Rainfall Induce Landslides –

Why they occur and some

mitigating measures
Tan S.A1, David Toll2, and K.K.Phoon1
1
The National University of Singapore
2
University of Durham, UK

Latsis Symposium by CCES at ETH-Z,

Zurich, Switzerland, 17-19 Sep 2007
 Outline
 Introduction
 Climate and slope stability
 Soil Strength as function of Infiltration
 Cases: Kranji Racecourse and NUS Biz
School

2
 Introduction
 Climate in the tropics
 Singapore landslides and rainfall events – empirical
observations

3
Rainfall Events Leading to Landslides in
Singapore

4
Relation between rainfall, antecedent rainfall and
shallow slips
 The previous plot showed some minor slips after 1-day
heavy rainfall > 100mm with little antecedent rainfall; e.g.
NUS and NTU Feb-Mar 1984
 Other minor slips occurred at low 1-day rainfall with
significant 5-day antecedent rainfall; e.g. NUS slip 28 Dec
1984 with 18mm rain, but after 5-day antecedent rainfall
of 85mm
 The data suggests that a total rainfall of 100mm within 6-
day period (equivalent to a sustained 15-20 mm/day for 6
days) is trigger for minor slips to occur in Singapore
residual soils
 For large landslides; a total rainfall > 320mm seems to be
the trigger
5
Pore-water Pressure Profiles in NTU-CSE
Instrumented Slope

6
Inference from Measured Pore-Water Pressures (pwp) at
NTU-CSE
 Wet period rainfall=86mm in Dec 1999; dry period rainfall = 1mm in
Mar 2000
 Small rainfall in Mar 2000 produce large change pwp near surface at
1-1.5m depth
 After 24 hr equalization; pwp near surface drop back and pwp at 1-
1.5m depth increased slightly, due to water infiltration
 But at deeper depth of 2.5-3m no significant pwp change
 For large rainfall in Dec 1999; observe only small cahnges in pwp
near surface, with pwp approaching hydrostatic condition
 Data suggests that there is still suction in slope even wettest time of
the year

7
 Unsaturated soil strength
 State Variables defined as:
( n  ua )  Net normal stress
(u a  u w )  Matric suction

8
 Unsaturated soil strength
Shear Strength is the Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria:

  c' ( n  u a ) tan  ' (ua  u w ) tan b

where :
  Shear strength
c'  Effective cohesion for saturated soils
 '  Effective friction angle for saturated soils
b  Friction angle with respect to matric suction in unsaturated soils
( n  u a )  Net normal stress
(u a  u w )  Matric suction

9
 Saturated soil strength
Shear Strength is Mohr-Coulomb:

b   ' , and
  c'( n  u w ) tan  '
where :
  Shear strength
c'  Effective cohesion for saturated soils
 '  Effective friction angle for saturated soils
( n  u w )  Normal effective stress

10
 Infiltration Seepage Analysis
 Transient Seepage FEM Analysis
 Soil Water Characteristic Function
 Soil Permeability Function
 Infiltration Input
 Results of Analysis

11
 Groundwater Flow Theory
Flow out
Equation of Continuity
Stored in
 qx  q y h
 Q  c
x y t Flow in Flow out

q : the specific discharge (m/s)

c : the storage coefficient (m-1)
Flow in
h: total head (m)
Q: a source (m3/s) per unit vol.

Constitutive Equation: Darcy’s Law

h h
qx   k x qy   k y
x y
k : the coefficient of permeability (m/s)
12
 Water flow in unsaturated soil
Water content and permeability in unsaturated zone is a
function of suction pressure

13
 Water flow in unsaturated soil
() Soil water characteristic curve

  
Storage Coefficient Cs 


K () permeability curve

Unsaturated soil has k several

orders less than saturated soils

Soil Permeability k  k ( )

14
These curves are from experiments
 Boundary Conditions for Rainfall
Precipitation:
h  y  hmax if Ponding
q x nx  q y n y  qrain if h  y  hmax and h  y  hmin
h  y  hmin if No infiltration

Flux boundary condition

Closed Closed

Closed
15
 Result of 1-D Infiltration Analysis
1D Infiltration
3.5 Gardner's 1D Infiltration Problem

alpha 2
Input rainfall = 0.1 m/day
Sres= 0.23 ksat= 1 m/day
3
Ssat= 1

φp S(φp) K(φp) p

0 1.00 1.00 S  Sres(Ssat Sres)e
2.5 0.5 0.51 0.37
1 0.33 0.14
1.5 0.27 0.05  p
2 0.24 0.02
k  ksat .e
2.5 0.24 0.01
2 3 0.23 0.00

SS solution
1  q  q 
Elevation [m]

after 5 days  p   ln 1  .e y  

1.5   k sat  k sat 
Initial SS
T=0.1 day Gardner's Theory
α q ksat y φp [m] P[kN/m2]
1 T=0.25day
2 0.1 1 0.00 0.00 0
T=0.5day 2 0.1 1 0.50 0.42 4
T=1.0day 2 0.1 1 1.00 0.75 8
2 0.1 1 1.50 0.97 10
T=5.0day
2 0.1 1 2.00 1.08 11
0.5 Gardner's Theory 2 0.1 1 2.50 1.12 11
2 0.1 1 3.00 1.14 11

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Suction Pressure [kN/m2]

-0.5

• Infiltration caused significant loss of suction

• Loss of suction result in reduction of shear strength, which may trigger slope failure
16
1D Infiltration Video
•Input flux= 0.1mm/day

•Closed •Closed

•Closed
17
 Case 1: Kranji Racecourse
 About Dec 1998, a 70m long slope with gradient
of 1(V):2(H) was cut in medium stiff residual
clayey soil
 After period of intense rainfall, slip failure
… landslip about 1 to 1.5m deep over slope of
30m length
 Slope repaired using dry cut fill soil obtained from
same site failed repeatedly without use of
subsurface drains

18
Shallow slip of soil almost parallel to slope surface

19
Develop tension crack below crest of slope, why?

20
 Infiltration Analysis – GWH Plots for Rain 20
mm/day
Initial Steady-State m
m
111.000
106.250
106.000
105.750
After 1-day rain at 20 110.500

110.000

mm/day
105.500 109.500
105.250 109.000
105.000
108.500

unsaturated
104.750
108.000
104.500
104.250 107.500

104.000 107.000
103.750 106.500
103.500
106.000
103.250
105.500
103.000
105.000
102.750
102.500 104.500
102.250 104.000
102.000 103.500
101.750
103.000
101.500
102.500
101.250
101.000 102.000
100.750 101.500
100.500 101.000
100.250
100.500
100.000
100.000
99.750

After 5-days rain at 20 m

111.500 • Rain cause saturation front to migrate from toe up

mm/day, near Steady-State 111.000

110.500
the slope
110.000
109.500

• After 5 days of rain near Steady-State is reached

109.000

unsaturated 108.500
108.000
107.500
107.000
106.500
• Saturated zone has enlarged and reached about 2/3
106.000
105.500 way up the slope
105.000
104.500
104.000
103.500
103.000
102.500
102.000
101.500
101.000

21
100.500
 Infiltration Analysis –Rain 20 mm/day
Evolution of Saturation Zone

Input flux = 20mm/day

Click for Video

Input flux = 20mm/day

Constant
Constant H1
H2

Closed – No Flow

22
 Shallow Slip of Saturated Zone (Head)

•Click for Video

23
 Shallow Slip of Saturated Zone (Flow)

•Click for Video

24
Site investigation
110
W aterstandpipes

108 P 3

P 2
106 .3
106
Elevation (mRL) 1V :2H P roba ble G roun d
P 1 W a ter T able
10 4.6
104 104.5

10 3.8 O bse rved S lip P lan e

After a few days without
102 rain, measured GWT
appears to coincide with
level of observed slip
100 surface

98
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
D istance (m )
•Distance (m)

25
 Influence of Infiltration on Suctions and Soil Strengths
Table 1. Variation of Cohesion with Matric Suction
Matric suction [kPa] 5 10 15 20 25 30
Фb [deg] c '  (u a  u w ) tan  b kPa
10 0.88 1.76 2.64 3.53 4.41 5.29
15 1.34 2.68 4.02 5.36 6.70 8.04
20 1.82 3.64 5.46 7.28 9.10 10.92
Kranji Pore Pressure Distribution at Mid-Slope (3m up) Kranji Pore Pressure Distribution at 4.5 m Up-Slope
107 108

1-day 106 107

2-day
3-day
105
4-day 106

Elevation [m]
5-day
104
105

103 1-day

Elevation [m]
2-day
104
3-day
102
4-day
5-day
103
101

100 102
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Total Pore Pressures [kPa] Total Pore Pressures [kPa]

• After 5 days of rain, nearly all suction is removed up to mid-slope height

• Suction of < 15 kPa remains at 4.5m height above toe of slope; c’ < 3 kPa 26
 Failure analysis of Shallow Slip
 = slope angle (degrees)
H = depth to slip surface (m)
h = height of GWT from slip surface (m)

GWT
h
H

slip plane
Parallel Seepage


c' (1  ( w h) /(H )) tan  '

FS  
H sin  cos  tan 

27
 Failure analysis (cont’d)
Table 2: Results of infinite slope stability analysis

• In Case 3; failure may be triggered by saturation of shallow soils, resulting in reduction of soil shear strength
through loss of apparent cohesion from soil suction
• In Case 8; failure may be triggered by a combination of seepage forces from rising water table, and somewhat
smaller loss of apparent cohesion from reduction in soil suction
28
 Design for permanent stable slope
 Internal drainage design to maintain
significant unsaturated soil zone in
shallow soils along slope
 Transient seepage analysis to validate
design
 Stability analysis to show that design has
adequate long-term FOS

29
 Transient Seepage with 8m deep drains at toe
of slope and 20 mm/day rain
-15.000 -10.000 -5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000

115.000

109.200

Input flux = 20mm/day

108.800
110.000 Near Steady-State condition after 5 day of 108.400

rain at 20 mm/day 108.000

107.600
107.200
106.800
105.000
Input flux = 20mm/day Unsaturated Zone 106.400
106.000
105.600
105.200
104.800
100.000 104.400
8m-deep drains 104.000

Constant 103.600
103.200

95.000
Constant H1 102.800
102.400
H2 102.000
101.600
101.200
100.800
90.000
100.400
100.000

Closed – No Flow 99.600

85.000

Active groundwater head

Phase number: 1 Phase time: 5 day, Extreme groundwater head 109.10 m

30
 Infiltration Analysis – Rain 20 mm/day
Saturation Zone for Slope with 8m Deep Internal Drains

Click for Video

8m-deep pipe drains

31
 Infiltration Analysis – Rain 20 mm/day
GW Head for Slope with 8m Deep Internal Drains

Click for Video

8m-deep pipe drains

32
 Infiltration Analysis – Rain 20 mm/day
Transient Flow for Slope with 8m Deep Internal Drains

Click for Video

8m-deep pipe drains

33
Influence of Infiltration on Suction Pressures in Shallow
Soils with 8m Deep drains
Kranji Pore Pressure Distribution at Mid-Slope (3m up) Kranji Pore Pressure Distribution at 4.5 m Up-Slope
107 108

106 107

1-day
105
2-day 106
3-day

Elevation [m]
4-day 104
5-day +ve suction
105
1-day
103 -ve pressure 2-day
3-day
104
4-day
102
Elevation [m] 5-day

103
101

100 102
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Total Pore Pressures [kPa] Total Pore Pressures [kPa]

• Small changes of soil suction up to 1m depth at mid-slope (3m up slope)

• No changes to soil suction at 4.5m up slope

• Soil strength is little affected by Infiltration for rain at 20mm/day over 5 days
34
 Seepage with 4m deep drains
114
E le vatio n (m )
112
GEONET 4m Depth 150 m m /h Rainfall
110
Recom pacted Residual Soil 0.5m Sand Track
108 GWT
GEONET
106
Pond level at 104.6 m RL
104
Concrete Liner
102

100

98

96

94

92

90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (m)

35
 FOS with 4m Deep Drains
GEONET 4m Depth

1 .8
114 1.269
E le v a tio n (m )

112
150 mm/h Rainfall
110

108
GWT 0.5m Sand Track

106 GEONET Description: Recompacted Residual Soil

Unit Weight: 18
104 Description: Pond Water Cohesion: 3
Unit Weight: 9.807 Phi: 20
102

100 Description: Insitu Residual Soil

Unit Weight: 18
98
Cohesion: 10
96 Phi: 27

94

92

90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (m)

36
 Seepage with 8m Deep Drains
E le vatio n (m ) 114

112 GEONET 8m Depth

150 m m /h Rainfall
110 GWT
Recom pacted Residual Soil 0.5m Sand track
108
GEONET
106
Pond level at 104.6 m RL
104
Concrete Liner
102

100

98

96

94

92

90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (m)

37
 FOS with 8m Deep Drains
GEONET 8 m Depth

2
1.617
E le va ti o n ( m )

114
112
150 mm/h Rainf all
110
108 GEONET 0.5m Sand Track

106 GWT

104 Description: Pond Water Description: Rec ompacted Residual Soil

Unit Weight: 9.807 Unit Weight: 18
102
Cohesion: 5
100 Des c ription: Ins itu Res idual Soil Phi: 21

98 Unit Weight: 18
Cohesion: 10
96 Phi: 27
94
92
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (m)

38
 Parametric Study of influence of Depth of Internal
Drains
Table 2: Influence of GEONET depth on GWT and FOS of repaired slope

GEONET Depth 0 1 2 4 8 12 15
(m)

GWT at Slope 108.1 108.0 107.9 107.6 106.8 104.7 104.7

Crest (m RL)
GWT at Mid- 107.1 106.9 106.4 105.7 104.7 104.7 104.7
Slope (m RL)
Seepage into 1.89 1.72 9.80 2.18 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
Slope (m3/s /m) x 10-8 x 10-9 x 10-12 x 10-12 x 10-12 x 10-12 x 10-12
Soil State in Slope Fully Fully Fully Fully Soften Comp- Comp-
Soak Soak Soak Soak acted acted
Drained cohesion 3 3 3 3 5 10 10
c’ (kPa)
Drained friction 20 20 20 20 21 22 22
angle, ’ deg
Drained FS 0.923 0.968 1.137 1.269 1.617 1.780 1.808

39
 Installation of 8m Deep Drains
Modified Manning’s Eqn. for discharge of equivalent pipe drain in-
place of GEONET drain
Q = 1.137A RH0.66 S0.5 (m3/s)
A=flow cross-section area (sq-m)
RH=hydraulic radius (m)
=R/2 for full flow
S=slope (m/m)

Actual Repair used 75mm diameter perforated drains wrapped with

geotextile filters at 1.5m centers to achieve same discharge capacity as
Geonet Sheet Drain

40
Install geotextile-wrapped 15m long, 75-mm diameter
pipe drains at 1.5 m intervals

41
GW discharge from internal geo-pipe drains has
performed well over last 10 years

42
Case 2 –Failure at NUS Biz School

43
 0.000
Infiltration Analysis
20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000

140.000 m

127.000

Near Steady-State condition after 30 days of 126.000

rain at 0.02 mm/day 125.000

124.000
Building – No influx
123.000

122.000
120.000
Unsaturated Zone 121.000
Input flux = 20mm/day 120.000

119.000
Raised GWT 118.000
Constant 117.000

H1 116.000

Estimated Slip Surface 115.000

Constant
100.000
114.000

H2 113.000

112.000

111.000

Closed – No Flow 110.000

• Nature of Slip is fairly deep seated 109.000

80.000 108.000
• Likely cause is combination of rain induced saturation leading to loss of
suction and rising GWT
Active groundwater head
Phase number: 6 Phase time: 5 day, Extreme groundwater head 126.01 m

44
Saturation of Slope by Infiltration

Click for Video

Initial GWT

Takes more than 20 days of rain at 20 mm/day to raised

GWT sufficiently to cause deep seated failure

45
 Transient Flow in Slope by Infiltration

Click for Video

Initial GWT

Takes more than 20 days of rain at 20 mm/day to raised

GWT sufficiently to cause deep seated failure

46
Long-term Repair Strategy
•Re-grade slope

•Soil Nails

•Better drains to
minimize
infiltration

47
 Conclusions
 Landslides in the tropics are often triggered by rainfall
 Empirical observations showed that a total rainfall of
about 100mm within a six day period (sustained at 15-
20 mm/day for 6 days) is sufficient for minor shallow
slips to occur in Singapore
 To understand the nature of such failures; unsaturated
soil behavior must be adequately addressed
 In unsaturated soils, the vadose zone above the GWT
is in a state of significant suction, which contributes to
the soil strength (like an apparent cohesion)
 Prolonged infiltration will reduce or eliminate soil suction
and weaken the soils sufficiently to trigger slip failure

48
 Conclusions
 Why shallow slip occurs is the result of unsaturated soil
creating a buffer with very low permeability that
prevents the saturation front from penetrating into
deeper soils; where GWT are greater than 10m deep
 Infiltration analysis of the Kranji slope failure illustrates
the saturation of a shallow slip mass for a small slope
 With the inclusion of a horizontal deep drains at the toe
of the slope; a large unsaturated soil zone can be
maintained despite sustained heavy rainfall, providing a
permanent safe slope over the last 10 years
 For the case of NUS large slope failure; it is more likely
that sustained heavy rain during the period of Dec 05 to
Jan 06 caused the rise of GWT to saturate the slope
mass and trigger the deeper seated failure
49