V. E. Evreiskov.

The Struggle Against Landslides in Volga Cities*)

Among the other landslide regions of the USSR (Crimea, the Northern Caucasus, the Black Sea coast, the districts of the former Administration for the Reconstruction of Mining Sites of the Siberian Railway, Odessa, Svyatoshyn, Kiev, and others), the landslide region of the Middle and Lower Volga, in terms of the intensity and scale of the phenomena and the magnitude of the cultural assets which landslides have threatened and continue to threaten, undoubtedly stands in first place.

Landslide phenomena on the Volga have been known since ancient times (N. Novgorod, Saratov). Their primary cause lies in the peculiarities of the hydrogeological structure of the banks, complicated by the erosive activity of the spring waters of the Volga River. To these natural causes of landslide phenomena must be added factors created by the intervention of human activity—the construction of various structures that disturb the equilibrium of the strata, and changes in the regime of flowing, ground, or surface waters.

At the present time, on the Volga, a number of cities suffer to one degree or another from landslides: Uglich, Mologa, Kimry, Plyos, Nizhnii Novgorod, Vasil’sursk, Koz’modem’yansk, Cheboksary, Tetyushi, Ulyanovsk, Sengilei, Khvalynsk, Vol’sk, Kamyshin, Saratov, Pokrovsk, and Stalingrad. Landslide phenomena have also affected certain railway approaches to cities: the approach to N.-Novgorod of the N.-Novgorod–Krasnyi Uzel branch, the wharf branch in Ulyanovsk and the approach of the Bugul’ma–Ulyanovsk line to the latter, the approach of the Ryazan–Ural Railway to Vol’sk, the Syzran–Samara section on the approaches to Syzran, the Saratov–Uralsk branch, and the wharf branches in Stalingrad.

On the indicated railway approaches, in some cases during construction, catastrophic phenomena of deformation of the roadbed occurred, making completion of construction extremely difficult; but through the measures undertaken, the deformations were to one degree or another eliminated or weakened.

In the large Volga cities the struggle against landslide phenomena began in the old pre-revolutionary period, but this struggle was conducted in most cities without a definite plan, from case to case, with the use of palliative measures only as a matter of extreme necessity.

Given this state of affairs and the insufficiency of funds released by municipal administrations, the measures adopted resolved the question only temporarily, which often led to unnecessary expenditures and undermined confidence both in measures of control in general and in the persons carrying them out. It is true that individual cities turned for assistance to major scientific organizations or to specialist geologists and engineers, in order to determine the causes of landslide phenomena and to develop measures to combat them; but in most cases the results obtained were not used, and the recommended measures were not carried out, chiefly for financial reasons.

*) According to data from a mission provided by the Siberian Technological Institute in 1928.

The approaches to the cities of the railways in the landslide zone naturally found themselves in better conditions. If the construction administrations in the majority of cases did not take measures for the detailed study of landslide areas, did not plan and did not carry out precautionary measures before beginning construction, despite the obviousness of the landsliding even of untouched natural slopes¹, then, after the deformations that appeared during the construction period, the necessary investigations were carried out, measures were developed and implemented. It should be noted how grandiose were the measures for combating landslides on the Oka slope of the Timiryazevo—N. Novgorod line on the approach to the latter. The Oka slope is undoubtedly one of the most interesting examples of Russian engineering art in the struggle against the elemental forces of nature, in the form of landslide manifestations, and in respect of the exceptionally favorable results achieved². The Batrakovsky slope near Syzran is in a less favorable condition. Despite the continuous deformations of the slope over a number of years, which disrupted the track and caused large annual expenditures for the maintenance and restoration of the roadbed and superstructure, the extent of the works carried out to combat the landsliding of the slope is clearly insufficient. Despite the geological surveys repeatedly undertaken on the slope, there is essentially no proper conception of its geological structure that would make it possible to judge the degree of danger of the phenomena taking place, or the dimensions of the necessary drainage and strengthening structures.

When, at the end of the 1890s of the last century, alongside the already existing Syzran–Vyazma Railway, the branch line of the Moscow–Kazan Railway laid down its own line on the Batrakovsky slope, and the deformations of the slope assumed a threatening character, the “Batrakovsky question” arose; to this day it has not been properly resolved and has passed through various stages down to the present time. In the methods of resolving the Batrakovsky question the two railways differed radically: the branch line of the Moscow–Kazan Railway, pointing to the successful experience of the Oka slope in Nizhny Novgorod, proposed a number of serious and effective measures for strengthening the slope. The branch line of the Syzran–Vyazma Railway considered it impossible to leave the lines on the slope, regarded the measures proposed by the Moscow–Kazan Railway as not achieving the goal, and insisted on bypassing the slope by means of a tunnel variant. After a long struggle between the railways in the higher authorities, the branch Engineering Council in 1905 resolved the dispute in favor of the bypass with a tunnel, the construction of which was begun during the period of the imperialist war; but the character of the stratifications, the presence of a large quantity of ground water, and the combination of difficult working conditions at that time proved to be the cause of serious catastrophes, which led to the destruction of both ends of the tunnel. This brought the latter into a condition in which continuation of the work begun became completely impossible, and thus the works for constructing the bypass were discontinued.

At the present time the commission of 1928, which inspected the slope, established that works for the geological investigation of the slope had not been carried out; from this the conclusion was drawn that such an investigation would undoubtedly reveal the chaotic condition of the landslides, and therefore rational design of drainage and strengthening structures would present an enormous difficulty.

in view of their great cost. The further conclusions of the commission regarding the slope are as follows. Settlement on the Batrakovsky slope occurs annually (in some years this settlement reached 0.60 m within several minutes); these settlements are remedied by raising the ballast, the cost of the work reaching 9,000 rubles per year—a sum less than the interest on the capital that would have to be expended for measures of a radical struggle against the deformations. In view of such conclusions, all works of a fundamental character have been discontinued, and even the restoration of the retaining walls built in previous years has been stopped.

Such a simple solution of the “Batrakovsky question” is fraught with very serious consequences. If to the indicated sum of 9,000 rubles one adds the cost of the abnormally rapid wear of the sleepers as a result of constant raisings and shifts of the track bed, the cost of halting all trains during the greatest settlements, when pile-driving is undertaken, the cost of the pile-driving, the cost of electric lighting of the slope, etc., then a significant sum will result, and this circumstance alone may shake the conclusions of the commission.

The approaches to other cities, noted in past years for significant movements of earth masses, were satisfactory.

Turning to landslides affecting the urban territories of the Volga cities, it is necessary to note that during the period of the imperialist and civil wars the number of landslides and their extent increased. The cause of this phenomenon lay in the fact that those, albeit relatively small, works to combat landslides that had been carried out in the prewar and pre-revolutionary period were discontinued; a whole series of structures built before the war for draining groundwaters or intercepting surface waters, in the absence of repairs, proved to be destroyed, and the presence of such structures in some cases acted more ruinously than their complete absence; in many cases the regime of groundwaters was disturbed—the destruction or cessation of operation of sewerage, considerable leakage of water from the water-supply network, intensified use of absorption wells owing to the cessation of operation of the sewerage system, and the construction of new absorption wells for the same reasons.

The above-mentioned deteriorations in the groundwater regime in many cases upset the equilibrium of the landslide masses and set them in motion, in some instances also involving structures. Indeed, the indicated movements took place in the following most sharply expressed cases¹.

In Mologa, landslide phenomena up to the present time are destroying the coastal built-up part of the city over a length of about 1.5 km, so far affecting pavements and approaches.

In Rybinsk, in 1924–1925 a shore section near the steamboat wharves slid; in 1926 a landslide occurred in the same place, the latter covering an area of about 3,500 sq. m; the landslides destroyed an improved embankment and a paved approach.

In Nizhny Novgorod in 1915 a landslide occurred on the Pokhvalinsky approach; since 1922, owing to the neglected state of the landslide districts, numerous landslides have developed on the Pokhvalinsky approach, the Sergievsky ravine, and the Suetinsky slope; in 1923, landslides developed strongly in the area of the Verkhne-Volzhskaya embankment opposite the former Kurbatov plant, in the areas of the Georgievsky approach and the Georgievskaya tower of the Nizhny—

of the city cemetery, where an area of about 4 hectares was seized by the movement and buildings were damaged; in the same year landslides occurred near the municipal water-pumping station and the electric power station; in 1926 a landslide occurred in Pecherskaya Sloboda, destroying 10 houses.

In Ulyanovsk in 1915 there occurred a grandiose landslide, the largest of all known in the history of the Ulyanovsk landslides; the causes of this landslide are deeper, i.e., they lie outside the conditions of wartime and revolutionary years; the landslide damaged a number of buildings and shifted nine pillars of the approach trestle being built to the Volga bridge; the landslide involved a mass of 3,000,000 cubic meters and covered an area of about 100 hectares; in 1922–1923 and 1926 there occurred a series of smaller landslides on the Volga slope and along the ravine of the river Simbirka; less significant movements, in the form of individual slips, are taking place on the Volga slope continuously up to the present time, and it cannot be guaranteed that in Ulyanovsk, on some fine day, a landslide similar to the catastrophe of 1915 will not occur; in 1926, in the suburban settlement of Butyrskaya, a landslide occurred (the slope of the river Sviyaga), destroying 3 houses.

In Volsk in 1915–1917 a landslide occurred which involved 24,000 square meters of urban territory and damaged 170 houses; at the present time other parts of the city, a railway branch line, and the structures of one of the cement plants are under threat from landslides.

In Saratov in 1915 there occurred a new movement of landslide masses beneath the well-known Sokolovaya Mountain, increasing the dangerous condition of the settling basins of the municipal waterworks, located in the immediate vicinity of the mountain scarp.

In Stalingrad the coastal part of the city, stretching for 22 km along the right bank of the Volga River, is subject to landslides at various points; in 1926 there were a number of landslides here, including in the most valuable part of the city, namely opposite the passenger pier, where the landslide intensified again in 1928.

The list given of the most serious landslides that have occurred over the last 10–13 years sufficiently testifies to the grave, and in some cases disastrous, situation of a number of Volga right-bank towns suffering from landslides.

It goes without saying that the struggle against phenomena of such magnitude was beyond the strength of individual towns, and therefore, beginning in 1922, petitions began to arrive at the center for the allocation of funds to combat landslides as a public calamity. The first petitions were received from Ulyanovsk and Nizhny Novgorod.

The Main Administration of Municipal Economy, in order to draw up an overall plan and sequence of works, and also to examine the landslide phenomena on site, organized a reconnaissance survey of all the largest populated places suffering from landslides¹.

The survey made it possible to establish the degree of urgency and importance of works in individual places and thus to outline the order of works. Namely, all the cities suffering in one way or another from landslides were divided into five groups:

Group I — cities suffering most from landslides threatening further destruction to the cultural districts and structures of these cities. This group includes — Mologa, Rybinsk, Nizhny Novgorod with the settlement of Pechery, Ulyanovsk, Saratov, and Stalingrad.

Group II—cities where the destruction has caused and may cause less harm, or cities of not such great importance—Volsk, Cheboksary, Tetyushi, Vasilsursk.

Group III—cities that have suffered little and are not under immediate threat of further destruction—Plyos, Murom, Ryazan, Kozmodemyansk.

Group IV—cities that have suffered very little: Pavlov, Sengiley, Khvalynsk, and Kamyshin.

Group V—cities in which landslides have ceased altogether, or where the phenomena of destruction do not have a landslide character proper—Pokrovsk, Kimry, Gorodets.

From the time the reconnaissance survey was carried out, the struggle against landslides was shifted from a dead point; the life of landslides was placed under the observation of specialists, and the general struggle against landslides began to unfold systematically and scientifically under the general direction of the Main Administration of Municipal Economy.

Actually, the struggle against landslides in Ulyanovsk and in Nizhny Novgorod began considerably earlier. In Ulyanovsk, namely, this struggle was begun in 1922, so to speak, by force of necessity, and also because Ulyanovsk stands out by its work on combating landslides—by the presence of experienced personnel, complete contact in the work between engineers and geologists, a developed extensive project for draining the ravine of the river Ulyanovka (Simbirka)¹, and by a proper and clear assessment by local workers of the tasks of geological investigations and of the forthcoming drainage works. The considerable funds allotted by the Union Sovnarkom for combating landslides, and the works being carried out in Ulyanovsk, place the latter at the center of the struggle against landslides in the Volga region.

In Nizhny Novgorod, by 1922, in the landslide districts neglected in previous years, landslide phenomena began to develop intensively in a whole series of points. As early as 1920, Prof. N. M. Romanov submitted to the Municipal Economy a memorandum² on the necessity of a detailed geological study of the territory of Nizhny Novgorod.

As a result, serious attention was given to the destruction of the Nizhny Novgorod slope, and in 1922–1923 a survey of the landslide sites was carried out and a detailed plan of work to combat the destruction was drawn up. In Nizhny Novgorod we likewise encounter the gratifying fact of fruitful cooperation between engineers and geologists and of a significant development of the works.

On the basis of the investigations carried out in Nizhny Novgorod, beginning in 1924, construction was begun of adits and other drainage structures for combating landslides.

The reconnaissance investigations undertaken in 1926 by the Main Administration of Municipal Economy in the above-mentioned cities of the Volga region established the general picture of landslide phenomena, and also made it possible to approach closely the systematic struggle against landslides and the radical elimination of the causes producing them. This systematic struggle began with extensive hydrogeological investigations in all the cities assigned to Group I, according to the plan drawn up by Prof. N. M. Romanov. By the summer of 1928 the hydrogeological inves—

... investigations were completed in Mologa, Rybinsk, and Nizhny Novgorod. During our visit to the Volga cities in the summer of 1928, geological surveys were being carried out in Ulyanovsk, Saratov, and Stalingrad; moreover, in the last two cities they were in the final stage and had the character of supplementary work to refine the data of surveys completed in 1927.

The material obtained from the hydrogeological surveys has been subjected to careful processing and evaluation, and in our opinion is of outstanding scientific and practical interest¹.

Hydrogeological surveys in Ulyanovsk were carried out in 1922 for the aforementioned competition held in 1923. But since they were intended chiefly to obtain data for drafting a project for draining the bed of the Simbirka River, and did not provide material for developing measures to combat landslides on the Volga slope and on the railway lines approaching Ulyanovsk, extensive hydrogeological surveys were undertaken to work out measures for the fundamental elimination of landslides on the Volga slope and of possible destructions on the railway lines. The latter surveys were to be completed by 1/XI—1928.

The 1928 surveys in Ulyanovsk are being conducted according to an extensive and interesting program². In order to determine the geological structure of the Ulyanovsk mountain, it was proposed to lay down seven deep boreholes (from 85 to 170 m), 40 boreholes from 30 to 50 m deep, and 10 pits in the landslide zone of the Volga slope. In the hydrogeological part of the investigations, in addition to registering the outlets of groundwater and determining the yield of aquifer horizons in boreholes, it was proposed to observe the influence of the Volga River on the regime of groundwater in the landslides; for this purpose it was proposed to lay down 3 boreholes at the foot of the Volga slope. In the hydrometric part of the investigations, the life of the Volga River within the Volga slope subject to landslides was to be studied. Taken together, the data of the investigations being carried out in the city of Ulyanovsk will help clarify a number of disputed and unresolved questions concerning the nature, life, and mechanism of the Ulyanovsk landslides and, in addition to their purely practical significance, will be of special scientific interest.

The detailed hydrogeological surveys carried out in the cities of the first group made it possible to prepare projects for fundamental measures to eliminate landslides in these cities. In view of the deep occurrence, in most cases, of the water-bearing layers that are the primary cause of landslide phenomena, adits were proposed as the principal means of control. The successful experience of using adits for draining the Oka slope on the Krasny Uzel—Nizhny Novgorod line, on the approach to the latter, fully justifies the proposed methods of control.

It is necessary to note that all the prepared projects underwent thorough geological review and, thus, in the described stage of work we have close cooperation between geological science and engineering.

The cost of anti-landslide measures in the cities of the first group is estimated at the large sum of about 3 million rubles.

1. The evaluation and scientific processing of the survey data was carried out by Prof. N. M. Romanov. ↩↩↩↩↩

2. The program was drawn up by I. P. Rogozin and approved by Professors N. M. Romanov and Milanovsky. ↩↩↩