depended on its depth below
the ground surface. If this depth was shallow,
in the order of 20 ft (6 m) it was found to be
soft and fractured. On the other hand, when
the clay shale was encountered at depths
greater than about 60 ft (18 m ) from the
surface it was generally hard and intact.
Drilling and sampling were performed with
a Failing 1500 drilling rig. Boreholes were
augered dry to a depth of about 40 ft (12 m)
below which it was necessary to revert to a
water-flush drilling procedure. Undisturbed
samples were obtained by means of a pitcher
sampler (Terzaghi and Peck 1967).
The results of classification tests on the two
tills and the clay shale are given in Table 1.
The two tills, from a geotechnical point of view,
are not greatly different although the somewhat
higher proportion of the fines in the upper till
is reflected in the Atterberg limits. The break-
down of the clay shale for the grain size
analysis was accomplished by immersing sev-
eral chunk samples in distilled water and sub-
jecting them to several freeze-thaw cycles. The
soil was never drier than its natural moisture
content.
The mineralogy of the clay size fraction of
the soils was determined by the Geology Divi-
sion of the Alberta Research Council. The re-
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

SITE PLAN OF -4 LEGEND

SLOPE INDICATOR

LITTLE S M O K Y SLIDE AREA

SCALE IN
,
0 PIEZOMETER
MAR,,
CREEK

200 400 600 800 1000 (feet)

50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 (metres)

FIG. 6 . Site plan of Little Smoky slide area.

 THOMSON AND HAYLEY: LITTLE SMOKY LANDSLIDE
TABLE1. Summary of classification test results, Little Smoky landslide
Property
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Natural water content (%)
Liquid limit (%)
Plastic limit (%)
Plasticity index (%)
% sand sizesb
% silt sizesb
% clay sizesb
Bulk density (p.c.f. (g/cm3))
OAverage and range of values.
bM.1.T. grain size scale.
TABLE
2. Clay minerals in soils, Little Smoky landslide
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.
Soil
Upper Lower
Clay mineral (X) till till
Montmorillonite 60(17) 90(20)
Illite 20( 7) 5( 2)
Chlorite/kaolinite 20( 7) 5( 2)
NOTE:Figures in parentheses are percentages of total sample.
sults, presented in Table 2, were determined
by X-ray diffraction on samples sedimented on
a glass slide and allowed to air dry. The entire
technique is considered accurate only within
*10%. It is interesting to note that the tills
are richer in montmorillonite than is the clay
shale. This is probably due to the ice sheets
moving over lacustrine sediments deposited in
the glacial lakes by northerly flowing streams
which were eroding the younger Wapiti For-
mation. These younger rocks are richer in
montmorillonite whereas the clay shales near
the bottom of the Upper Cretaceous sequence
and in the upper Lower Cretaceous are richer
in illites. The presence of montmorillonite in
the tills tends to lower their angle of shearing
resistance. In the clay shales, the illites influ-
ence their strength in that the shearing resis-
tance is higher than might be assumed for fine-
grained soils.
The shearing strength of the clay shale was
investigated by means of both triaxial tests and
direct shear tests. The Mohr envelope for the
Soil
Clay shale
Upper till Lower till Soft Hard
peak effective angle of shedring resistance was
obtained by means of consolidated, undrained
triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements
carried out on undistur5ed clay shale samples
Clay from borehole LS2 at a depth of 58 to 59 ft
shale
(17.7 to 18 m). The effective peak angle was
20(8) determined as 32" and the results are shown
60(25) on Fig. 7. It is of interest to note that there is
20( 8) no cohesion intercept.
The residual angle of shearing resistance was
determined from direct shear tests at low rates
of deformation using a reversing direction
technique. It was not possible to obtain satis-
factory samples for testing from the shear plane
using the pitcher sampler; therefore, undis-
turbed samples were obtained from just below
the shear plane. For this reason, three different
procedures were used in the direct shear testing
to evaluate the shear parameter for use in the
analysis. The first series consisted of standard
tests in which the sample was trimmed to fit
the shear box and subjected to reversed shear-
ing deformations. A typical shear test result is
shown on Fig. 8. The second series of tests
were conducted on precut shear planes. The
third series consisted of consolidating samples
remolded from a paste-like consistency in a
large oedometer and trimming shear samples
from the consolidated soil.
The results of these tests are shown on Fig. 7.
The peak values from the direct shear tests fit
reasonably well with the triaxial results and
confirm the value of 32". The remolded tests
define a straight line envelope for residual
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975

100
TRlAXlAL
C-
'? -DIRECT SHEAR (samples from LS 9, 79 - 8 0 feet)
-a A PEAK (undisturbed)
A 3 2 0
80 - 0 RESIDUAL (remoulded, preconsol. to 140 psi)
/
0 RESIDUAL (undisturbed) /
0 RESIDUAL (cut p l a n e ) /
'A.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.

I l l I I l l I
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050
EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS (KNI~')
FIG. 7. Mohr envelopes for Little Smoky clay shale.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

' A - 3 4 5
I
0 5
I
I0
I I
I5 (centimetres) 20
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT
FIG. 8. Typical stress ratio versus displacement
for direct shear test on clay shale.
strengths and yield a value of 19.5". However,
the test results of the undisturbed samples show
some scatter and the residual angle can be in-
terpreted to range from 14" to 17.5'. The cut-
plane samples are on a line through the origin
at an angle of 14". This value agrees with the
lower value from the undisturbed samples and
was chosen for the analyses. The higher angle
from the remolded tests may reflect the differ-
ences in fabric between the natural and re-
molded materials.
The residual strength of the till was assessed
from a series of four direct shear tests on re-
molded samples. The presence of stones in the
till disturbed this soil during sampling which
gave rise to unreliable results from the subse-
quent shear tests which were attempted. The
tests on the remolded soil established the re-
sidual angle as 18".
Site Investigation
The Alberta Department of Highways under-
took an investigation of surface movements
that consisted of accurately locating a series of
control points. These points consist of steeI
rods 10 ft ( 3 m) long driven at intervals along
lines A and B of Fig. 6 which extend from the
6 7 (inches) river to the prairie level beyond the scarp. The
I
profile of these survey lines is shown on Fig.
9 ( a ) and the plan view indicating the relative
movements on Fig. 9 ( b ) . Control points were
also established on the west abutments and on
Pier 1. The movement of these points is also
shown on Fig. 9 ( b ) .
The results of the survey of surface control
points indicated that the entire area from the
scarp to the river was moving. Horizontal dis-
placements are larger than the estimated survey
error except for point j where its movement is
uphill. The amount, however, is small and
within the survey error. A review of Fig. 9(b)
indicates that, in general, the amount of move-
ment of the ground surface increases from a
minimum at the scarp to a maximum near the
river. This feature is important in the subse-
quent analysis.
The failure plane in the vicinity of the bridge
was located by slope indicator installations
LS1, 2, and 3. In hole LS4 a shear zone was
noted at elevation 1644, almost 60 ft (18 m)
higher than in the first three holes. Installation
LS5 was not deep enough, hence no movement
 THOMSON AND HAYLEY: LITTLE SMOKY LANDSLIDE 387
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

NOTE :
l o f t IRON RODS SHOWN
THUS 0

SCALE MOVEMENT VECTOR

SCALE

FIG.9. Plan and profile showing control survey for Little Smoky slide area.

was recorded. Slope indicators LS6 to 10were TABLE

3. Location of failure planes from slope indicator
installed the following spring at sites chosen to installations
yield the maximum data. LS6 was installed to
a depth of 200 ft (61 m) to ensure penetration Elevation of
failure Elevation of
of the shear zone. LS7, 8, and 9 were chosen Slope indicator plane(s) (ft) bedrock (ft)
to explore the northerly portion of the slide
area and LSlO was placed to explore the effect LSl
of the little gully. The orientation of each slope LS2
LS3
indicator is shown on Fig. 6 with an arrow LS4
indicating the 'north' direction. LS5
Typical plots of the readings from the in- LS6
clinometers are shown in Fig. 10 and the loca-
LS7
tions of failure planes are listed in Table 3.
The failure zones as judged from drilling and
tiltmeters were in the order of 2 to 4 ft (0.5 to LS8
1 m ) thick. In holes LS6 and 7 more than one LS9
failure plane was located (see also Fig. 10). LSlO
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975

DEPTH
(feet) (metres)
No. DATE TlME No. DATE TlME
(days1
1 JULY 1 1 0 1 JUNE 24 0
2 AUG. 5 25 2 JULY 11 17
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.

3 AUG. 22 42 3 AUG. 5 42
4 SEPT. 30 81 4 AUG. 22 59
5 OCT. 28 109 5 SEPT. 30 98
6 OCT. 28 126
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

-10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20 30 40
DIAL CHANGE DIAL CHANGE
SLOPE INDICATOR 40 SLOPE INDICATOR
LS 7 ( E - W ) LS 8 ( E - W )
FIG.10. Typical slope indicator data, Little Smoky slide.

The deepest failure plane had the most move-
ment and was taken as the main failure surface.
The interpretation of the higher failure zones
will be considered subsequently.
Since the two inclinometers installed in the
vicinity of the west abutment of the bridge
located the failure plane, it was possible to
place two transducer-type piezometers imme-
diately above the failure zone. The piezometric
data are shown on Fig. 11. Water levels in
adjacent slope indicator access tubes are also
shown and the agreement is tolerable. As a
consequence, and in lieu of installing more
piezometers, water levels in the boreholes were
used to establish the piezometric surface.
Profile of the Slide
The area of the slide is very large, as may be
noted from Fig. 6. It is also obvious from this
figure that the number of boreholes is limited.
Therefore, although the borehole logs are rea-
sonably consistent, there is, of necessity, much
extrapolation required to create a subsurface
profile. The profile used in the analysis is shown
on Fig. 12 and is considered to be an adequate
working model. The boreholes combined with
the geologic history establish the bedrock sur-
face. The overlying Pleistocene materials are
the result of the ice advances within the valley.
As was noted previously the deposits are mainly
tills but there are discontinuous sand seams
within and separating the tills. However, on
the scale of the landslide the influence of these
sand seams on shear strength is likely minor
and a single set of representative strength
parameters has been assigned to the Pleistocene
deposits overlying the bedrock.
Failure Mechanism and Analysis
The main failure zone, established by the
slope indicator data (Table 3 ) , is essentially
horizontal at an elevation of 1589 ft (484.65
 THOMSON AND HAYLEY: LITTLE SMOKY LANDSLIDE

1650
LSP l A

(water level in
slope indicotor) L LSP 1A
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.

490L
1610
I ,, , , , , 1
0 10 20 30 401 5 0 0 10 210 30 40 50 60 70 8P 90 100
OCT. 1 NOV. 1 MAY 1 JUNE 1 JULY 1
TIME (days)

m. 11. Piezometer data, Little Smoky slide.

Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

-;. 1900
PlEZOMETRlC LEVEL -FAILURE PLANE

580
-
0)
0) 560
r l800
540 A
1700 520
Q
i- 500
0

2i= 1600
l500
480
460
Q
&
;=
et1
I I 4 I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 (metres)
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
LEGEND
m PLEISTOCENE (MAINLY TILL)

UPPER SHEAR PLANE IDENTIFIED IN BOREHOLES

FIG. 12. Stratigraphic profile used in analysis of Little Smoky landslide.

m). The downward projection of the scarp
area was taken as the rear part of the failure
surface. The stability of this failure surface was
checked using the noncircular surface method
of Morgenstern and Price (1965). Using re-
sidual angles of shearing resistance and zero
cohesion for the entire slide surface the factor
of safety was computed as 1.7. This value is
surprisingly high. The factor of safety could be
reduced by employing lower strength param-
eters for the till and clay shale. However, the
strength data are considered reliable although
the residual angle for the till was determined
on remolded material. Table 2 indicates that
the clay sizes of the till are largely montmoril-
lonite but Table 1 shows a high proportion of
sand. The montmorillonite is probably fairly
evenly distributed through the till, suggesting
that the value of 18' used for the residual angle
of the till is acceptable. As a confirmatory check,
however, the entire slide surface was analyzed
assuming the shearing resistance of the till was
10'. The factor of safety was still 1.52. The
factor of safety of 1.7 for the entire sliding sur-
face assumes that the slide mass moved as an
intact block. In this instance, this assumption is
clearly incorrect.
A study of Figs. 9 ( a ) and (b) and Table 3
reveals a fruitful line of reasoning. The con-
figuration of the ground surface depicted on
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975
the profiles of Fig. 9 ( a ) and Fig. 12 suggests
a series of slides whose lower surfaces merge to
form a single continuous shear zone. For such
a series of slides to occur, they must have done
so retrogressively, each block acting as an
independent unit. This implies that the block
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
at the toe adjacent to the river failed first,
which is a likely event following erosion by the
river. In addition to its own movement, the
first block had to move far enough to deprive
the next inward block of its toe support. The
failure of this second block had to have a river-
ward movement sufficient to allow failure of
the third block, hence the first block moved
further. Each successive block must behave in
a similar manner; therefore, as one approaches
the river from the scarp, each slide block must
have moved a distance somewhat greater than
its adjacent uphill block. Erosion of the river,
on the outside of a bend, eroded the first block
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.
as it slid forward.
Confirmation of the preceding concept is
given by the ground surface survey results re-
corded on Fig. 9 (b). As was noted previously,
the vectors representing movement are, in
general, shortest near the scarp and increase
to a maximum at the toe. Point M of line B is
an apparent anomaly but its location on a
rather steep slope (Fig. 9 ( a ) ) suggests that
surface movement of the point may be occur-
ring, thus adding to the deeper seated motion.
Further confirmation is available from the
data of Table 3. Failure planes were located at
elevations considerably above the main failure
plane in boreholes LS4, 6, and 7. It-is evident
that these boreholes intercepted the steeply
dipping shear planes between blocks. This in-
terpretation is consistent with the concept of
a series of retrogressively failing blocks. This
failure mechanism was adopted as a working
model.
The concept of a series of slides as the
failure mechanism was neither envisioned nor
appreciated during the drilling program. The
hummocky topography was considered to be
the result of deformation of the slide mass
after initial failure had occurred. It was subse-
quent to the first analysis using residual strength
parameters which yielded a high factor of safety
that a more critical examination of the entire
slide became essential. The boreholes were not
sited with the final failure mechanism in mind
and, noting the area1 extent of the failed mass
(Fig. 6 ) , it is fortuitous that the upper parts of
shear planes between blocks were intersected
in three boreholes.
On the stratigraphic profile shown on Fig.
12, a series of tentative slide blocks was out-
lined as suggested by the configuration of the
ground surface. Each block was analyzed as an
individual unit using the noncircular arc method
(Morgenstern and Price 1965). The curved
failure surface was represented by a series of
straight lines that merged with the main failure
plane. That part of the slip surface extending
from the toe of the block being analyzed to the
river bank was assigned a nominal angle of
shearing resistance of 2".
In the analysis of any particular block, the
downhill blocks cannot be considered absent
because the weight of, the adjacent downslope
block acts on the downhill 'face' of the block
being analyzed. The downslope blocks, having
failed and moved forward, were considered to
have little effect on the stability of the block
under consideration. In order to account for
the weight of a block acting on the downhill
face of the adjacent uphill block and at the
same time to have a minimal effect on the
factor of safety, the nominal angle of 2" was
chosen.
The analyses of the first series of blocks
chosen yielded encouraging results and refine-
ments were made in the location of the shear
planes defining the blocks. The analyses were
repeated and a further series of failure planes
selected. The location of the main slip surface
at elevation 1589 was maintained in all the
trials. It became apparent that the mechanism
adopted was clearly acceptable and accounted
for the failure. The failure surfaces of a final
analysis are given on Fig. 12 along with the
individual factors of safety. Of the seven blocks
shown, three have factors of safety that appear
too high. Further analyses resulting from re-
located failure surfaces or, perhaps, the addi-
tion of another slip surface, would eventually
result in acceptably low factors of safety for
each block. The series of blocks shown on
Fig. 12 is not the only combination nor do they
necessarily reflect the actual failure surfaces
that exist in the field except for the lower sur-
face upon which each surface converged. How-
ever, the series of blocks depicted suffice to
 -r

THOMSON AND HAYLEY: LITTLE SMOKY LANDSLIDE 391

Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.

FIG.13. Modification to superstructure and pier, Little Smoky River bridge.

TABLE4. Transverse elevations of failure plane, Little Smoky landslide

1. Borehole number 10 2 1 7
Elevation of failure plane (ft) 1590 1584 1589 1589
Horizontal distance boreholes 10 to 7 = 850 ft
2. Borehole number 10 2 3 9 8
Elevation of failure plane (ft) - 1590 1584 1576 1580 1579
Horizontal distance boreholes 10 to 8 = 1100 ft

illustrate that the mechanism of a progressive
series of failures is valid.
Discussion
The key to an understanding of the failure
mechanism is the retrogressive failure of a
series of slices or blocks, each acting as a
separate entity. As river erosion affects the
slice adjacent to the river, each slice in turn,
progressively toward the scarp, moves forward.
It is this mechanism that allows the bridge to
be kept in service despite the accumulated
large riverward movement. The simple but
effective expedient of placing rollers under the
superstructure on top of the pier or abutment
allows the ground to advance slowly without
distortion of the superstructure. The modifica-
tion is illustrated on Fig. 13, a photograph
taken in 1968, which also shows the extension
to the concrete to accommodate the movement.
At the time of writing (November 1974) over
12 ft ( 4 m) of movement toward the river has
taken place.
The failure mechanism also suggests that
stabilizing the block adiacent to the river, for
example, by armoring the bank, would be a
large step toward stabilizing the entire slide.
Although this has the merit of geotechnical
 392 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975
simplicity, the size of the slide and its location
on the outside of a bend in the river must be
considered.
Although the majority of slide analyses are
two dimensional, one wonders how flat the
shear plane is laterally. The data in Table 4
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Calif Dig Lib - Davis on 12/28/14. For personal use only.
indicate that, in this instance, the failure surface
is remarkably horizontal over a wide distance
transverse to the slide movement.
The value of simple, but precise, ground
surface survey data is well known and this case
history serves to emphasize its importance.
Similarly, an integral part of field work is the
value of the tiltmeter. It is of interest to note
the depth to which it was necessary to monitor
to ensure intersecting the failure plane. Several
intermediate shear planes were located which
subsequently provided confirmation of the fail-
ure mechanism.
Can. Geotech. J. 1975.12:379-392.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to the National
Research Council of Canada and to the Alberta
Joint Co-operative Highway Research Program
for providing financial assistance for this re-
search. The cooperation of the Alberta Depart-
ment of Highways which provided information
and which carried out the ground survey was
of great value and is deeply appreciated. The
authors wish to acknowledge the able contribu-
tion of E. W. Brooker, then Associate Professor
of Civil Engineering, under whose guidance the
project was conducted.
HARDY,R. M., BROOKER, E. W., and CURTIS,W. E., 1962.
Landslides in over-consolidated clays. Eng. J. 45(6),
pp. 81-89.
HAYLEY,D. W. 1968. Progressive failure of a clay shale
slope in northern Alberta. Unpublished M S c . Thesis,
Dept. Civ. Eng., Univ. Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
61p.
HENDERSON, E. P. 1959. Surficial geology of Sturgeon
Lake map area, Alberta. Geol. Surv. Can. Mem. 303,
1Wp.
MCLEARN,F. H., and KINDLE,E . D. 1950. Geology of
northeastern British Cplumbia. Geol. Surv. Can.
Mem. 259, 102p.
MORGENSTERN, N. R., and PRICE,V. E. 1965. Theanalysis
of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique,
15, pp. 79-93.
RUTHERFORD, R. L. 1930. Geology and water resources in
parts of the Peace River and Grande Prairie Districts,
Alberta. Res. Counc. Alberta, Rep. No. 21,68p.
TERZAGHI,K., and PECK,R. B. 1967. Soil mechanics in
engineering practice. Wiley, N.Y. 31 1p.