Influence Factors Involving Rainfall-Induced Shallow Slope

Failure: Numerical Study

Somjai Yubonchit, Ph.D.1; Avirut Chinkulkijniwat2; Suksun Horpibulsuk, Ph.D., P.E.3; Chatchai
Jothityangkoon, Ph.D.4; Arul Arulrajah, Ph.D.5; and Apichat Suddeepong, Ph.D.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Assessment of rainfall-induced shallow slope failures is important for reducing damage to infrastructures as well as for the safety
of people living close to hazardous areas. The rainfall intensity-duration thresholds for initiation of slope failure (ID thresholds) based on the
historical slope failure data are commonly used to assess slope failure. However, in these slope-stability assessments, the critical influence fac-
tors triggering shallow slope failures are often disregarded. Three sets of parametric studies were performed through finite-element modeling
to investigate the effects of saturated permeability of soil, slope angle, and antecedent rainfall on instability of a shallow slope. It was found
that the hydrological mechanism involving the rainfall-induced shallow slope failure is either (1) the rising of water table mode or (2) the rain-
fall infiltration mode. The hydrological mode during the failure depends on the magnitude of rainfall intensity compared with the infiltration
capacity at the soil saturation state. The rate of reduction of safety factor (FS) increases with an increasing intensity of rainfall, only in a range
lower than the infiltration capacity at the soil saturated state. As such, the saturated permeability of the soil, which is equal to the infiltration
capacity at the soil saturated state, plays an important role in the shallow slope failure. The saturated permeability was also found to govern a
range of applicability of the ID thresholds. If the rainfall intensity is not greater than the infiltration capacity at the soil saturated state, the
rainfall duration to failure (Trf ) can be read from the ID thresholds. Slope angle and antecedent rainfall were found to play significant roles in
the instability of shallow slopes, because they control the initial stability of slope, which results in the different linear relationship of ID
thresholds. In addition, the slope angle might accelerate the rate of rainwater infiltration; hence, it reflects the slope of the ID thresholds.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000865. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Shallow slope; Rainfall-induced slope failure; Intensity-duration (ID) thresholds; Early warning system.

Introduction
Rainfall-induced failures in shallow slopes frequently result in natu-
ral disasters in many countries worldwide. An effective tool for mit-
igating the problems related to slope failures in recent years is the
1 rapid assessment. As such, this concept has been widely imple-
Ph.D. Scholar, School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree Univ. of
Technology, 111 University Ave., Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima
30000, Thailand. E-mail: D5540150@g.sut.ac.th
2
Associate Professor, Center of Excellence in Civil Engineering
School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree Univ. of Technology, 111
University Ave., Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
(corresponding author). E-mail: avirut@sut.ac.th
3
Professor, Center of Excellence in Civil Engineering School of Civil
Engineering, Suranaree Univ. of Technology, 111 University Ave.,
Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand. E-mail: suksun@
g.sut.ac.th
4
Associate Professor, Center of Excellence in Civil Engineering,
School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree Univ. of Technology, 111
University Ave., Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand.
E-mail: cjothit@sut.ac.th
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne
Univ. of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia. E-mail: aarulrajah@
swin.edu.au
6
Postdoctoral Scholar, Center of Excellence in Civil Engineering
School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree Univ. of Technology, 111
University Ave., Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 27, 2016; approved on
October 20, 2016; published online on December 7, 2016. Discussion pe-
riod open until May 7, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
use of the critical rainfall concept. The critical rainfall is usually
represented through a relationship between intensity and duration
of rainfall for the initiation of slope failure [intensity-duration
thresholds (ID thresholds)] [e.g., Caine (1980); Calcaterra et al.
(2000); Corominas (2000); Crosta and Frattini (2001); Aleotti
(2004); Cannon and Gartner (2005); Chien et al. (2005); Guzzetti et
al. (2007)]. The advantages of this concept are their simplicity and
mented as part of an early warning system (Brand 1984; Keefer et
al. 1987; Wilson et al. 1993; Sirangelo and Braca 2004).
Although the critical rainfall concept is simple and easy to use to
assess the failure of slopes, an understanding of the critical mecha-
nism triggering the failure of slope is often neglected. Understanding
the rainfall-induced slope failure problem requires coupled flow sim-
ulation and mechanical deformation modeling, especially in an un-
saturated groundwater flow environment. Various numerical stud-
ies have been previously undertaken based on the conventional
theory of groundwater flow as well as mechanical deformation by
decoupling the groundwater flow field from the mechanical defor-
mation field (Rahardjo et al. 2007, 2010; Rahimi et al. 2010).
However, the rainfall-induced slope failure is intrinsically a
hydraulic-mechanical interaction between these two fields. Hence,
analysis of the relevant problems requires a powerful tool to con-
duct a series of numerical experiments, which accurately simulate
the problem by coupling the hydrological-mechanical manner (Ng
and Shi 1998; Cai and Ugai 2004; Griffiths and Lu 2005; Shen and
Xu 2011; Xu et al. 2012; Hamdhan and Schweiger 2013;
Khalilnejad et al. 2013; Chinkulkijniwat et al. 2015; Wu et al.
2015a). None of the previous attempts conducted the analysis of rain-
fall-induced shallow slope failure in a fully coupled hydrological-
mechanical manner. Moreover, attempts were made to perform the

© ASCE 04016158-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 analysis on the slope subjected to a specific period of rainfall. In the
other word, analysis on the slope subjected to a certain rainfall contin-
uously until the initiation of slope failure was never conducted.
Therefore, the failure conditions of shallow slope under various condi-
tions of the influence factors have not been investigated to date.
To the authors’ knowledge, the current gaps of knowledge
related to rainfall-induced shallow slope failures are partly dis-
cussed as follows:
• Although previous attempts devoted to understanding the
effects of the influence factors, including soil saturated perme-
ability, slope angle, and antecedent rainfall, on circular slope
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
failures, the effects of these influence factors on the stability of
the shallow slope have not been ascertained.
• None of the previous attempts have described the hydrological-
related mechanisms of the shallow slope failure in a quantitative
manner. This paper is the first attempt to present them in such a
manner.
• The common tool for assessment of the critical rainfall in
the rainfall-induced slope failure is the rainfall ID thresholds
for initiation of slope failure. However, because the ID
thresholds were established empirically, the effects of the
influence factors on the ID thresholds have not been exam-
ined yet.
A series of numerical experiments were conducted under finite-
element environments. The influence factors consist of the soil type
in terms of soil saturated permeability, slope angle, and antecedent
rainfall. The analysis was conducted with the shallow slope sub-
jected to four patterns of rainfall conditions, as shown in Fig. 1: (1)
a single storm rainfall of a certain intensity for a period of 24 h, (2) a
continuous rainfall of a certain intensity until the occurrence of
slope failure, (3) a periodical rainfall with a sequential rainfall of a
certain intensity for a period of 24 h, and (4) a periodical rainfall
with a sequential rainfall of a certain intensity until the occurrence
of slope failure. Results from this study might enhance knowledge
of the mechanisms of rainfall-induced shallow slope failure and,
Fig. 1. Schematic explanation of periodic rainfall assigned in this study: (a) single storm with constant duration; (b) single storm with infinite dura-
tion; (c) multiple storm under constant duration (R1, R2) with 2 and 7 days between storm periods; (d) multiple storm under constant duration (R1)
and infinite duration (R3) with 2 and 7 days between storm periods
© ASCE 04016158-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158
hence, improvement of the current warning system for rainfall-
induced shallow slope failures.
Theoretical Background
The PLAXIS finite-element modeling code, with a fully coupled
flow-deformation analysis (Brinkgreve et al. 2010), was used in
this study. Application of the code to rainfall infiltration–related
problems was verified by Hamdhan and Schweiger (2013). The
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is assigned in this study. The
shear strength of soil related to unsaturated conditions is obtained
by combining Bishop’s effective stress concept (Bishop and
Blight 1963) and Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, which can be
expressed as
t ¼ c0 þ ðs n  ua Þtan w 0 þ x ðua  uw Þtan w 0 (1)
where t = shear strength of unsaturated soil; s n = total normal
stress; ua = pore air pressure; uw = pore-water pressure; ðs n  ua Þ =
net normal stress; ðua  uw Þ = matric suction; c0 = effective cohe-
sion; w 0 = internal soil friction angle; and x = scalar multiplier,
which is assumed as an effective degree of saturation (u e ) in this
study.
The safety factor (FS) is calculated by means of the shear
strength reduction technique or c0  w 0 reduction technique (Ugai
1989; Griffiths and Lane 1999; Brinkgreve et al. 2010). In this tech-
nique, the FS of a soil slope is defined as the number by which the
original shear strength parameters are divided to bring the slope to
failure state. If the shear strength parameters at failure are cr and
w r , the FS can be defined as
tan w c
FS ¼ ¼ (2)
tan w r cr
Int. J. Geomech.
 As for the hydrological process, Richard’s equation (Richards Materials and Methods
1931) was used to simulate transient flow through unsaturated soil.
At equilibrium, the summation of the change in the rate of flow in Shallow slope failures are commonly found in many parts of the
the x-, y-, and z-directions is equal to the change in the rates of the world. The geological setting in each hazardous area is different
head with respect to time and can be expressed as depending upon certain factors, such as climate conditions, rate of



 weathering, and slope geometry. As such, this study gathered the
∂ ∂h ∂ ∂h ∂ ∂h soil properties reported from the relevant literature on slope failure,
kx ðhÞ þ ky ðhÞ þ kz ðhÞ þ 1
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z including Dahal et al. (2008), Godt and McKenna (2008),
  ∂h Jotisankasa and Vathananukij (2008), Jotisankasa and Mairaing
¼ CðhÞ þ Ss (3) (2010), Vieira et al. (2010), Bordoni et al. (2015), and Oh and Lu
∂t
(2015), as summarized in Table 1. It is evident that the parameter a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where kx ; ky ; and kz = coefficients of permeability in the x-, y-,
and z-directions, respectively; CðhÞ ¼ ð∂u =∂hÞ = rate of change in
the volumetric water content ðu Þ with respect to the pressure head
ðhÞ; and Ss = specific storage of a porous medium or soil.
The permeability in unsaturated soil depends highly on soil-
water characteristics (SWCs). The SWC is a relationship between
water content and pressure head, which can be explained by the van
Genuchten model (van Genuchten 1980), and the permeability
function is explained by the van Genuchten-Mualem model
(Mualem 1976). Eqs. (4) and (5) are the van Genuchten and van
Genuchten-Mualem models, respectively
" #11=n
u w  u res 1
ue ¼ ¼   (4)
u sat  u res 1 þ aðua  uw Þ n

2
  h   i1=n1
1  aðua  uw Þ n1 1 þ aðua  uw Þ n
kðhÞ ¼ ksat
h   i1=2n=2
1 þ aðua  uw Þ n
(5)
where u w = volumetric water content; u res = residual volumetric
water content; u sat = saturated volumetric water content; ksat = satu-
rated permeability of soil; and a and n = fitting parameters that
represent air-entry value of soil and rate of water extraction from
the soil once the air entry has been exceeded, respectively. These
two groups of material parameters, including shear strength param-
eters (c0 ; w 0 ) and hydraulic-related parameters ða; n; ksat Þ, are the
required parameters to perform an analysis of rainfall-induced slope
failures in PLAXIS. In this study, relevant parameters were obtained
from previous research works and are discussed in the following
section.
ranges from 0.016 to 0.360 kPa−1, the desaturation parameter n
ranges from 1.290 to 2.780, u sat ranges from 0.286 to 0.480, and
u res ranges from 0.0 to 0.250. In addition, the saturated permeability
of soil ranges from 1.0  10−6 to 2.1  10−4 m/s.
Figs. 2(a and b) show the SWCs and the permeability functions
plotted from Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively, with the given magni-
tude of the aforementioned parameters. The cohesion and friction
angle of the soils range from 0.0 to 17.60 kN/m2 and from 32° to
38.6°, respectively. Variation of the strength envelopes is shown in
Fig. 2(c). The total unit weight of the soils ranges from 14.30 to
19.80 kN/m3.
Previous literature (Rahardjo et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2009; Li et al.
2013; Shen et al. 2014, 2015; Wu et al. 2015b) reported that the sat-
urated permeability plays a major role in the stability of slope
and other hydrological-mechanical-related problems. Hence, the
saturated permeability is the focus of this study. The other param-
eters, including c0 ; w 0 ; a; and n, were kept constant at 6.74 kN/m2,
33.6°, 0.162 kPa–1, and 1.564, respectively. The magnitude of
these parameters was deducted from the average of the parame-
ters reported in Table 1. In this study, variation of the saturated
permeability is represented by type of soil [i.e., Soils A, B, and C
stand for low (ksat = 1  10−6 m/s), medium (ksat = 1  10−5 m/s),
and high (ksat = 1  10−4 m/s) drainage ability, respectively]. The
magnitude of the saturated permeability assigned to Soils A, B,
and C was deduced from the saturated permeability reported in
Table 1.
Three series, called Series I, Series II, and Series III, were con-
ducted in this study to evaluate stability and time to failures of the
shallow slope under various conditions of the influence factors,
including rainfall intensity, slope angle, and antecedent rainfall. As
shown in Table 2, the numerical experiment includes 156 cases of
the simulation run. The simulations include 78 cases of a rainfall pe-
riod of 24 h and 78 cases of continuous rainfall until the occurrence
of slope failure.

Table 1. Summary of Soil Parameters from Previous Studies

Hydraulic property Strength property

Data
−1
number Reference Location/country u sat u res ksat (m/s) a (kPa ) n g sat (kN/m3) c0 (kN/m2) w 0 (°)
1 Jotisankasa and Vathananukij (2008); Tak/Thailand 0.475 0.200 — 0.360 1.290 — 6.5 37.0
2 Jotisankasa and Mairaing (2010) Nakhon Nayok/Thailand 0.470 0.170 2.1  10−4 0.290 1.316 17.61 12.8 33.1
3 Chonburi/Thailand 0.400 0.250 1.0  10−5 0.265 1.596 — 8.7 38.6
4 Omkoi/Thailand 0.470 0.230 — 0.066 1.298 — 17.6 28.7
5 Bordoni et al. (2015) Oltrepò Pavese/Italy 0.370 0.010 2.0  10−5 0.016 1.300 17.70 0 32.0
6 Dahal et al. (2008) Shikoku Island/Japan — — 4.9  10−5 — — 19.80 4.9 31.5
7 Oh and Lu (2015) Hadong/Korea 0.282 0.00 5.6  10−6 0.044 1.370 17.41 0 34.1
8 Vieira et al. (2010) Sao Paulo/Brazil — — 1.0  10−6 — — 14.3 6 34
9 Godt and McKenna (2008) Seattle/USA 0.480 0.066 5.0  10−5 0.096 2.780 — 4.2 33.6
Maximum — — 0.480 0.250 2.1  10−4 0.360 2.780 19.80 17.6 38.6
Mean — — 0.421 0.132 4.29  10−5 0.162 1.564 17.36 6.74 33.6
Minimum — — 0.286 0 1.0  10−6 0.016 1.290 14.30 0 28.7

© ASCE 04016158-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 50 20° to 40°. Three types of soil with three or four rainfall inten-
Volumetric water content (%)
No. 1
sities were assigned to each slope angle in this series.
40 No. 2 Finally, 36 cases of simulation analyses were conducted in
No. 3 Series III to evaluate the effect of antecedent rainfall. The ante-
30 cedent rainfall imitates the periodic rainfall in the real field. The
No. 4
previous rainfall affects the initial conditions of the soil sub-
20 No. 5 jected to the sequential rainfall and, hence, the initial stability of
No. 7 the slope. In this study, the rainfall was assigned periodically as
10 shown in Figs. 1(c and d). The simulation started with an ante-
No. 9
cedent rainfall of a certain rainfall intensity for 24 h (R1).
0 Mean value Subsequently, the rainfall was terminated for a certain period (an-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 10 100 1000 tecedent condition) prior to the arrival of another rainfall event
(a) Matric suction (kPa) (R2 or R3). These 36 cases include 18 cases of Rainfall R2 (24-h
rainfall) and 18 cases of R3 (continuous rainfall until the occur-
-3
10
.00E-03 rence of slope failure) (18 þ 18). For each simulation, the same
Coefficient of permeability (m/sec)

No. 2 rainfall intensity was prescribed to Rainfall Events R1 and R2 or

-4
.00E-04
10 R1 and R3. In Series III, two antecedent conditions of rainfalls of
No. 3
-5 48 and 168 h (2 and 7 days) were prescribed to the simulations.
10
.00E-05 No. 5 The magnitudes of rainfall intensity, rainfall duration, and period
.00E-06
-6
No. 7
of the antecedent condition used in this case series are summar-
10
ized Table 2. For the sake of practicality, the effects of evapora-
-7 No. 9
10
.00E-07 tion were neglected in this study. The slope instability triggered
-8 Mean value by rainfall typically takes place during a rainfall period when
10
.00E-08 there is high relative humidity, and hence when evaporation is
-9 negligible.
10
.00E-09
1 10 100 1000
(b) Matric suction (kPa) Setup of Experiments

250 Slope geometry, boundary conditions, and fixity used in this

No. 1
study are shown in Fig. 3. The slope model is divided into two
No. 2
200 layers. The bedrock is overlain by a uniform shallow soil layer
Shear strength (kPa)

150
100
50
0 Mean value
0 50 100 150 200 250
(c) Effective normal stress (kPa)
Fig. 2. Soil properties: (a) SWC curves; (b) permeability functions;
(c) shear strength envelopes
For Series I, 42 cases [21 cases of rainfall periods of 24 h and 21
cases of continuous rainfall until the occurrence of slope failure
(21 þ 21)] were conducted. For each soil type, a constant rainfall in-
tensity was assigned in the range of 0.36–360 mm/h, depending on
the saturated permeability of each soil type. In addition, an extreme
rainfall condition (EXT) was assigned to every soil type. This con-
dition may occur once the rainfall intensity is much higher than the
drainage capacity of soil at saturation (i  ksat ), and the infiltration
excess might exist since the start of rainfall. In this study, the
extreme rainfall condition is assumed to generate a ponding rain-
water with a height of 5 cm for the entire period of the simulation.
In PLAXIS, this condition can be simulated by a prescribed maxi-
mum pressure head ( c max ) of 5 cm.
The effect of slope angle on the stability and time to failure
was evaluated in Series II. Seventy-eight cases (39 þ 39) of the
simulation run were conducted by varying the slope angles from
No. 3
with a thickness of 3 m (d = 3 m), which gives ratios of slope
No. 4 length (L) to soil depth (d) of approximately 31, 29, and 26 for
No. 5 slope angles of 20, 30, and 40°, respectively. These L/d ratios
No. 6 are greater than 20 which is enough to avoid boundary effects in
No. 7 the calculation of safety factor (Griffiths et al. 2011; Tiwari et al.
No. 8 2014). Standard fixities were prescribed to allow only vertical
No. 9 movement along the boundary sides, whereas lateral and vertical
movements were fixed at the bottom boundary. Fifteen-node tri-
300 angular finite-element mesh is assigned in the problem. Typically,
a dense finite-element mesh is assigned at the high-deformation
zone where stress concentrations are likely to occur. For the soil
slope model, this zone is located close to the slope surface
(Hamdhan and Schweiger 2013). Accordingly, the finer elements
were generated at the soil layer, and the finest mesh was generated
along the soil slope where failures tend to occur.
A prescribed flux, which relates to the desired intensity of rain-
fall, was assigned along Slope Surface BC. Along Slope Surface
BC, a range of pore-water pressures between –0.05 and 0.05 m
were prescribed. By the maximum pore-water pressure of 0.05 m,
the ponding water due to excess rainfall intensity over the infiltra-
tion capacity at the soil saturation state could develop up to 5 cm
over the slope surface. The minimum pore-water pressure of –
0.05 m was used to represent a depth of negative flux due to evap-
oration. Boundaries AB and CD were assigned as having no flux
boundaries, whereas Boundaries AHG, DEF, and GF were pre-
scribed as impervious boundaries. The initial conditions were
prescribed by variation of initial pore-water pressure (uwi) rang-
ing from –50 to –80 kPa from the soil–bedrock interface to the
soil surface, representing ground conditions prior to a rainfall
event. The volumetric water content at field capacity (u fc ) and the
residual water content (u res ) were used as references to prescribe
the range of u i and, hence, uwi. The u fc is known as the content of

© ASCE 04016158-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 Table 2. Summary of Case Study

Rainfall intensity
[i (mm/h)] Number of combinations
Slope Between storm
Numerical Soil Soil Soil angle Rainfall rainfall periods
series A B C [ b (°)] duration (h) [tb (days)] 24-h rainfall 1-h rainfalla
I 0.36 0.5 5 30 24, 1a — 7  3 = 21 7  3 = 21
0.5 1 10
1 5 20
3.6 10 50
5 20 100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7.2 36 360
EXT EXT EXT
II 0.36 1 1 24, 1a — (4  3) þ (4  3) þ (5  3) = 39 (4  3) þ (4  3) þ (5  3) = 39
1 10 10 20
3.6 36 100 30
EXT EXT 360 40
EXT
III 0.36 1 1 30 24, 1a 2 (3  2) þ (3  2) = 18 (3  2) þ (3  2) = 18
3.6 5 5 7
5 10 10
Sum 78 78
a
Rainfall duration assigned until an initiation of slope failure.

Fig. 3. Slope geometry and boundary conditions

water, on a mass or volume basis, remaining in a soil 2 or 3 days
after being wetted with water and after free drainage is negligible
(Soil Science Glossary Terms Committee 2008; Meyer and
Glendon 1999). The u fc corresponds to a pore-water pressure of –
34 kPa (Dingman 2002) for any soil type. If no additional water is
added to the soil for 2–3 days after a rainfall event, the water con-
tent might further decrease due to evaporation and plant root
uptake. As such, a range of u i might possibly be between u fc and
u res . According to the SWC assigned to the model [dashed line in
Fig. 2(a)], the variation of pore-water pressure ranging from –80
to –50 kPa is represented by the variation of volumetric water
content of 20–22%, as shown in Fig. 3.
Table 3 summarizes the material properties categorized into
three categories: strength parameters, hydraulic-related parame-
ters, and deformation parameters. The Mohr-Coulomb model
was used to explain the mechanical behavior of soil and bedrock
layers. van Genuchten and van Genuchten-Mualem models were
used to explain the hydraulic behavior of the soil layer, whereas
the bedrock layer was assumed as an impermeable nonporous
material.
Results and Discussions
Results from the numerical experiments are presented as three
aspects: (1) the possible failure mechanism related to the response
of pore-water pressure, (2) safety factor characteristics of a slope
subjected to a certain rainfall duration, and (3) the rainfall thresh-
olds for the initiation of slope failure presented through the relation-
ship between rainfall ID.

© ASCE 04016158-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 Table 3. Soil Parameters Required for Mohr-Coulomb Model

Material property Parameter Symbol Soil layer Bedrock layer Unit

Mechanical Mechanical model — Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb —
Material type — Undrained A Nonporous —
Cohesion c0 6.74 25a kPa
Friction angle w0 33.62 50a Degrees
Effective modulus of elasticity E0 a 50,000 100,000 kPa
Effective Poisson’s ratio v0 a 0.33 0.2 —
Hydraulic Hydraulic model — Van Genuchten — —
Soil type — A B C — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Saturated permeability of soil ksat 1  10−6 1  10−5 1  10−4 — m/s

n n 1.564 — —
a a 0.162 — kPa−1
General Dry unit weight g unsat 17.36 23a kN/m3
Total unit weight g sat 17.36 23a kN/m3
a
Assumed value.

2.50 corresponding soils at their saturation states, the rapid reduction of

Soil B (5 mm/hr) FS is found almost immediately after rainfall commences.
Soil C (5 mm/hr) Figs. 5 and 6 present pore-water pressure profiles along the depth
2.25
Soil B (10 mm/hr) of a vertical section located at the middle of the slope (Section a-a in
Soil C (10 mm/hr) Fig. 3) for Soils B and C, respectively. Figs. 5(a–c) and 6(a–c) are
2.00 for rainfall intensities of 5, 10, and 36 or 360 mm/h, respectively.
Soil B (36 mm/hr)
Safety factor, FS

The distribution of pore-water pressure can be characterized into

1.75 Soil C (360 mm/hr)
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (hr)
Fig. 4. Relationship between safety factor and simulated rainfall dura-
tion under four constant rainfall intensities and two types of soil with
medium (Soil B) and high (Soil C) permeability
General Mechanism of Rainfall-Induced Shallow
Slope Failures
Simulation results partly deduced from Case Series I were used to
analyze the shallow slope failure mechanism and included six cases
with continuous rainfall intensities of 5, 10, and 36 mm/h for Soil B
and 5, 10, and 360 mm/h for Soil C. The rainfall intensities of 36 and
360 mm/h are equal to the infiltration capacity at the saturation state
of the corresponding soils (i.e., the saturated permeability of Soil B
is 10−5 m/s = 10−5 m/s  103 mm/m  3,600 s/h = 36 mm/h).
Fig. 4 presents variations of FS against the simulated rainfall du-
ration to failure. For the lowest rainfall intensity (5 mm/h), the FS of
Soils B and C decreases in a similar manner. The FS gradually
decreases with an increasing rainfall period of no longer than 76 h.
For the slope subjected to a rainfall period longer than 76 h, the FS
decreases drastically. A similar trend is found for a rainfall intensity
of 10 mm/h. As the FS retains its high magnitude and subsequently
drops drastically, the slope failure might take place immediately af-
ter the rainfall period reaches a critical threshold without any sign
of physical response. As for the scenario in which rainfall intensity
is equal to or greater than the infiltration capacity of the
two stages: a rainfall infiltration stage, and a rising water table stage.
The rising water table stage starts after the rainfall infiltrates the
soil–bedrock interface. During the infiltration stage, the negative
pore-water pressure decreases from the initial stage to reach the sin-
gle greatest magnitude of pore-water pressure. Hence, at the end of
the infiltration stage, the magnitude of pore-water pressure at any
depth is equal to this greatest value. Thereafter, the pore-water pres-
sure increases and becomes positive due to the rising water table.
Figs. 5(a) and 6(a) show that, for the rainfall intensity of 5 mm/h,
120 the end of the infiltration stage takes place at approximately 76 and
52 h for Soils B and C, respectively. Figs. 5(a) and 6(a) also show
that the magnitudes of pore-water pressure at the end of the infiltra-
tion stage are –4 kPa (for Soil B) and –10 kPa (for Soil C). This con-
stant magnitude of negative pore-water pressure depends upon the
flux boundary and the hydraulic properties of the soil (Lu and
Griffiths 2004; Lu and Likos 2006; Lu and Godt 2008; Vahedifard
et al. 2016; Chinkulkijniwat et al. 2016), hence the higher magni-
tude of pore-water pressure at the end of the infiltration stage for
Soil C is due to the higher infiltration capacity of Soil C at the satu-
ration state (higher saturated permeability).
Referring to the variation of FS as shown in Fig. 4, the FS against
shallow slope failure is far greater than 1.0 during the rainfall infil-
tration stage because of the remaining negative pore-water pressure
(suction) in both Soils B and C. In addition, the greater FS in Soil C
than in Soil B during the infiltration stage is because the magnitude
of negative pore-pressure at the end of the rainfall infiltration stage
in Soil C is greater than that in Soil B. A similar trend is found in
cases where the rainfall intensity is 10 mm/h, as shown in Figs. 5(b)
and 6(b). The magnitudes of negative pore-water pressure at the end
of the infiltration stage for this rainfall intensity are –2 and –8 kPa
for Soils B and C, respectively.
The rising water table after the end of the infiltration stage results
in an increase of positive pore-water pressure and hence the loss of
shear strength specifically at the interfacial zone of the soil and the
bedrock. At this stage, due to its higher saturated permeability, the
drop of the FS in Soil C is faster than that in Soil B.
Figs. 5(c) and 6(c) are results obtained for the rainfall intensity
equal to the infiltration capacity of the soils at their saturated states.

© ASCE 04016158-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 0.00 0.00
t=0 hr t=0 hr
-0.50 -0.50
t=8 hr t=8 hr
-1.00 -1.00
t=16 hr t=16 hr

Depth(m)
Depth(m)

-1.50 t=32 hr -1.50 t=32 hr

-2.00 t=52 hr -2.00 t=52 hr
-2.50 t=76 hr -2.50 t=76 hr
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-3.00 t= 100 hr t=100 hr

-3.00
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
(a) Pore water pressure(kPa) (a) Pore water pressure(kPa)
0.00 0.00
t=0 hr t=0 hr
-0.50 -0.50
t=8 hr t=8 hr
-1.00 t=16 hr -1.00
Depth(m)

t=16 hr

Depth(m)
-1.50 t=28 hr -1.50 t=28 hr
-2.00 t=36 hr t=36 hr
-2.00
t=48 hr
-2.50 -2.50 t=48 hr
t= 54 hr
-3.00 t= 50 hr
-3.00
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
(b) Pore water pressure(kPa)
(b) Pore water pressure(kPa)
0.00
t=0 hr 0.00
-0.50 t=0 hr
t=4 hr -0.50 t=0.5 hr
-1.00 t=8 hr
Depth(m)

-1.00 t=1 hr
Depth(m)

-1.50 t=12 hr t=1.5 hr

-1.50
-2.00 t=16 hr t=2 hr
-2.00
t=18 hr
-2.50
-2.50
-3.00
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 -3.00
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
(c) Pore water pressure (kPa)
(c) Pore water pressure(kPa)
Fig. 5. Development of pore-water pressure profile in Soil B for differ-
ent rainfall intensities: (a) rainfall intensity (i) = 5 mm/h; (b) i = 10 mm/h; Fig. 6. Development of pore-water pressure profile in Soil C for dif-
(c) i = 36 mm/h ferent rainfall intensities: (a) rainfall intensity (i) = 5 mm/h; (b) i =
10 mm/h; (c) i = 360 mm/h

Dissipation of the negative pore-water pressure at the shallow depth

has been taking place since the commencement of rainfall. As such,
the sharp drop of safety factor is encountered since the start of rain-
fall, as revealed in Fig. 4.
Safety Factor Characteristics of Slope Subjected to a
Certain Period of Rainfall
This section shows the results obtained from the 78 cases of nu-
merical experiments with a rainfall period of 24 h. Fig. 7 presents
the time series of FS of the slope subjected to various intensities
of a 24-h rainfall duration. Fig. 7(a) is for the lowest permeability
soil (Soil A). The FS successively decreases during the rainfall
period. The decrease of FS continues even after the rainfall event.
This reduction of FS after the rain had stopped is according to the
inertia of rainwater infiltration. However, the FS gradually
increases afterward. The rate of reduction of FS is accelerated by
the rainfall intensity. The maximum rate of reduction of FS
occurs when the rainfall intensity is greater than or equal to
3.6 mm/h, which is the infiltration capacity of Soil A at the satura-
tion state.
Figs. 7(b and c) present the time series of FS for the intermediate-
(Soil B) and high-permeability (Soil C) soils, respectively. For
light rainfall intensity, the FS characteristic of these soil types is
similar to that of Soil A. However, for the heavy rainfall intensity,
slope failure is encountered during the rainfall period. These results

© ASCE 04016158-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 2.00 3.50 i=0.36 mm/hr
i= 0.36 mm/hr tr
1.75 3.00 i= 1 mm/hr
i= 0.5 mm/hr
Safety factor, FS

Safety factor, FS
2.50 i= 3.6 mm/hr
1.50 i= 1 mm/hr
EXT-case
i= 3.6 mm/hr 2.00
1.25 = 20
i= 5 mm/hr 1.50 = 30
1.00 i= 7.2 mm/hr = 40
tr 1.00
0.75 EXT-case
0.50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
(a) Time(hr) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
(a) Time(hr)
2.00
i= 0.5 mm/hr 3.50
tr i=1 mm/hr
1.75 i = 1 mm/hr 3.00
Safety factor, FS

i=10 mm/hr

Safety factor, FS
1.50 i = 5 mm/hr
2.50 i= 36 mm/hr
i= 10 mm/hr EXT-case
1.25 2.00
i = 20 mm/hr = 20
1.00 i= 36 mm/hr 1.50 = 30
tr EXT-case 1.00 = 40
0.75
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 0.50
(b) Time(hr) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
(b) Time(hr)
2.00
i = 5 mm/hr
3.50 2.00
1.75 i = 10 mm/hr tr
Safety factor, FS

3.00
i= 20 mm/hr 1.50
Safety factor, FS

1.50
2.50
i = 50 mm/hr
1.25 1.00
i = 100 mm/hr 2.00 0 2 4 6 8
i= 1 mm/hr
1.00 i= 360 mm/hr 1.50 i= 10 mm/hr
tr i= 100 mm/hr
0.75 EXT- case 1.00 i= 360 mm/hr
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 EXT-case
0.50 = 20
(c) Time(hr) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 = 30
(c) Time(hr) = 40
Fig. 7. Characteristic of safety factor with simulated time under con-
stant rainfall intensity: (a) Soil A; (b) Soil B; (c) Soil C Fig. 8. Characteristic of safety factor with simulated time under differ-
ent rainfall intensities (i) and three slope angles ( b ): (a) Soil A; (b) Soil
B; (c) Soil C
confirm previous studies (Brand 1984; Rahardjo et al. 2007), which
reported that the short heavy rainfall intensity might trigger slope
failure in intermediate- and high-permeability soils. It is found Fig. 9 presents the effect of antecedent rainfall on shallow slope
again that the maximum rate of reduction of FS takes place when stability. Results from 18 cases of Series III, in which the 24-h pe-
the rainfall intensity is greater than or equal to the infiltration riod of rainfall (R2) is assigned, are shown in Fig. 9. The maximum
capacity of the soil at the saturation state. rainfall intensity used in this case series is 10 mm/h, which is signifi-
Fig. 8 presents the variation of FS for three slope angles ( b = 20, cantly lower than 36 mm/h (the infiltration capacity at the saturated
30, and 40°). As expected, the greater magnitude of slope angle state of Soil B) and/or 360 mm/h (the infiltration capacity of the sat-
yields the lower value of initial FS. Regardless of the magnitude of urated state of Soil C). The stability of the slope subjected to multi-
FS, the variations of FS for each soil at every slope angle show a ple storm rainfalls (R1 and R2) was monitored. Prior to Rainfall
similar trend to each other. For the intermediate-permeability (Soil B) Event R2, the antecedent storm rainfall (tb) with 2- and 7-day inter-
and high-permeability (Soil C) soils, whose FS reach the critical storm periods was assigned to this experiment series.
value of 1.0 at the rainfall intensity of greater than or equal to the Figs. 9(a–c) present the variation of FS for the 2-day cases of tb
infiltration capacity at their saturation state, the rate of reduction of in Soils A, B, and C, respectively. As expected, the FS in every soil
FS is accelerated by the angle of the slope. The time to the trigger decreases successively after the commencement of the R2 rainfall
point is hence faster for the steeper slope based on the lower initial event. In addition, reduction of FS after the end of Rainfall R2 is
FS as well as the faster rate of driving force increment, which sub- also observed in every soil, according to the inertia of rainwater.
sequently results in a faster rate reduction in FS. For the intermediate- (Soil B) and high-permeability (Soil C) soils,

© ASCE 04016158-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 2.00 2.00
1.75 1.75

Safety factor, FS

Safety factor, FS
1.50 1.50
1.25 1.25 i=0.36 mm/hr
i= 0.36 mm/hr i=1 mm/hr
1.00 1.00
i= 1 mm/hr i=5 mm/hr
0.75 i= 5 mm/hr 0.75
tr1 tb tr2 tr1 tb tr2
0.50 0.50
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Time(hr) (d) Time(hr)

2.00 2.00
1.75 1.75
Safety factor, FS

Safety factor, FS
1.50 1.50
1.25 1.25 i=1 mm/hr
i=1 mm/hr i=5 mm/hr
1.00 1.00
i=5 mm/hr i=10 mm/hr
0.75 i=10 mm/hr 0.75
tr1 tb tr2 tr1 tb tr2
0.50 0.50
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
(b) Time(hr) (e) Time(hr)

2.00 2.00
1.75 1.75
Safety factor, FS
Safety factor, FS

1.50 1.50
1.25 1.25 i=1 mm/hr
i=1 mm/hr i=5 mm/hr
1.00 1.00
i=5 mm/hr i=10 mm/hr
0.75 i=10 mm/hr 0.75
tr1 tb tr2 tr1 tb tr2
0.50 0.50
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
(c) Time(hr) (f) Time(hr)

Fig. 9. Characteristic of safety factor with simulated time under different rainfall intensities (i) and slope angle ( b = 30°): (a–c) Soils A, B, and C
with two storm rainfalls (1-day duration) and 2-day interstorm; (d–f) Soils A, B, and C with two storm rainfalls (1-day duration) and 7-day interstorm

slope failure is encountered a few hours after the end of the R2 rain- Rainfall ID Thresholds for Initiation of Shallow
fall event of 10 mm/h. With this intermediate rainfall intensity Slope Failure
(10 mm/h), the rainwater might infiltrate deeply through the inter-
The rainfall ID thresholds for initiation of slope failure, which is the
mediate- and high-permeability soils, close to the soil–bedrock
relationship between the rainfall intensity (If ) and rainfall period
interface during the period of rainfall. Thereafter, even the rainfall
(Trf ) to trigger slope failure, is widely used to practically assess the
event has stopped, the inertia of rainwater drives the water far
stability of shallow slopes (Caine 1980; Calcaterra et al. 2000;
enough to reach the soil–bedrock interface, and slope failure is sub-
Corominas 2000; Crosta and Frattini 2001; Aleotti 2004; Cannon
sequently triggered. For a given rainfall intensity, the rainwater infil-
and Gartner 2005; Chien et al. 2005; Guzzetti et al. 2007). Fig. 10
trates the low-permeability soil slower than the high-permeability
shows a set of ID thresholds developed from the aforementioned lit-
soil. In addition, the driven distance due to the inertia of rainwater is
erature. From these thresholds, a mathematical expression for ID
shorter in the low-permeability soil than in the high-permeability thresholds can be expressed as
soil. As such, the FS of the low-permeability soil (Soil A) remains
far beyond the critical value of 1.0 throughout the monitored period.
If ¼ a þ cTrfm (6)
Figs. 9(d–f) present the variation of FS for the 7-day case of tb in
Soils A, B, and C, respectively. The variation of FS is found to be sim-
ilar to the 2-day case of tb. The drop of FS after the end of Rainfall R2 where a, c, and m = ID threshold parameters that represent the cur-
is still evident for the interstorm period of 7 days. However, slope fail- vature, intercept, and gradient of ID thresholds, respectively.
ure was not encountered within the monitored period. Thus, the shal- Usually, the magnitudes of these model parameters are obtained
low slope subjected to the shorter interstorm period might experience from regression analysis of the data gathered from previous slope
failures soon after the end of the sequential rainfall. failure events. By this approach, it is not possible to interpret the

© ASCE 04016158-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 effect of possible factors triggering rainfall-induced shallow slope
failures. This study attempted to examine the influence of the influ-
ence factors on the ID thresholds based on physical mechanisms
taking place along the rainfall-induced shallow slope failure. All
156 failure cases in the numerical experiment were used to establish
the ID thresholds presented in this section.
Fig. 11 shows the ID thresholds for various type of soils (in
terms of their saturated permeability) with a slope angle of 30°. The
coordinates (If , Trf ) lay on a single linear line on a log-log scale,
regardless of the magnitude of saturated permeability. The Trf
decreases with increasing rainfall intensity. However, the Trf does
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
not decrease if rainfall intensity increases beyond the infiltration
capacity at the saturated state of the corresponding soils (shown as
black stars for the rainfall intensity greater than the infiltration
capacity at the soil saturated state and as vertical dashed lines for
1000
Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
100
10
1 the slope angle. Under a specific rainfall intensity, the higher slope
0.1
0.1 1 10
Duration(hr)
Fig. 10. ID thresholds proposed in existing literature
1000
100
Rainfall intensity, If (mm/hr)
10
( )
1
0.1
Fig. 11. ID thresholds based on Soils A, B, and C with various rainfall intensities, b = 30°, nonstop rainfall
© ASCE
the extreme rainfall condition). According to the Green and Ampt
model (Green and Ampt 1911), if rainfall intensity is greater than
the infiltration capacity of the soil at saturation, the final rate of infil-
trated rainwater is equal to the infiltration capacity at the soil satura-
tion state, and the infiltration excess of rainwater is formed as the
surface runoff. In other words, the Trf decreases when the rainfall
intensity increases, if the rainfall intensity is not greater than the
infiltration capacity of the soil at saturation. Therefore, the maxi-
mum rainfall intensity for which the relationship between If and Trf
obeys the ID thresholds is governed by soil types in terms of their
saturated permeability.
Fig. 12 presents the effect of the slope angle on the time intensity
of rainfall at the failures state. The absolute value of the ID thresh-
old parameter m increases slightly with an increasing slope angle.
In other words, the steepness of the ID thresholds increases with
increasing slope angle. Moreover, the ID threshold parameter c,
which represents the rainfall intensity required to trigger slope fail-
Caine(1980)-World ure at a unit time of rainfall, clearly decreases with an increasing
Calcaterra et al.(2000)-Italy slope angle. The drop of the ID threshold parameter c with an
Crosta and Frattini(2001)-World increasing slope angle is due to the lower initial FS for the greater
Aleotti(2004)-Italy
Aleotiti(2004)-Italy slope angle. The increment of the ID threshold parameter m with
Cannon and Gartner(2005)-World increasing slope angle implies that the time to failure is faster than
Chien et al.(2005)-Taiwan that for the steeper slope. Chinkulkijniwat et al. (2016) investigated
the depth of a failure plane in a cohesionless soil slope when sub-
jected to continuous rainfall. For a soil slope greater than the soil
frictional angle itself, they reported that the greater slope angle
results in a shallower depth of the failure plane and, hence, a faster
time for failure. In total, the time to slope failure is accelerated by
angle results in a shorter Trf .
Fig. 13 presents the effect of antecedent rainfall on the ID thresh-
olds. Prior to the R3 continuous rainfall, the slope is subjected to
100 1000 24 h of the R1 rainfall followed by a between-storm period (tb) of 2
or 7 days. The ID threshold parameter m remains almost constant
regardless of the magnitude of tb, but the parameter c increases with
an increasing magnitude of tb. The drop of the ID threshold parame-
ter c with decreasing tb is due to the lower initial FS for the shorter tb.
Soil A
EXT case (Soil C)
Soil B
EXT case (Soil B)
Soil C
Trend line
EXT case (Soil A)
i>ksat(A) excluding in
regression analysis
) = 0.996
ID for Soil A
ID for Soil B
ID for Soil C
1 10 100 1000
Duration at failures, Trf (hr)
04016158-10 Int. J. Geomech.
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158
 1000
Soil A
Soil B

100 Soil C

Rainfall intensity, If (mm/hr)

10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 ( ) ) = 0.991

( ) ) = 0.996

( ) ) = 0.996
0.1
1 10 100 1000
Duration at failures, Trf (hr)

Fig. 12. ID thresholds based on slope angles 20, 30, and 40° with various rainfall intensities (Soils A, B, and C, nonstop rainfall)

Soil A
Single storm (non-stop rainfall)
Soil B
10
Soil C
Rainfall intensity, If (mm/hr)

Multiple storms (tb=7 days)

Multiple storms (tb=2 days)

1

0.1
10 10 0 1000
Duration at failures, Trf (hr)

Fig. 13. ID thresholds based on two types of antecedent rainfall (tb = 2 and 7 days) with various rainfall intensities ( b = 30°, Soils A, B, and C)

As shown in Fig. 9, the shorter tb results in a lower initial FS prior to
a subsequent rainfall event. Under the same rainfall intensity, the Trf
decreases with decreasing tb from 7 to 2 days. In other words, a faster
slope failure is found for the slope subjected to a shorter between-
storm period (tb).
Conclusions
A series of parametric studies were performed through a fully
coupled flow-deformation analysis using a finite-element modeling
analysis. The numerical experiments were conducted under two dif-
ferent conditions, (1) the slope was subjected to a certain rainfall in-
tensity for a specified period, and (2) the slope was subjected to a
certain rainfall intensity continuously until the initiation of slope
failure. The following conclusions can be made based on this
research study:
1. Under a certain slope geometry, shallow slope failure can be
triggered under either the rainfall infiltration or he rising water
table mode, depending on the soil saturated permeability and
rainfall intensity. The soil saturated permeability is one of the
critical factors controlling the range of rainfall intensity upon

© ASCE 04016158-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158

 which the mode of water flow at slope failure is dependent
upon. For the rainfall intensity lower than the infiltration
capacity at the saturated state, the slope is potentially stable
during the infiltration stage because of the remaining matric
suction, hence the slope failure is potentially found during a
rise of the water table. For a rainfall event where the intensity is
equal to or greater than the infiltration capacity at the saturated
state, matric suction completely disappears during the infiltra-
tion stage, and hence the slope failure is possibly found during
the infiltration state.
2. The magnitude of the soil saturated permeability plays an im-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
portant role in the characteristics of shallow slope stability. The
rate of reduction in FS increases with increasing rainfall inten-
sity and reaches the maximum rate when the rainfall intensity
is equal to the infiltration capacity at the saturated state of the
soil. Moreover, for the high-permeability soil, the slope failure
might be triggered by the high-intensity and short-duration
rainfall.
3. The steepness of slope and antecedent rainfall also affect the
stability of shallow slopes. The initial FS is governed by the
slope angle and the antecedent rainfall. The steeper slope
opposes the smaller magnitude of the initial FS, and the subse-
quent failure might be triggered more easily. The initial FS
decreases with decreasing interstorm period, and causes the
lower initial FS and an easier occurrence of the failure.
4. As the slope angle and the antecedent rainfall affect the initial
stability of the shallow slope, both factors directly affect the ID
threshold parameter c, which indicates the intensity of rainfall
triggers the slope failure at a unit time of rainfall. In addition,
the time to slope failure is accelerated by the slope angle. This
fact reflects that the absolute value of ID threshold parameter m
increases with increasing slope angle.
5. The maximum rainfall intensity, in which the relationship
between If and Trf obeys the ID thresholds, is governed by the
soil type in terms of their saturated permeability. In addition,
the saturated permeability of the soil can be used to categorize
the modes of disaster. The high-permeability soil subjected to a
high rainfall intensity might lead to rapid slope failure. This
magnitude of rainfall intensity might result in an infiltration of
excess rainwater (formed as surface runoff) and a sequential
slope failure in the low saturated permeability soil.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by Thailand Research Fund
(TRF) Senior Research Scholar Program Grant RTA5980005, and
the Ernst Mach grant.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a ¼ curvature of ID thresholds;
CðhÞ ¼ rate of change in volumetric water content with
respected to pressure head;
c ¼ intercept of ID thresholds;
c0 ¼ effective cohesion of soil;
E0 ¼ effective modulus of elasticity;
FS ¼ safety factor;
h ¼ pressure head;
If ¼ rainfall intensity at state of slope failure;
i ¼ rainfall intensity;
ksat ¼ saturated permeability of soil;
kx ðhÞ ¼ unsaturated permeability of soil in direction of x;
© ASCE 04016158-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158
ky ðhÞ ¼ unsaturated permeability of soil in direction of y;
kz ðhÞ ¼ unsaturated permeability of soil in direction of z;
m ¼ gradient of ID thresholds;
n ¼ rate of water extraction from soil once air entry
has been exceeded;
Ss ¼ specific storage of porous medium or soil;
Trf ¼ time to slope failure;
tb ¼ between-rainfall storm period;
ua ¼ pore air pressure;
uw ¼ pore water pressure;
uwi ¼ pore-water pressure;
v0 ¼ effective Poisson’s ratio;
a ¼ air-entry value of soil;
b ¼ slope angle;
g sat ¼ total unit weight;
g unsat ¼ dry unit weight;
u e ¼ effective volumetric water content;
u fc ¼ volumetric water content at field capacity;
u i ¼ initial volumetric water content;
u res ¼ residual volumetric water content;
u sat ¼ saturated volumetric water content;
u w ¼ volumetric water content;
s n ¼ total normal stress;
t ¼ shear strength of unsaturated soil;
w 0 ¼ internal soil friction angle;
x ¼ coefficient of effective stress; and
c max ¼ maximum pressure head.
References
Aleotti, P. (2004). “A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow failures.”
Eng. Geol., 73(3–4), 247–265.
Bishop, A. W., and Blight, G. E. (1963). “Some aspects of effective stress in
saturated and partly saturated soils.” Geotechnique, 13(3), 177–197.
Bordoni, M., Meisina, C., Valentino, R., Bittelli, M., and Chersich, S.
(2015). “Site-specific to local-scale shallow landslides triggering zones
assessment using TRIGRS.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15(5),
1025–1050.
Brand, E. W. (1984). “State-of-the-art report of landslides in Southeast
Asian.” 4th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Vol. 1, Canadian Geotechnical
Society, Toronto, 377–384.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Swolf, W. M., and Engin, E. (2010). Plaxis: Users
manual, Plaxis bv, Delft, Netherlands.
Cai, F., and Ugai, K. (2004). “Numerical analysis of rainfall effect on slope
stability.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2004)4:2(69),
69–78.
Caine, N. (1980). “The rainfall intensity: Duration control of shallow land-
slides and debris flows.” Geografiska Annaler. Ser. A, Phys. Geogr.,
62(1/2), 23–27.
Calcaterra, D., Parise, M., Palma, B., and Pelella, L. (2000). “The influence
of meteoric events in triggering shallow landslides in pyroclastic depos-
its of Campania.” Proc., 8th Int. Symp. on Landslides, E. Bromhead, N.
Dixon, M. L. Ibsen, eds., 1, A. A. Balkema, Cardiff, U.K., 209–214.
Cannon, S. H., and Gartner, J. E. (2005). “Wildfire-related debris flow from
a hazards perspective.” Debris flow hazards and related phenomena,
M. Jakob and O. Hungr, eds., Springer, Berlin, 363–385.
Chien, Y. C., Tien, C. C., Fan, C. Y., Wen, C. Y., and Chun, C. T. (2005).
“Rainfall duration and debrisflow initiated studies for real-time monitor-
ing.” Environ. Geol., 47, 715–724.
Chinkulkijniwat, A., Horpibulsuk, S., and Samprich, S. (2015). “Modeling
of coupled mechanical-hydrological processes in compressed-air
assisted tunneling in unconsolidated sediments.” Transp. Porous Media,
108(1), 105–129.
Chinkulkijniwat, A., Yubonchit, S., Horpibulsuk, S., Jothityangkoon, C.,
Jeebtaku, C., and Arulrajah, A. (2016). “Hydrological responses and
Int. J. Geomech.
 stability analysis of shallow slopes with cohesionless soil subjected to
continuous rainfall.” Can. Geotech. J., 53(12), 2001–2013.
Corominas, J. (2000). “Landslides and climate.” Proc., 8th Int. Symp. on
Landslides, Keynote Lecture, E. Bromhead, N. Dixon, and M. L. Ibsen,
eds., 4, A. A. Balkema, Cardiff, U.K., 1–33.
Crosta, G. B., and Frattini, P. (2001). “Rainfall thresholds for triggering soil
slips and debris flow.” Proc., 2nd EGS Plinius Conf. on Mediterranean
Storms, A. Mugnai, F. Guzzetti, and G. Roth, eds., Bios, Cosenza, Italy,
463–487.
Dahal, R. K., Hasegawa, S., Nonomura, A., Yamanaka, M., Masuda, T.,
and Nishino, K. (2008). “Failure characteristics of rainfall-induced shal-
low landslides in granitic terrains of Shikoku Island of Japan.” Environ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 01/27/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geol., 56(7), 1295–1310.
Dingman, S. L. (2002). Physical hydrology, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Godt, J. W., and McKenna, J. P. (2008). “Numerical modeling of rainfall
thresholds for shallow landsliding in the Seattle, Washington, area.”
Rev. Eng. Geol., 20, 121–136.
Green, W. H., and Ampt, C. A. (1911). “Studies on soil physics: Flow of air
and water through soils.” J. Agric. Sci., 4, 1–24.
Griffiths, D. V., Huang, J., and de Wolfe, G. F. (2011). “Numerical and ana-
lytical observations on long and infinite slopes.” Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech., 35(5), 569–585.
Griffiths, D. V., and Lane, P. A. (1999). “Slope stability analysis by finite
elements.” Geotechnique, 49(3), 387–403.
Griffiths, D. V., and Lu, N. (2005). “Unsaturated slope stability analysis
with steady infiltration or evaporation using elasto-plastic finite ele-
ments.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 29(3), 249–267.
Guzzetti, F., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M., and Stark, C. P. (2007). “Rainfall
thresholds for the initiation of landslides in central and southern
Europe.” Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 98(3–4), 239–267.
Hamdhan, I. N., and Schweiger, H. F. (2013). “Finite element method–
based analysis of an unsaturated soil slope subjected to rainfall infiltra-
tion.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000239,
653–658.
Jotisankasa, A., and Mairaing, W. (2010). “Suction-monitored direct shear
testing of residual soils from landslide-prone areas.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000225, 533–537.
Jotisankasa, A., and Vathananukij, H. (2008). “Investigation of soil mois-
ture characteristics of landslide-prone slopes in Thailand.” Proc., Int.
Conf. on Management of Landslide Hazard in the Asia-Pacific Region,
Japan Landslide Society, Tokyo, 1–12.
Keefer, D. K., et al. (1987). “Real-time landslide warning during heavy rain-
fall.” Science, 238(4829), 921–925.
Khalilnejad, A., Ali, F., Hashim, R., and Osman, N. (2013). “Finite-element
simulation for contribution of matric suction and friction angle to stress distri-
bution during pulling-out process.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000243, 527–532.
Li, W. C., Lee, L. M., Cai, H., Li, H. J., Dai, F. C., and Wang, M. L. (2013).
“Combined roles of saturated permeability and rainfall characteristics
on surficial failure of homogeneous soil slope.” Eng. Geol., 153,
105–113.
Lu, N., and Godt, J. (2008). “Infinite slope stability under steady unsaturated
seepage conditions.” Water Resour. Res., 44(11), 1–13.
Lu, N., and Griffiths, D. V. (2004). “Profiles of steady-state suction stress in
unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2004)130:10(1063), 1063–1076.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. (2006). “Suction stress characteristic curve for un-
saturated soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2006)132:2(131), 131–142.
Meyer, P. D., and Glendon, G. W. (1999). “Flux-based estimation of field
capacity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(1999)125:7(595), 595–599.
Mualem, Y. (1976). “A new model predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated porous media.” Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 513–522.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(7): 04016158
Ng, C. W. W., and Shi, Q. (1998). “Influence of rainfall intensity and dura-
tion on slope stability in unsaturated soils.” Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol.,
31(2), 105–113.
Oh, S., and Lu, N. (2015). “Slope stability analysis under unsaturated condi-
tions: Case studies of rainfall-induced failure of cut slopes.” Eng. Geol.,
184, 96–103.
PLAXIS [Computer software]. Plaxis, Delft, Netherlands.
Rahardjo, H., Nio, A. S., Leong, E. C., and Song, N. Y. (2010). “Effects of
groundwater table position and soil properties on stability of slope dur-
ing rainfall.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0000385, 1555–1564.
Rahardjo, H., Ong, T. H., Rezaur, R. B., and Leong, E. C. (2007). “Factors
controlling instability of homogeneous soil slopes under rainfall.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:
12(1532), 1532–1543.
Rahimi, A., Rahardjo, H., and Leong, E. C. (2010). “Effect of hydraulic prop-
erties of soil on rainfall-induced slope failure.” Eng. Geol., 114(3–4),
135–143.
Richards, L. A. (1931). “Capillary conduction of liquids through porous
mediums.” Physics, 1(5), 318–333.
Shen, S.-L., Wang, J.-P., Wu, H.-N., Xu, Y.-S., Ye, G.-L., and Yin, Z.-Y.
(2015). “Evaluation of hydraulic conductivity for both marine and del-
taic deposits based on piezocone testing.” Ocean Eng., 110, 174–182.
Shen, S.-L., Wu, H.-N., Cui, Y.-J., and Yin, Z.-Y. (2014). “Long-term set-
tlement behaviour of metro tunnels in the soft deposits of Shanghai.”
Tunnelling Underground Space Technol., 40, 309–323.
Shen, S.-L., and Xu, Y.-S. (2011). “Numerical evaluation of land subsi-
dence induced by groundwater pumping in Shanghai.” Can. Geotech. J.,
48(9), 1378–1392.
Sirangelo, B., and Braca, G. (2004). “Identification of hazard conditions for
mudflow occurrence by hydrological model: Application of FLaIR
model to Sarno warning system.” Eng. Geol., 73(3–4), 267–276.
Soil Science Glossary Terms Committee. (2008). Glossary of soil science
terms 2008, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 92.
Tiwari, R. C., Bhandary, N. P., and Yatabe, R. (2014). “Spectral element
analysis to evaluate the stability of long and steep slopes.” Acta Geotech.,
9(5), 753–770.
Ugai, K. (1989). “A method of calculation of total safety factor of slope by
elasto-plastic FEM.” Soils Found., 29(2), 190–195.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, D., Mortezaei, K., and Lu, N. (2016).
“Effective stress-based limit-equilibrium analysis for homogeneous un-
saturated slopes.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622
.0000554, D4016003.
Van Genuchten, M. T. (1980). “A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soil.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44(5),
615–628.
Vieira, B. C., Fernandes, N. F., and Filho, O. A. (2010). “Shallow landslide
prediction in the Serra do Mar, São Paulo, Brazil.” Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci., 10(9), 1829–1837.
Wilson, R. C., Mark, R. K., and Barbato, G. (1993). “Operation of a real-
time warning system for debris flows in the San Francisco Bay area,
California.” Proc., National Conf. on Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 2,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 1908–1913.
Wu, Y.-X., et al. (2015a). “Characteristics of groundwater seepage with
cut-off wall in gravel aquifer. II: Numerical analysis.” Can. Geotech. J.,
52(10), 1539–1549.
Wu, Y.-X., Shen, S.-L., Xu, Y.-S., and Yin, Z.-Y. (2015b). “Characteristics
of groundwater seepage with cut-off wall in gravel aquifer. I: Field
observations.” Can. Geotech. J., 52(10), 1526–1538.
Xu, Y.-S., Ma, L., Shen, S.-L., and Sun, W.-J. (2012). “Evaluation of land
subsidence by considering underground structures that penetrate the
aquifers of Shanghai, China.” Hydrogeol. J., 20(8), 1623–1634.
Xu, Y.-S., Shen, S.-L., and Du, Y.-J. (2009). “Geological and hydrogeologi-
cal environment in Shanghai with geohazards to construction and main-
tenance of infrastructures.” Eng. Geol., 109(3–4), 241–242.
04016158-13 Int. J. Geomech.