COOLING PRIZE PAPER

Numerical analysis of the effect of

rainfall infiltration on slope stability
Esteban Litvin, geotechnical engineer, Atkins

Introduction elements of geotechnical engineering. Finite element software like SEEP/

Landslides constitute a major threat to both lives and property worldwide,
especially in tropical and subtropical areas such as South America, Africa
and the Far East. These regions are characterised by periods of prolonged
dry weather with periods of intense rainfall.
During dry periods negative pore-water pressures develop in the soils,
which have a stabilising effect. When dry periods are followed by intense
rainfall events, rainfall infiltration leads to an increase in positive pore-water
pressures (a decrease in suctions) and a reduction in the shear strength on the
potential failure surface – and slope failure is common.
To account for the influence of negative pore-water pressure on soil strength
and hence on the factor of safety (FoS), Fredlund et al, 1978 developed a
modified form of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for unsaturated soils,
which is as follows:
τ = c ´ + ( σ n − u a ) tanφ ´ + ( u a − u w ) tanφ b (Equation 1)
where, σn is the normal stress and φb
is an angle defining the increase in
shear strength for an increase in matric suction and varies between 0˚ and φ’.
Equation 1 is graphically presented in Figure 1.
The understanding of the influence of the transient seepage in
unsaturated soils on slope stability is still quite poor in comparison to other
W or VADOSE/W provide a means to improve understanding of the
destabilisation mechanism of soil slopes under transient seepage analysis.
However, using such software does not guarantee that the obtained
solution is representative of the real process. To achieve an acceptable degree
of accuracy in the solution, the experience of the engineer plays a significant
role.
The aim of this project was twofold – to study the effect of suction loss
due to rainfall infiltration on slope stability and to study the ability of SEEP/
W and SLOPE/W to predict pore-water pressures and slope failure.
The project used a real landslide as a case study. The finite element software
SEEP/W modelled both steady state and transient seepage analysis and the
limit equilibrium software SLOPE/W carried out the slope stability analysis.
Case Study: Shek Kip Mei slope failure (Hong Kong)
Information about the landslide was obtained from the Report on the Shek
Kip Mei landslide of the 25 of August 1999 prepared by the Fugro Maunsell
Scott Wilson joint venture for the Hong Kong Geotechnical Engineering
Office in 2000 (FMSW, 2000). This report indicates that the failure took
place after a five-day storm – during which 641mm of rainfall was recorded
in the nearest raingauge (No K06) located 1km away from the slope. The

Monitoring data
Shear stress (τ)

φb
Extended Mohr-Coulomb
) n
uw tio

failure envelope φ‘
a - uc

Steady state analysis (initial condition)

(u ic s
r
at
M

φb
Rainfall data
(ua - uw)f tan φb
c‘ Transient analysis
φ‘

PWP (To be used in SLOPE/W)

c‘ Variation of F0S with time

Figure 3
0
Net normal stress (σ - ua)

45
Elevation (m)

Figure 1: Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion Location of crest drain

40
60
Hourly rainfall (mm/hr)

Location of shotcrete
Time of instability first noted
at the northern portion of the slope
50 35 Completely
decomposed Slip surface
granite (FMSW, 2000)
40 30
Phr
30 (sugg eatic sur
este f
25 d by ace
FMS
W)
20
20
10
15
0 Granite bedrock
1 7 13 19 1 7 13 19 1 7 13 19 1 7 13 19 1 7 13 19
10
21.8.99 22.8.99 23.8.99 24.8.99 25.8.99 0 10 20 30 40
Time and date Distance (m)

Figure 2: Hourly rainfall recorded at raingauge No K06 Figure 4: Geometry of the Shek Kip Mei slope

38 GROUND ENGINEERING MAY 2008

hourly rainfall record between the 21-25 August is presented in Figure 2.
Steady state and transient seepage analyses modelled the effect of the
rainstorm on the stability of the slope. The steady state analysis modelled the
initial groundwater level. The results of this analysis, in terms of pore-water
pressures, were compared to the insitu pore-water pressure readings and
used as the initial condition in the transient analysis. The transient analysis
modelled the effects of the rainstorm. The results of the transient analysis
were used to study the effect of the rainstorm on the stability of the slope.
The methodology followed during this study is presented in Figure 3.
Geometry
Prior to failure, the slope consisted of an upper and lower slope. The upper
slope was 35m in height and was at an angle of 35˚. The lower slope was 21m
in height, had an average slope of 55˚ and comprised five batters separated
by between 1m and 2m wide berms. The lower slope surface had a hard
cover consisting of sprayed concrete and between the slopes there was a
drain. However, the drain was poorly maintained and the hard cover had
deteriorated – together these were proposed to be strong contributing factors
to the slope failure (FMSW, 2000). The slope geometry prior to failure can
be seen in Figure 4
A simplified model was used to study the effect of the rainfall infiltration
on the slope stability as shown in Figure 5. A sensitivity analysis was
undertaken to determine the effect of the upper slope on the results. The
upper slope was found to have minimal effect on the results and therefore was
not included in the model.
Geology and soil parameters
The FMSW report indicates that the geology of the site consists of completely
decomposed granite (CDG) overlying fresh granite. The slope consists of
CDG with fresh granite at the base. Typical shear strength parameters of the
CDG are presented in Table 1 (FMSW, 2000).
Two additional soil parameters are required for each soil when undertaking
seepage analysis: the water retention curve (WRC) and the permeability
function (PC). The former describes the ability of the soil to store water under
changes of pore-water pressures, while the latter controls the soil’s ability to
transport water under both saturated and unsaturated conditions. Typical
WRC and PF for the CDG are presented in Figures 6 and 7 (FMSW, 2000).
Groundwater
Post-landslide monitoring data recovered from tensiometers and piezometers
installed at the crest of the slope provided the pre-failure groundwater
conditions. This information indicates that the groundwater at the site is
located within, or close to, the fresh granite bedrock and that the measured
suctions were 85kPa at 5.5m below the crest level.
Boundary conditions
Different boundary conditions were used for the steady and the transient
analyses. In the steady state analysis, the side boundaries were specified as a
constant head boundary. On the right side, a head boundary was specified at
15mPD and on the left side at 26mPD (FMSW, 2000).
In the transient analysis, the top boundary was specified as a flux (recharge)
boundary (q). The degree of deterioration of the hard cover was modelled
using a flux boundary condition, which was a percentage (100%, 90%, 80%
and 75%) of the precipitation recorded by the raingauge (Hsu et al, 1983).
The simplified daily rainfall distributions used in the analyses are presented
in Figure 8.
Mesh and time step refinement
Karthikeyan et al, 2000 and Tan et al, 2004 found that, when analysing
groundwater flow in unsaturated soils, oscillatory results are often observed
in the finite element solution. To avoid this problem, a mesh and time step
refinement was undertaken. The aim of this analysis was to identify the size
of the mesh elements and time steps for which a convergent solution was
achieved.
For this study, a flux boundary 10 times larger than the real rainstorm
was used. The minimum FoS found in the transient analysis and the ratio
between this and the steady state FoS are presented in Figure 9. A mesh
having elements with an area of 0.5m by 0.5m and time steps of 360s gave
the minimum FoS and was selected for the analysis. Finer meshes were
considered, but these took several days to compute the results and therefore
the 0.5m by 0.5m mesh was considered the most practical (Figure 10).
Steady state results
The pore-water pressures generated by the steady state analysis were
determined using SEEP/W along two vertical sections located at crest and
3m behind it. These profiles are shown in Figure 11.
The profile at the slope crest indicates that at depths between 5m and
6m below the surface, suctions vary between 82kPa and 89kPa, while the
profile 3m behind the crest shows the suctions vary between 72kPa and
81kPa. The
0
agreement between the predicted values and those measured
10 (conductivity)

Soil c’(kPa) ϕ’(˚) ϕb(˚) γ (kN/m3) 0

(conductivity)

-4
CDG 8 38 15 20
-4
Table 1: CDG Shear strength parameters -8
Log 10Log

-8
-12

Completely decomposed -12

granite -16
Bedrock
-16
-20
0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
-20 Pore water pressure (kPa)
0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Pore water pressure (kPa)

Figure 6: CDG permeability function

Elevation (m)
40 0.3
content

0.25
0.3
content
water water

30
0.25
0.2
Volumetric

Block No. 36
20 0.2
0.15
Volumetric

0.15
0.1
10
0.1
0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0
0.05
0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Distance (m)
0 Suction (kPa)
0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 5: Shek Kip Mei model Geometry and slip surface definition Figure 7: CDG water retention curve
Suction (kPa)

GROUND ENGINEERING MAY 2008 39

COOLING PRIZE PAPER
20 insitu (85kPa) demonstrates the ability of SEEP/W to predict the correct
Daily rainfall (mm/h)

100% rainfall pore-water pressures when the proper mesh and boundary conditions are
18
90% rainfall used.
16 In addition, the FoS of the slope in steady state conditions was calculated
80% rainfall
14 in two different ways – the difference being that in one of the analyses
75% rainfall the contribution of the negative pore-water pressures was not taken into
12
account.
10 The aim was to prove that suction distribution within the ground played
8 an important role in keeping the Shek Kip Mei stable. In SLOPE/W, if
φb is undefined, any negative pore-water pressure is ignored. If a non-zero
6
value of φb is specified, then Equation 1 is used in SLOPE/W and an extra
4 strength component dependent on the suctions is added to the slice base
2 shear strength.
0 When suctions were not included in the slope stability calculations
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (φb=0˚), the FoS was found to be 0.964, which indicated that the slope was
Day unstable. However, when the suctions were included in the calculations
(φb=15˚), the FoS was 1.197, confirming the importance of the negative
Figure 8: Rainfall scenarios pore-water pressure on the slope stability.

0.8 Transient analysis results

Ratio (MinFoS/SSFoS)

0.5x0.5 1x1 2x2 5x5 The results from this analysis are shown in Figures 12 and 13. The suction
0.75
profiles presented on Figure 13 were taken along a vertical section at the
crest of the slope. To take into account the effect of suction on the slope
stability, a φb=15˚ was used in SLOPE/W.
0.7 The variation of pore-water pressures and the slope’s FoS followed the
same pattern. During modelling for rainfall, a drop in suction was predicted
0.65 within the slope, which in turn led to a decrease in the computed FoS. When

0.6 3m behind the crest

At the crest
Elevation (m)

0.55 40

0.5
3600 1800 900 360 200 36
Time step (S)

Figure 9: Mesh and time step refinement result 32

Monitoring level

28
Measured SeepW predicted 84kPa
85kPa
24
SeepW predicted 79kPa
20
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
0.5m by 0.5m mesh
Steady state pore water pressures (PWP (kPa)

Figure 11: SEEP/W pore-water pressure predictions

Variation of FoS:
75% rainfall 90% rainfall
80% rainfall 100% rainfall
1.25
FoS

1.2

1.15
After the 4th day of rainfall
1.1

1.05
1m by 1m mesh 1

0.95
After the last rainfall period
0.9
SS

BR 1
F2

AR 2
AR 3
F4
S
S
1h
2h
4h
8h

h
2 4h
4 ys
8 ys
16 ays
24 ays
38 ays
ys
16
F

F
F

BR
AR

da
da

da
AR

AR

d
d
d

Time

Figure 10: 0.5m by 0.5m and 1m by 1m meshes Figure 12: Variation of FoS with time for the four rainfall scenarios

40 GROUND ENGINEERING MAY 2008

modelling for dry periods, an increase in negative pore-water pressured was
observed which led to an increase in the slope’s FoS.
The results indicate that the slope failure took place after the fourth day
of rainfall. This is in agreement with the FMSW report, which indicates
that the slope failure took place between the fourth and the fifth day of the
rainstorm.
The SEEP/W and SLOPE/W predictions agree with the FMSW report not
only on the time, but also on the type of failure. According to the numerical
analysis results, it was a deep rotational failure passing through the slope’s
toe. The maximum depth at which the soil was mobilised was 7.5m and the
slide volume was found to be 2700m3. These values were in accordance with
the slope failure diagnosis described in the FMSW report, which indicates
that the displaced mass was about 2500m3, having a maximum depth of
approximately 8m.
Conclusions
Numerical analysis has been used to enhance the understanding of the
effect of suction loss due to rainfall infiltration on slope stability. The results
confirm that soil suction can have an important contributory effect on the
stability of slopes.
If the designer intends to include for the beneficial effect of the negative
pore-water pressures in the slope stability analysis, it is imperative that the
appropriate drainage system is in place and that it is properly maintained
during the design life of the slope.
SEEP/W proved to be a valuable tool for predicting pore-water pressures
when the soil properties and the ground conditions are known. Nevertheless,
such accuracy in the results would not have been achievable without carrying
out a mesh and time step refinement prior to performing the numerical
analysis. In addition, it has been proved that, when combined with SEEP/
W, SLOPE/W is a reliable tool for slope stability analysis in unsaturated
conditions.
Numerical analysis can be a very reliable means of determining the effect
of rainfall infiltration on slope stability. However, the use of finite element
software should always be combined with engineering judgment in order to
achieve better understanding of both the problem and the solution.
References
1. Fugro Maunsell Scott Wilson Joint Venture for the geotechnical Engineer-
ing Office, Government of Hong Kong. FMSW (2000) Report on the Shek Kip
Mei landslide of the 25 of August 1999.
2. Geo-Slope International, 1998a. SEEP/W for Finite Element Seepage Analy-
sis Vol. 4, Users Manual. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
3. Geo-Slope International, 1998b. SLOPE/W for Slope Stability Analysis Vol.
4, Users Manual. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
4. Hsu, S.I., Lam, K.C. & Chan, K.S., 1983. A Study of Soil Moisture and Run-
off Variation in Hillslopes. Occasional paper No. 45, Department of Geogra-
phy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 57p.
5. Karthikeyan, M., Tan, T.S. & Phoon K.K., 2001. Numerical Oscillations in
Seepage Analysis of Unsaturated Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.38,
pp.639-651.
6. Tan, T.S., Phoon, K.K & Chong, P.C., 2004. Numerical Study of Finite
Element Method Based-Solutions for Propagation of Wetting Fronts in Unsatu-
rated Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, Vol.
130(3), pp.254-263.

Pore water pressure (rainfall 100%) Pore water pressure (rainfall 90%)
40 40
Elevation (m)

Before 1st day rainfall Steady state

35 After 1st day rainfall
Before 2nd day rainfall
30 After 2nd day rainfall
After 3rd day rainfall
After 4th day rainfall
25
Before triggering rainfall
After triggering rainfall
20 After 38 days
35 After 1st day rainfall
Before 2nd day rainfall
30 After 2nd day rainfall
After 3rd day rainfall
After 4th day rainfall
25
Before triggering rainfall
After triggering rainfall
20 After 38 days

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
PWP (kPa) PWP (kPa)

Pore water pressure (rainfall 80%) Pore water pressure (rainfall 75%)
40 40
Elevation (m)

Steady state Steady state

35 After 1st day rainfall
Before 2nd day rainfall
30 After 2nd day rainfall
After 3rd day rainfall
After 4th day rainfall
25
Before triggering storm
After triggering storm
20 After 38 days
35 After 1 day rainfall
Before 2nd day rainfall
30 After 2nd day rainfall
After 3rd day rainfall
After 4th day rainfall
25
Before triggering storm
After triggering rainfall
20 After 38 days

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
PWP (kPa) PWP (kPa)

Figure 13: Pore-water pressure variation

GROUND ENGINEERING MAY 2008 41