Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pce

Slope stability analysis of riverbank in Malaysia with the effects

of vegetation
Irfan Haziq Razali a, Aizat Mohd Taib a, b, *, Norinah Abd Rahman a, b,
Dayang Zulaika Abang Hasbollah c, Mohd Firdaus Md Dan d, Ahmad Bukhari Ramli e,
Aniza Ibrahim f
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre (SUTRA), Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600, Selangor,
Malaysia
c
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai, Malaysia
d
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built-Environment, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
e
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, Selangor, Malaysia
f
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Sungai Besi Camp, 57000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Malaysia has experienced several slope failures in the past and vegetation is one of the solutions that can help to
Numerical modelling increase the stability of slopes by preventing erosion and providing interlocking forces in the soil materials. This
Vegetation study investigates the effect of vegetation on riverbank slope stability in Malaysia. The analysis was conducted to
Slope stability
capture the pattern of changes in terms of the factor of safety (FOS) of slopes. Using Plaxis, a total of 24 models
Factor of safety
were constructed consisting of two methods of modelling namely node-to-node anchor and geotextile, which act
as vegetation. The modelling results show that the slope safety factor changed according to the addition of
vegetation to the slope. The existing slope conditions recorded a safety factor at the value of 2.97. The value then
increased when plants were added by adopting the node-to-node anchor along the top of the soil with the highest
factor of safety value of 2.99. On the other hand, the factor of safety of slopes with the application of geotextile
also shows an increase of up to 3.185. Whereas for the slopes with the effect of rainfall, the factor of safety values
dropped to 2.609 and increase to 2.96 when vegetation was applied. This study indicates that vegetation can
improve slope stability and that the different types of roots can also affect slope behaviour.

1. Introduction
Slope failure or unstable slopes can be caused by both internal and
external factors. Examples of internal factors are geometry and di­
mensions, development of joints and cracks in the soil, and surface
drainage and groundwater conditions that differ from place to place.
External factors are natural factors such as earthquake and rainfall
infiltration, and manmade ones, namely excavations. These problems
can give a great impact on the economy, health, and safety of the people
living in the area especially in Malaysia, a country that has experienced
a lot of slope failures in the past that is due to rainfall. In Malaysia, there
were 49 cases of landslides reported from 1993 to 2019 resulting in
extensive loss of life and property (Majid et al., 2020).
The main trigger factor of landslides is rain which caused the shear
strength of the soil to decrease and causes the slope to fail (Public Works
Department, 2008). Rainfall can cause the factor of safety of the slope to
decrease, which can cause the weakening of the slope stability (Kristo
et al., 2017). Infiltration of rainfall can also cause the groundwater table
to increase. The increased amount of the groundwater table can cause
the effective stress and shear strength of the soil to decrease, hence can
cause landslides (Taib et al., 2020; Chatra et al., 2017). Some studies
also were done to study the effects of antecedent rainfall. High duration
of rainfall can cause an increase in the pore-water pressure of the soil
(Naidu et al., 2018). Prolonged rainfall can cause a higher decrease in
slope stability compared to short but high-intensity of rain as more
water will be infiltrated into the soil instead of becoming runoff (Alsubal

* Corresponding author. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600, Selangor,
Malaysia.
E-mail address: amohdtaib@ukm.edu.my (A. Mohd Taib).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2022.103334
Received 10 August 2022; Received in revised form 11 November 2022; Accepted 27 November 2022
Available online 5 December 2022
1474-7065/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 1. Different types of roots (Yen, 1987).
Fig. 2. Model geometry for chainage 1 (CH1).
et al., 2019; Ghani et al., 2020). While extreme rainfall can cause a give
much higher impact on the soil as more water infiltrates into the soil
causing a higher loss in shear strength (Nazrien Ng et al., 2022).
Shallow landslide is one of the most common landslides to occur
(Hess et al., 2017). These shallow landslides induced by rainfall caused
an increase in pore-water pressure inside the soil. Some of the methods
for better slope protection are by providing a horizontal drain (Syazwan
et al., 2021), or by planting vegetation on the slope surface that can play
a huge role in providing better slope stability for shallow landslides for
both mechanical and hydrological parts (McGuire et al., 2016). Me­
chanical refers to the vegetation on the slope that can increase slope
stability by providing interlocking inside the soil and can prevent
erosion, also can increase the shear strength of the soil (Mafian et al.,
2009; Reubens et al., 2007; Arnone et al., 2016). While hydrological
refers to the vegetation roots that can reduce the amount of moisture
inside the soil by evapotranspiration (Ferrara et al., 2015).
Vegetation has been widely used throughout the whole world for
slope protection and stabilizing the slope. Vegetation provides a better
ecosystem for every living thing in the surrounding area (Normaniza and
S Barakbah, 2006). Plant roots also have a rapid pace of growth and a
great ability to adapt to their surroundings, hence very cost-effective
slope protection to be used. Other than cost, vegetation is easily main­
tained, environmentally friendly and has high biodiversity (Mulia and
Prasetyorini, 2013). Besides, vegetation can help in minimizing the
impact of rainfall that falls on the soil by absorbing some of the impact
forces and maintaining slope stability (Li et al., 2014; Small, 1989).
Surface runoff is one of the factors that trigger landslides (Gordo et al.,
2
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
Fig. 3. Model geometry for chainage 2 (CH2).
Fig. 4. Model geometry for chainage 3 (CH3).
2019). Others have done studies on the effect of vegetation on slopes and
found that vegetation can reduce the runoff and soil loss for slopes (Zhao
et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2016). Vegetation can help in strengthening the
shear strength of the soil, hence increasing the slope stability (Taib et al.,
2020; Harianto et al., 2018).
Vegetation is categorized into 4 categories namely grass, herbs,
shrub and tree with each having a different root system for the soil. Not
just different types of vegetation will have different root systems, but
sometimes the same type of vegetation species can have different root
systems as well depending on the soil condition and the underground
water table as roots tend to seek out water for the plants (Tien, 1984).
The type of roots, the length, and the way it spreads out will have a high
impact on the strength of the soil (Greenwood et al., 2004). Based on
Fig. 1, roots systems have 5 types namely H type, R type, V type, VH type
and M type (Yen, 1987). H and VH type is said to be the most suitable for
soil reinforcement, slope protection and wind resistance, while V type is
only for wind resistance. M type is for soil erosion control, and V type
and R type are both for protecting the slope from failure by increasing
the soil shear strength (Saifuddin and Normaniza, 2016). Due to the cost
and time constrain, the model will only be focused on 1 shrub, which is
M type, 1 tree, which is H type and lastly VH type, which is a combi­
nation of V and H type which include wind resistance, and the used of
I.H. Razali et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334

Table 1
Soil layer properties (Swiss Standard SN 670 010b).
Layer Unit weight, γ [kN/m3] Permeability, k [m/day] Young modulus, E [kN/m2] Poisson ratio, V[nu] Cohesion, cref [kN/m2] Friction angle, Φ◦

1 (Silty Sand) 20.5 0.00846 15000 0.30 10 32

2 (Fine to Coarse) 19.5 0.001 20000 0.30 28 10
3 (Silt) 18 0.00432 12000 0.30 20 18
4(Gravelly Sand) 20.5 0.01 120000 0.30 0 33
5 (Lean Clay) 18 0.00432 45000 0.30 25 10

Table 2
Vegetation geometry (Faisal, 2010).
Vegetation Name Root type Tensile strength (MPa)

Leucaena Leucocephala Type VH (tree) 104.83

Acacia Mangium Type H (tree) 54.37
Melastoma Malabathricum Type M (shrub) 29.72

Fig. 7. Factor of safety against time graph.

Fig. 5. Layout of strut anchor geometry.

Fig. 8. Factor of safety against time graph.

Fig. 6. Factor of safety against time graph.
secondary data of soil and vegetation parameter.
2. Methodology
Model geometry. Fig. 2 shows the soil layers for chainage 1 (CH1)
that was used in the modelling. Each colour represents a different type of
soil indicated by their existing depth at the site, and since the colours
repeat, so as the type of soil. The total depth of the model is five times the
height of the slope, whereas the width of the slope is three times the
slope height. Since the slope height is 3.5 m, hence the total depth is
17.5 m and the width of the slope is 10.5 m for each side. The ground­
water table is assigned at 1/3 of the slope height. For an easier modelling
process, the groundwater table is assigned at 2.5m below the ground
instead of 2.33m.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the geometry for chainage 2 and 3 (CH2 and CH3)
used in the modelling. Since the slope height is small, the total height is
extended to accommodate the depth of the borehole to fit all the soil
types. The total width for CH2 is 25.4m and the height is 13.2m. The
groundwater table is assigned at 0.9m below the ground surface. As for
CH3, the total width is 16m and the total height is 12m, while the
groundwater table is assigned at 0.7m below the surface of the soil.
Tensiometers are installed and marked at the tips of two vertical lines as
shown in Figs. 2–4. These tensiometers are used to obtain the pore water
pressure from those areas.

3
I.H. Razali et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334

Fig. 9. Factor of safety against time graph for ESM CH1. Fig. 12. Factor of safety against a different type of reinforcement.

Fig. 10. Factor of safety against time graph ESM CH2. Fig. 13. Factor of safety against a different type of reinforcement.

Fig. 14. Factor of safety against different types of reinforcement.

Fig. 11. Factor of safety against time graph ESM CH3.

fine soil materials for example silty sand, fine sand, silt, gravel, and silty
Soil properties. The soil layers illustrated in Figs. 2–4 are enclosed
clay. Table 1 shows the full description of the soil layer properties.
with the following properties (i.e., unit weight, permeability, stiffness,
Vegetation properties. In this model simulation, node-to-node an­
strength, and compression strength). These properties are included in
chor geometry was used to act as root reinforcement. The type of anchor
the soil parameters. The soil constitutive model used is the Mohr-
used was strutted and the type of material was elastic. For the properties
Coulomb failure criterion and the drainage analysis is set to undrained
of the strut anchor, 5000 kN of axial stiffness (EA) was used while the
behaviour. The model implemented the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,
out-of-plane spacing (Lspacing) was 2.0 m. The input parameters for the
hence the soil was assumed to be linear elastic-perfectly plastic. Since
soil used are shown in Table 2. The depth of the root penetration zone
the model is subjected to external force, which is heavy rainfall, the
(hR) was simulated by using the strut anchor geometry. Increasing the
drainage analysis is set to undrained behaviour because the pore water is
depth of root (hR) vertically from 1.0 m, 2 m–3 m with each horizontal
unable to drain out from the soil, hence the increasing amount of force
distance of 2 m was implemented for all three locations in regards to the
from the rainfall will easily be captured by the amount of pore-water
vegetation coverage. The layout of the strut anchor placed in the slope
pressure from the model. The soil layers consist of various coarse and

4
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 15. (a)–(f). Pore-water pressure at the crest of slope for CH1, Hadgem 1976–2005.
models representing the vegetation coverage is shown in Fig. 5.
Table 2 shows the type of vegetation used in the modelling. Three
types of roots, namely type VH, H and M. H type roots occur at moderate
depth, while the VH root type acts the same as the H type but has a
deeper root depth, while M type is a root with most of its root occurs at
the top layer of soil. All three roots have different tensile strengths, with
Leucaena Leucocephala having a 104.83 MPa tensile strength, Acacia
Mangium at 54.37 MPa, and Melastoma Malabathricum at 9.72 MPa
that will be implemented in the modelling process.
Rainfall intensities. The location of all the rainfall data collected is
at RTM Kajang. The rainfall data used were Hadley Centre Global
Environmental Model (HADGEM), The Community Climate Model 4
(CCSM4) and Earth System Model (ESM) climate models. HADGEM is a
coupled climate model and provides a basis for further development of
models involving enhanced resolution and full Earth System modelling.
CCSM4 is a coupled climate model for simulating the earth’s atmo­
sphere, ocean, land surface and sea-ice, and one central coupler
component to research the earth’s past, present and future climate
states. ESM is a much advanced compute code climate model based on
the global climate model (GCM) which includes physical, chemical and
biological processes to obtain time and space-dependent values for
temperature, winds and currents, moisture and/or salinity and pressure
in the atmosphere and ocean. The duration of rainfall used is in 30 years
from the year 2020 until the year 2049. The highest rainfall intensities in
5
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
one week from every single year are then extracted from the extreme
rainfall data to measure each slope geometry change with the rainfall
data applied.
3. Results
Factor of Safety. Figs. 6–8 show the factor of safety against the time
graph for the CH1, CH2 and CH3 models. In Fig. 6, for the plaxis model
based on the HADGEM baseline (1976–2005), the factor of safety started
at 2.709 in the first year and slowly decrease to 2.521 in the year 2005.
For the model based on HADGEM middle century (2020–2049), the FOS
value started at 2.685 and decrease to 2.476 in the year 2005. As for the
model resulting from the CCSM4 baseline (1976–2005), the FOS started
at 2.692 and decrease to 2.583. Finally, the for model based on CCSM4
middle century (2020–2049), the FOS started at 2.699 and decrease to
2.452. The factor of safety for all chainages shows a decrease in the value
of the factor of safety as time increases, indicating the increase in pore-
water pressure in the soil resulting from the infiltration of extreme
rainfall that causes the shear strength of the soil to decrease. From Fig. 6
it can be seen that the factor of safety for the year 2020–2049 for both
Hadgem and CCSM4 show a lower factor of safety values. This is due to
the reason that the rainfall intensities for the year 2020–2049 is higher
than the year 1976–2005, hence more rainfall infiltrates into the soil and
cause a greater decrease in the effective stress and shear strength of the
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 16. (a)–(f) Pore-water pressure at the toe of slope for CH1, Hadgem 1976–2005.
soil and causing the soil to have a lower factor of safety.
In Fig. 7, the model based on the HADGEM baseline (1976–2005) has
the FOS value of 5.733 in the first year of 1976 and decreases to 5.22 in
the year 2005. For the model based on HADGEM middle century
(2020–2049), the FOS started at 5.396 and decrease to 5.266. As for the
model based on the CCSM4 baseline (1976–2005), the FOS started at
5.545 and decrease to 5.23 in the year 2005. and finally, the for model
based on CCSM4 middle century (2020–2049), the FOS for the year
2020 is at 5.66 and decreases to 5.244 in the year 2049. In Fig. 8, the
model the based on HADGEM baseline (1976–2005) has the FOS value
of 5.632 in the first year of 1976 and decreases to 5.483 in the year 2005.
For the model based on HADGEM middle century (2020–2049), the FOS
started at 5.32 and decrease to 5.259. For the model based on the CCSM4
baseline (1976–2005), the FOS started at 5.545 and decrease to 5.23 in
the year 2005. and finally, for the model based on CCSM4 middle cen­
tury (2020–2049), the FOS for the year 2020 is at 5.394 and decreases to
5.321 in the year 2049. Both Figs. 7 and 8 also show steady decrease in
factor of safety values. This is due to the same reason which is higher
amount of rainfall infiltration will cause greater decrease in the shear
strength of the soil. Hence, the decrease in shear strength of the soil will
cause lower value of factor of safety of the soil.
Fig. 9 shows the factor of safety against the time graph for the models
of CH1 ESM model with rainfall. Based on Fig. 9, it can be seen that the
initial factor of safety value for both of the slopes in the year 1976–2005
and 2020–2049 started at 2.68 and started to decrease its value with
6
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
time. The addition of rainfall to the surface of the slopes caused a
decrease in the shear strength of the soil, hence the decrease in the factor
of safety of the slope. The slope for the year 2020–2049 shows a slightly
lowered FOS value because of the higher total precipitation involved in
the modelling process. Fig. 10 shows the factor of safety against the time
graph for the models of CH2 with rainfall. Based on Fig. 10, it can be
seen that the initial factor of safety value for both of the slopes in the
year 1976–2005 started at 5.42 and started to decrease its value over
time to 5.34 while for the model in the year 2020–2049 started at 5.3
and started to increase its value with time to 5.43. Both the models for
CH2 have a higher FOS value compared to the previous model of CH1
due to the slope height of the models being lower.
Fig. 11 shows the factor of safety against the time graph for the
models of CH3 with rainfall. Based on Fig. 11, it can be seen that the
initial factor of safety value for both of the slopes in the year 1976–2005
and 2020–2049 started at 5.24 and started to increase its value with
time. Since the CH3 models have the lowest slope height among the 3
chainages, the value of the factor of safety for the CH3 models is the
highest because the lower slope height will be more stable (Zhou et al.,
2019). Rahimi et al. (2010) studies the relationship between the dura­
tion of the rainfall and the factor of safety and stated that a higher
amount of matric suction will be lost during heavier and faster rainfall,
hence with the extreme rainfall that was applied to the models show a
decrease in factor of safety of the slopes, this proves that extreme rainfall
caused a greater change compared to normal rainfall.
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 17. (a)–(f). Pore-water pressure at the crest of slope for CH1, Hadgem 2020–2049.
Based on Fig. 12, the graph shows the value of the factor of safety
obtained from the result of the model in Plaxis 2D. The original slope
without any vegetation has a factor of safety value of 2.968. As shown in
Fig. 12, the value of the factor of safety shows an increasing trend with
the lowest value of 2.966 to the highest value of the factor of safety
2.991. This shows that the depth of the root on top of the slope will cause
the shear strength of the soil to increase and will have a higher factor of
safety value. Roots have been known to decrease the moisture in the soil
and cause an increase in the shear strength of the soil (Biddle, 1998).
Hence, the deeper the roots that exist in the soil, the more moisture will
be removed by the roots, hence a higher shear strength of the soil.
Fig. 12 also shows the value of the factor of safety against root type.
As stated above, the original slope has a factor of safety value of 2.968
without anything on it. As seen in Fig. 12, the value shows an increasing
amount from the original slope due to the existence of the roots, with the
highest value from root type H at 3.185 and followed by root type VH
with 3.163 and the smallest factor of safety value for root type M with
the value of 3.147. The difference between the roots is the strength with
the Leucaena Leucocephala (VH) root has the highest strength with
104.83 MPa, the Acacia Mangium (H) has a root strength of 54.37 MPa,
and lastly the Melastoma Malabathricum (M) with 29.72 MPa. All three
types of roots cause an increase in the shear strength of the soil and cause
an increase in the value of the factor of safety of the soil. The high factor
of safety for both VH and H types of roots is because both are suitable for
strengthening the soil and for slope protection, whereas the M type of
root has the lowest value of factor of safety due to its being suitable for
7
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
ground resistance (Saifuddin and Normaniza, 2016).
Fig. 13 shows the factor of safety graph against time for models with
rainfall. Two of which contain 1m and 2m of vegetation along the sur­
face of the soil. As of Fig. 13, the values show a decrease in the factor of
safety value over time. This is due to the existing rainfall that was
applied on the slope continuously for 30 weeks, hence more rainfall
infiltrates into the soil over time. The infiltration of rainfall into the soil
will cause the negative pore-water pressure from inside the soil to
decrease and cause the soil to lose its shear strength and lowering the
soil factor of safety value. With the addition of vegetation on the slope,
the vegetation will act as a support to increase the soil strength by
reducing more water from infiltrating directly inside the soil and will
absorb more moisture to maintain soil stability, but as can be seen, the
value drops due to the vegetation itself causing an additional weight on
the soil, hence causing the soil to fail. The 2m vegetation has a higher
factor of safety value compared to 1m vegetation due to the roots can
absorb more water as the plants grow deeper into the soil.
Fig. 14 shows a factor of safety graph against time for slopes with
rainfall. Three of those models contain geotextile that acts as grass cover
along the surface of the soil. As of Fig. 14, all three models with an
addition of vegetation caused the factor of safety value to increase from
an initial value of 2.69 for slopes with rainfall to an initial value of
2.804, 2.813 and 2.818 for geotextile with strength 29.72 MPa,
54.37 MPa, and 104.83 Mpa respectively and the final factor of safety
value from 2.54 to 2.609, 2.617, and 2.623 respectively. Among the
three models with vegetation, the factor of safety values shows an
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 18. (a)–(f). Pore-water pressure at the toe of slope for CH1, Hadgem 2020–2049.
increase in value as the strength of the vegetation increase with the
highest value of 104.83 MPa at 2.623 while the lowest with the value of
29.72 MPa is at 2.609. The high strength of the vegetation can provide
better slope protection during extreme rainfall as it can withstand more
pressure from the rainfall. The initial values for all models show a higher
factor of safety value compared to the final values due to the reason that
the soil model was continuously receiving rainfall for the period of 30
weeks. The increasing amount of rainfall infiltrated into the soil causing
the shear strength of the soil to decrease over time, hence lowering the
final values of the factor of safety. While the models show an increase in
the value of the factor of safety after being reinforced with geotextile for
both the initial value and final value is due to the reason that geotextile
can help in reducing pore-water pressure within the slope which will
increase the shear strength of the soil (Niroumand et al., 2012). The
rainfall infiltration will cause the negative pore-water pressure inside
the soil to be reduced, hence reducing the effective stress and the shear
strength of the soil. Hence, the usage of geotextile will help stabilize the
soil and increase the factor of safety of the soil.
Pore-water pressure for CH1. Fig. 15 shows pore-water pressure
taken from tensiometer A which is located at the top of the slope, while
Fig. 16 shows pore-water pressure located at tensiometer B which is at
the toe of the slope. The numbering in Figs. 15 and 16 both refer to the
number of weeks, ranging from week 1 to week 30. Each week repre­
sents 7 days for the highest rainfall value in a year, from the year 1976 to
the year 2005. Additionally, Fig. 15(a–f) and Fig. 16(a–f) contain the
data for all 30 weeks but were divided by 6 for better illustration. Fig. 15
shows the pore-water pressure starting from − 3.35 kPa in the first year
until − 0.57 kPa in the last year of the model. The infiltration of rainfall
8
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
in the soil caused the pore-water pressure on the surface of the soil to
increase. The pore-water pressure graphs then move towards the right
positive side as depth increases as a result of the increase of pore-water
pressure from the groundwater table. All phases have different initial
pore-water pressure, this is due to the different extreme rainfall infil­
tration affecting the initial value of the pore-water pressure. Since the
model in Fig. 16 is already located under the groundwater table, hence
rainfall infiltration has no apparent effect on the initial value of pore-
water pressure. The graph shows the same trend where the pore-water
pressure increase as depth increase, as a result of the groundwater table.
Fig. 17 shows pore-water pressure taken from tensiometer A which is
located at the top of the slope, while Fig. 18 shows pore-water pressure
located at tensiometer B which is at the toe of the slope. The numbering
in Figs. 17 and 18 both refer to the number of weeks, ranging from week
1 to week 30. Each week represents 7 days for the highest rainfall value
in a year, from the year 2020 to the year 2049. Fig. 17 shows the pore-
water pressure starting from − 10.42 kPa in the first year until 0.37 kPa
in the last year of the model. The pore-water pressure graphs then move
towards the right positive side as depth increases as a result of the in­
crease of pore-water pressure from the groundwater table. All phases
have different initial pore-water pressure, this is due to the different
extreme rainfall infiltration affecting the initial value of the pore-water
pressure. Since the model in Fig. 18 is already located under the
groundwater table, hence rainfall infiltration has no apparent effect on
the initial value of pore-water pressure. The graph shows the same trend
where the pore-water pressure increases as depth increases, as a result of
the groundwater table.
Fig. 19 shows pore-water pressure taken from tensiometer A which is
I.H. Razali et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334

Fig. 19. (a)–(f). Pore-water pressure at the crest of slope for CH1, CCSM4 1976–2005.

9
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 20. (a)–(f). Pore-water pressure at the toe of slope for CH1, CCSM4 1976–2005.
located at the top of the slope, while Fig. 20 shows pore-water pressure
located at tensiometer B which is at the toe of the slope. The numbering
in Figs. 19 and 20 both refer to the number of weeks, ranging from week
1 to week 30. Each week represents 7 days for the highest rainfall value
in a year, from the year 1976 to the year 2005. Fig. 19 shows the pore-
water pressure starting from − 5.7 kPa in the first year until 0.93 kPa in
the last year of the model. The pore-water pressure graphs then move
towards the right positive side as depth increases as a result of the in­
crease of pore-water pressure from the groundwater table. All phases
have different initial pore-water pressure, this is due to the different
extreme rainfall infiltration affecting the initial value of the pore-water
pressure. Since the model in Fig. 20 is already located under the
groundwater table, hence rainfall infiltration has no apparent effect on
the initial value of pore-water pressure. The graph shows the same trend
where the pore-water pressure increases as depth increases, as a result of
the groundwater table.
Fig. 21 shows pore-water pressure taken from tensiometer A which is
located at the top of the slope, while Fig. 22 shows pore-water pressure
located at tensiometer B which is at the toe of the slope. The numbering
in Figs. 21 and 22 both refer to the number of weeks, ranging from week
1 to week 30. Each week represents 7 days for the highest rainfall value
in a year, from the year 2020 to the year 2049. Fig. 21 shows the pore-
water pressure starting from − 13.81 kPa in the first year until 0.89 kPa
in the last year of the model. The pore-water pressure graphs then move
10
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
towards the right positive side as depth increases as a result of the in­
crease of pore-water pressure from the groundwater table. All phases
have different initial pore-water pressure, this is due to the different
extreme rainfall infiltration affecting the initial value of the pore-water
pressure. Since the model in Fig. 22 is already located under the
groundwater table, hence rainfall infiltration has no apparent effect on
the initial value of pore-water pressure. The graph shows the same trend
where the pore-water pressure increases as depth increases, as a result of
the groundwater table.
Ng et al. (2001) stated that rainfall will have the greatest impact
towards the soil as it reaches the soil surface, hence proving the multiple
types of pore-water pressure graphs with different initial pore-water
pressure values. Ng et al. (2001) also stated that since the greatest
impact happens at the soil surfaces, hence the impact slowly decreases as
the depth increases, with all of the graphs showing a high impact on the
surface of the soil and low impact as the soil reaches below the
groundwater table.
4. Conclusion
The effects of vegetation on slope stability were investigated. The
factor of safety values obtained from the modelling was analysed. From
the study, it can be concluded that the vegetation will have an impact on
the shear strength of the soil with the evidence of the increasing amount
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 21. (a–f) Pore-water pressure at the crest of slope for CH1, CCSM4 2020–2049.
of factor of safety from the original slope. The value of the factor of
safety increased from 2.968 to the highest FOS value for 3 m root depth
which is at 2.991. The initial condition for all the slopes was observed
and it is found that the slope with root type H has the highest amount of
factor of safety amongst all the other slopes with a value of 3.185.
Whereby by comparing the results to the other two, M and VH root types
indicated a factor of safety of 3.147 and 3.163, respectively. Lastly for
the slopes with rainfall, the value of FOS for the slopes with only rainfall
was 2.609 and the value shows a positive increase when vegetation was
applied at the surface with FOS value of 2.96. As for models with
different root strengths, it is found that when the strength of the roots is
high, it can provide better support to the soil with the evidence of the
factor of safety value of 2.62 for the root with 104.83 MPa while the
factor of safety value of 2.609 for root with 29.72 MPa. This shows that
the roots of vegetation can absorbs moisture and provide support in the
soil for higher stability of slopes. Further improvement can be made by
implementing many other types of roots with different strengths and
adjusting the depth of the roots in the soil for different results.
11
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
Author statement
RAZALI IRFAN HAZIQ: Software, Writing- Original draft prepara­
tion, Visualization, Investigation.
MOHD TAIB AIZAT: Supervision, Validation, Writing - Reviewing
and Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
AIZAT MOHD TAIB reports financial support was provided by Ministry
of Higher Education Malaysia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
I.H. Razali et al.
Fig. 22. (a)–(f). Pore-water pressure at the toe of slope for CH1, CCSM4 2020–2049.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the people involved in the research
project and acknowledge the Dana Padanan Antarabangsa (MyPair) -
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) with grant number;
NEWTON/1/2018/TK01/UKM//2 and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
for the administration and facility assistance.
References
Alsubal, S., Sapari, N., Harahap, I.S.H., Ali Mohammed Al-Bared, M., 2019. A review on
mechanism of rainwater in triggering landslide. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 513, 12009.
Arnone, E., Caracciolo, D., Noto, L.V., Preti, F., Bras, R.L., 2016. Modeling the
hydrological and mechanical effect of roots on shallow landslides. Water Resour.
Res. 52 (11), 8590–8612.
Biddle, P.G., 1998. Tree Root Damage to Buildings. Willowmead Publishing, Wantage.
Chatra, A.S., Dodagoudar, G.R., Maji, V.B., 2017. Numerical modelling of rainfall effects
on the stability of soil slopes. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 13, 425–437.
Faisal, A., 2010. Use of vegetation for slope protection: root mechanical properties of
some tropical plants. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 5, 496–506.
Ferrara, C., Barone, P., Salvati, L., 2015. Unravelling landslide risk: soil susceptibility,
agro-forest systems and the socio-economic profile of rural communities in Italy. Soil
Use Manag. 31 (2), 290–298.
12
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
Ghani, A.N.C., Mohd Taib, A., Hasbollah, D.Z.A., 2020. Effect of rainfall pattern on slope
stability. In: Duc Long, P., Dung, N. (Eds.), Geotechnics for Sustainable Infrastructure
Development. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 62. Springer, Singapore.
Gordo, C., Zêzere, J.L., Marques, R., 2019. Landslide susceptibility assessment at the
basin scale for rainfall-and earthquake-triggered shallow slides. Geosciences 9 (6),
268.
Greenwood, J., Norris, J., Wint, J., 2004. Assessing the contribution of vegetation to
slope stability. In: Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 154, pp. 199–207.
Harianto, R., Alfrendo, S., Looi, W.C., Heng, W.J.L., Han, L.V., 2018. Effects of
unsaturated properties on stability of slope covered with Caesalpinia crista in
Singapore. Environ. Geotech. 1–11.
Hess, D., Leshchinsky, B., Bunn, M., Mason, B., Olsen, M., 2017. A simplified three-
dimensional shallow landslide susceptibility framework considering topography and
seismicity. Landslides 14, 1–21.
Kristo, C., Rahardjo, H., Satyanaga, A., 2017. Effect of variations in rainfall intensity on
slope stability in Singapore. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 5 (4), 258–264.
Li, H.T., Zhao, Y.J., Li, G.R., Hu, X.S., Lu, H.J., Zhu, H.L., 2014. Experimental research on
slope protection with vegetation under situ rainfall simulation in cold and arid
environment of loess area. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 6, 304–311 in Chinese.
Mafian, S., Huat, B.B., Rahman, N.A., Singh, H., 2009. Potential plant species for live
pole application in tropical environment. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 5, 759–764.
Majid, N.A., Taha, M.R., Selamat, S.N., 2020. Historical landslide events in Malaysia
1993-2019. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 13 (33), 3387–3399.
McGuire, L.A., Rengers, F.K., Kean, J.W., 2016. Elucidating the role of vegetation in the
initiation of rainfall-induced shallow landslides: insights from an extreme rainfall
event in the Colorado Front Range. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 (17), 9084–9092.
Mulia, A.Y., Prasetyorini, L.A., 2013. Slope stabilization based on land use methods in
Ambang sub river basin. In: Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, pp. 240–247.
I.H. Razali et al.
Naidu, S., Sajinkumar, K.S., Oommen, T., Anuja, V.J., Samuel, R.A., Muraleedharan, C.,
2018. Early warning system for shallow landslides using rainfall threshold and slope
stability analysis. Geosci. Front. 9 (6), 1871–1882.
Nazrien Ng, J., Mohd Taib, A., Razali, I.H., Abd Rahman, N., Wan Mohtar, W.H.M.,
Karim, O.A., Mat Desa, S., Awang, S., Mohd, M.S.F., 2022. The effect of extreme
rainfall events on riverbank slope behaviour. Front. Environ. Sci. 10.
Ng, C.W., Wang, B., Tung, Y.K., 2001. Three-dimensional numerical investigations of
groundwater responses in an unsaturated slope subjected to various rainfall patterns.
Can. Geotech. J. 38, 5 1049–1062.
Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A., Ghafooripour, A., Nazir, R., 2012. The role of geosynthetics
in slope stability. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 17, 2739–2748.
Normaniza, O., S Barakbah, S., 2006. Parameters to predict slope stability-soil water and
root profiles. Ecol. Eng. 90–95.
Public Works Department, 2008. Malaysia.
Rahimi, A., Rahardjo, H., Leong, E.-C., 2010. Effect of antecedent rainfall patterns on
rainfall-induced slope failure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137, 5 483–491.
Reubens, B., Poesen, J., Danjon, F., Geudens, G., Muys, B., 2007. The role of fine and
coarse roots in shallow slope stability and soil erosion control with a focus on root
system architecture: a review. Tress-structure and Function 21, 385–402.
Saifuddin, M., Normaniza, O., 2016. Rooting Characteristics of Some Tropical Plants for
Slope Protection.
Small, R.J., 1989. Geomorphology and Hydrology. Longman Group UK Ltd.
13
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 129 (2023) 103334
Swiss Standard SN 670 010b, Characteristic Coefficients of Soils, Association of Swiss
Road and Traffic Engineers.
Syazwan, M., Mohd, A., Abd, N., Hidayatul, N., Mohd, A., 2021. Study of Residual Soil
Slope Stability with the Application.
Taib, A.M., Taha, M.R., Abd Rahman, N., Yazid, M.R.M., Khoiry, M.A., 2020. The effect
of soil-root interaction by vetiver grass on slope stability. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 15,
46–57.
Tien, H.W., 1984. Effect of Vegetation on Slope Stability. Transportation Research
Record, p. 965.
Wang, Q.J., Zhao, G.X., Liu, Y.L., Zhang, P.Y., Cai, J., 2016. Effects of vegetation types on
yield of surface runoff and sediment, loss of nitrogen and phosphorus along loess
slope land. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 14, 195–201 in Chinese.
Yen, C.P., 1987. Tree root patterns and erosion control. In: International Workshop on
Soil Erosion and its Countermeasures, Bangkok. Soil and Water Conservation Society
of Thailand, pp. 92–111.
Zhao, B., Zhang, L., Xia, Z., Xu, W., Xia, L., Liang, Y., Xia, D., 2019. Effects of rainfall
intensity and vegetation cover on erosion characteristics of a soil containing rock
fragments slope. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019. Article ID 7043428, 14 pages.
Zhou, J., Li, E., Yang, S., Wang, M., Shi, X., Yao, S., Mitri, H.S., 2019. Slope stability
prediction for circular mode failure using gradient boosting machine approach based
on an updated database of case histories. Saf. Sci. 118, 505–518.