Information Note 03/2011 October 2011

Consequence Classifications Used by

the Geotechnical Engineering Office
Key Messages: The objective of this note is to explain to the general
public the consequence classification systems used for
slopes and retaining walls by the Geotechnical
Engineering Office (GEO) in the 18 years before 1996,
and to describe the new system now in use.

Previous Use of the Term ‘Risk’ to Mean ‘Consequence’

The term ‘risk’ was originally used by consultants to the Government in 1977/78, and
subsequently adopted by the GEO, to mean ‘consequence’. Therefore, the risk classification
of a slope or retaining wall gave an assessment of what the consequence could be to the
public if the slope or wall were to fail. The assessment was confined to the likelihood of a
person or persons being injured, or economic damage being done, should failure occur. It
did not consider the likelihood of failure of the slope or wall.

The usage of the term risk originated before a set of standard international
terminologies on the subject of risk assessment was established. Use of the term risk to
mean consequence is no longer compatible with international usage. As from March 1996,
the GEO has adopted the new terminology described below.

The New System of Consequence Classification

The use of the term risk to mean consequence in the event of a failure of a slope or
wall had led to a great deal of misunderstanding by the public. For this reason, and in order
to conform to the now established international engineering usage, the GEO has decided to
use the term consequence in place of risk. Two types of consequence are commonly referred
to, viz. consequence-to-life and economic consequence.

The descriptive terms ‘high’, ‘low’ and ‘negligible’ were originally used in the
consequence classification system. They were intended to reflect the likely relative severity
of the failure consequence, but these too have caused misconceptions, particularly for
consideration of potential loss of life. To avoid possible confusion, the three categories of
consequence-to-life are now denoted as Categories 1, 2 and 3 respectively instead of ‘high’,
‘low’ and ‘negligible’. Typical examples of facilities affected by landslides in each
consequence-to-life category are given in Table 1.

For the same reason, a new system is also adopted to denote the different categories of
economic consequence. The three categories of economic consequence are now denoted as
Categories A, B and C respectively instead of ‘high’, ‘low’ and ‘negligible’. Typical
examples of facilities affected by landslides in each economic consequence category are given
in Table 2.

A combined notation can now be used to indicate both the consequence-to-life and the
 - 2 -

economic consequence of a slope or wall feature. For example, a Category 1A feature refers
to one having the highest consequence-to-life and economic consequence in the new three-tier
classification system.

A brief outline of the history of consequence classifications used by the GEO is given
in Appendix A.

Prepared by Standards and Testing Division

Geotechnical Engineering Office
Civil Engineering and Development Department
October 2011
 - 3 -

Table 1 - Typical Examples of Facilities Affected by Landslides in Each

Consequence-to-Life Category

Consequence-
Group Facilities to-life
Category(1)
(a) Heavily Used Buildings
- residential building, commercial office, store and shop, hotel,
factory, school, power station, ambulance depot, market, hospital,
polyclinic, clinic, welfare centre

1 (b) Others
- cottage, licensed and squatter areas
- bus shelter, railway platform and other sheltered public waiting
area 1
- dangerous goods storage site (e.g. petrol stations)
- road with very heavy vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
(a) Lightly Used Buildings
- indoor car park, building within barracks, abattoir, incinerator,
indoor games’ sport hall, sewage treatment plant, refuse transfer
station, church, temple, monastery, civic centre, manned
substation
2
(b) Others
- major infrastructure facility (e.g. railway, tramway, flyover,
subway, tunnel portal, service reservoir)
- construction site (if future use not certain)
- road with heavy vehicular or pedestrian traffic density 2
- heavily used open space and public waiting area (e.g. heavily used
playground, open car park, heavily used sitting out area,
3 horticulture garden)
- road with moderate vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
- lightly used open-air recreation area (e.g. district open space,
lightly used playground, cemetery, columbarium)
4 - non-dangerous goods storage site
- road with low vehicular or pedestrian traffic density 3
- remote area (e.g. country park, undeveloped green belt,
5 abandoned quarry)
- road with very low vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
Note: (1) The consequence-to-life category refers to situation where the facilities are
located within the expected travel distance of landslide debris or the expected
crest influence zone of the failure. Any indirect consequences should also be
taken into consideration, e.g. debris falling into a catchwater can travel long
distance and affect other facilities. Situations where the consequence-to-life
category can be downgraded are given in Technical Guidance Note No. 15.
 - 4 -

Table 2 - Typical Examples of Slope Failures in Each Economic Consequence Category

Economic Consequence
Examples
Category (1)
Failures affecting buildings, which could cause excessive structural
damage.
Failures affecting essential services(3) which could cause loss of that
A(2)
service for an extended period.
Failures affecting rural or urban trunk roads or roads of strategic
importance.
Failures affecting essential services(3) which could cause loss of that
service for a short period.
B(2)
Failures affecting rural (A) or primary distributor roads which are not
sole accesses.
Failures affecting open-air car parks.
Failures affecting rural (B), feeder, district distributor and local
C(2)
distributor roads which are not sole accesses.
Failures affecting country parks.
Notes: (1) Prior to March 1996, Economic Consequence was referred to as Economic Risk.
(2) Prior to March 1996, ‘Category A’, ‘Category B’ and ‘Category C’ were
referred to as ‘High’, ‘Low’ and ‘Negligible’ respectively.
(3) Essential services are those that serve a district and have no or very inferior
alternatives. Examples are mass transit facilities and trunk utility services.
(4) These examples are for guidance only. The designer must decide for himself
the degree of economic consequence and must balance the potential economic
consequence in event of a failure against the increased construction costs
required to achieve a higher factor of safety.
 - 5 -

Appendix A: History of Consequence Classifications Used by the GEO

The Catalogue of slopes

In 1977 and 1978, an inventory of more than 10,000 man-made slopes and retaining
walls was prepared based on site inspections. This Catalogue of Slopes comprises data
sheets and photographs.

On each data sheet in the Catalogue of Slopes, the risk category of the slope or
retaining wall is given. A six-category risk classification system was adopted by the
Government consultants who prepared the Catalogue in 1977/78. This system is shown in
Table A1.

Many slopes existing in 1977/78 were not included in the original slope cataloguing
exercise because at that time attention was concentrated on the urban areas of Hong Kong
Island and Kowloon, and only large man-made slopes adjacent to roads carrying vehicular
traffic in the New Territories were included. In addition, many new slopes have been
formed since the completion of the Catalogue of Slopes in 1978 and not all of these features
have been registered. Work on the compilation of a new Catalogue of Slopes, including the
establishment of a computer database containing all the key information, was initiated by the
GEO in July 1994. This project was completed in September 1998.

To avoid confusion, the new landslide consequence classification system described in

this Information Note has been adopted for the new Catalogue.

Design and Stability Assessment of Slopes

The GEO publishes guidance documents giving recommended standards of practice

for the investigation, design, construction and maintenance of slopes in Hong Kong. The
principal guidance document is the Geotechnical Manual for Slopes. This document was
first published in 1979 and revised in 1984 after wide consultation with the geotechnical
engineering profession in Hong Kong and abroad. Among other things, this Manual
stipulates the minimum standards required for the assessment of stability of existing slopes
and for the design of new slopes.

It is common practice in geotechnical engineering to express the degree of stability of a

slope in terms of a factor of safety. In order to ensure that there is adequate stability,
calculations or analyses are carried out to check that the slope has a factor of safety for a
defined set of circumstances, which is greater than a minimum acceptable value. The
Geotechnical Manual for Slopes recommends that, in selecting the minimum factor of safety to
be used for slope design, the designer must consider the extent to which failure of the slope
could cause loss of life and economic loss. For the risk-to-life and economic risk categories,
three levels of risk (i.e. consequence) were adopted, viz. ‘high’, ‘low’ and ‘negligible’. The
‘high’ and ‘low’ categories of this classification system are not the same as those of the
six-category system adopted in the 1977/78 Catalogue of Slopes. This three-category risk
classification system has been found to be satisfactory in slope engineering practice in Hong
Kong.
 - 6 -

The risk-to-life category of a slope reflects the likelihood of loss of life in the event of
a failure. The economic risk category reflects the likely severity of economic loss in the
event of a failure. These risk categories are based only on considerations of the consequence
of failure. The higher the level of risk-to-life or economic risk, the higher is the minimum
factor of safety required to be used in the slope design or stability assessment.

The new consequence classification system has been adopted for design and stability
assessment of slopes since its promulgation.

Table A1 - The Six Categories of Risk (i.e. Consequence) Adopted in the 1977/78
Catalogue of Slopes

CATEGORY MEANING EXAMPLES

VERY HIGH There is a direct threat to many of Slopes and walls immediately adjacent
RISK the public should failure occur. to occupied buildings in densely
populated areas
HIGH RISK There is a direct threat to a few of Many slopes and walls within built-up
the public should failure occur. areas, villages, licensed and squatter
areas (depending on the proximity of
the slope or wall to occupied buildings).
MODERATE TO There is a moderate to high Many slopes and walls within built-up
HIGH RISK probability that the public would areas, villages, licensed and squatter
be placed at risk should failure areas (depending on the proximity of
occur. the slope or wall to occupied buildings)
MODERATE There is a moderate probability Slopes and walls where buildings are
RISK that the public would be placed at located at the likely limit of a debris fall
risk should failure occur.
LOW TO There is a low to moderate Slopes and walls associated with major
MODERATE probability that the public would roads where failure could lead to an
RISK be placed at risk should failure accident
occur.
LOW RISK There is a low probability that the Slopes and walls associated with roads
public would be placed at risk in country areas and low or
should failure occur. shallow-angled slopes not immediately
adjacent to buildings
Notes: (1) For any particular feature, the risk category shown in the Catalogue of Slopes
applies to the site at the date shown in the records (dates are given on the field
sheets).
(2) The risk category of a particular feature may be altered by future development
or change of use of the site and, when this happens, the risk category must be
re-assessed.
(3) The economic consequences of a slope or wall failure have not been considered
in assessing the above risk categories.