Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Manuscript
Manuscript
net/publication/358656437
CITATIONS READS
5 34
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Israr Khan on 20 February 2023.
5 1, 2
School of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeastern University, 110819, China
6
7 Abstract: Earthfill dams failure and landsliding during heavy rainfall and flooding is a
8 common problem observed all over the world. This paper examines and discusses the
9 reasons of landsliding due to rainfall and flooding. Climatic rainfall data is inter-
10 connected with the rainfall precipitation and its effect on the increase of pore water
11 pressure inside soil slopes. Various soil slopes having different geometry and material
12 properties are analyzed with the variation of pore water pressure and the slope factor of
13 safeties are calculated. Correlations between the Ground Water Level (GWL) and slope
14 Factor of Safety (FS) are developed both in seismic and non-seismic situations.
15 Correlations between shear strength (), shear stress () and FS are also developed. Kotkai
16 landslide in Pakistan is considered as case study to cross check the correctness of the
17 developed correlations. These correlations can be applied to design a safe soil slope in
20
21 1. Introduction
22 Earthfill dams failure or Landslides caused by rainfall pose a serious threat to human and
23 infrastructure. For this reason, there have been many studies conducted to understand
24 the mechanism of landslides. Most of them are based on numerical modelling, analysis
25 and laboratory tests. Soil erosion usually occurs during heavy rainfall and occurs
26 annually in many parts of the world, especially in areas that provide long-lasting and
27 heavy rainfall, large slopes, less or no vegetation and a rich source of fine clayey soil,
28 including colluvium and residual soil. In past many landslide disasters were reported
29 (Xu, 2012, Springman, 2013, Yenes, 2015, Zhang, 2018). One of the main reason of
30 landsliding is the increase of pore water pressure in soil. The increase in pore water
31 pressure is normally due to the rain water infiltration in soil which leads to the increase
32 in pore water pressure along with the decrease in shear strength of soil (Iverson, 2000,
33 Godt, 2009, Zhang, 2015). The stability of a soil slope is also greatly affected by the
34 increase of ground water table (Corominas, 2005, Ledesma, 2009, Conte, 2018b). The
35 presence of cracks in the ground on the slope can cause the infiltration of rainfall even
36 further into the deep soil. This will create more important hydrologic responses to deeper
37 soils than those of shallow soils within the earth profile. This hydrological response of
38 deep soil can lead to the rise of the water table. Another researcher examined the
39 landscape of Tessina in northeastern Italy and concluded that landslides were associated
40 with an increase in groundwater levels (Mantovani, 2000). Similarly there are many other
41 research work conducted which investigated and monitored rain water runoff, and
42 concluded that groundwater levels are directly linked to slope movement (Zhi, 2016,
43 Conte, 2018a, Bogaard, 2018, Cotecchia, 2016, Hong, 2011). The rapid response of deep
44 soil within the soil profile indicates that the flow rate within the deep soil profile is
45 characterized not only by the vertical infiltration but also by the increased flow and lateral
46 flow. Past experience proofs that the one of the major reason of landsliding during rainfall
47 is the increase of water level and hence it increases pore water pressure of the soil slope.
48 There is a direct relation between rain, ground water level and increase in pore water
49 pressure. It depends on the soil type and slope geometry that how much it will affect the
50 slope? On this topic, a very similar work is done by many researchers, see for example
51 (Conte, 2017, Huang, 2017, Martha, 2015, Matsuura, 2008, Piccinini, 2014, Khan, 2021b,
52 Khan, 2021d, Khan, 2021c, Khan, 2020, Khan, 2019). The stability of various landslides is
53 associated to the flow and moving of groundwater due to rainfall or variation of reservoir
54 water level. The mechanical parameters and hydrodynamic pressure of landslides varies
55 significantly, which may speed up the deformation of slope or induce possible landslide
56 instability.
57 Keeping all the previous research work in consideration, this paper examines the slope
58 stability analysis of a pre-defined soil slope with varying water level at bottom of the
59 slope and its FS. The same site was considered for investigation as already considered in
63 properties of soil required for analysis. These tests include Atterburg limit test, sieve
64 analysis, moisture content testing, porosity test, triaxial test, direct shear test, compaction
65 test, dry density test and specific gravity test. The soil samples were collected from site
67 fifteen triaxial tests, eighteen number of Atterburg’s limit test, twenty two direct shear
68 test and almost fourty sieve analysis tests were performed to compute the mechanical
69 properties of soil in detail. Similarly all other tests such as porosity, moisture content test,
70 compaction and specific gravity tests were also conducted. All these tests were conducted
71 repetitively to make sure the material properties are precisely computed. Analysis is
72 performed such that the value of Ground Water Level (GWL) at the slope bottom face is
73 changed with a constant rate of 3 inches till 5 feet. This analysis is performed by
75 dimensional slope stability analysis software is used for the analysis by considering
77 the GWL and FS. Figure 1 presents the slope considered in this analysis and mechanical
78 properties of soil after all the required testings is mentioned in table 1. While table 2
84 In this analysis, both Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS) and Non-Seismic Factor of Safety
85 (NSFS) are computed. The horizontal seismic coefficient is considered as 0.3 and vertical
86 seismic coefficient is ignored as it is normally very low. The initial GWL is considered on
99 Using SPSS linear regression analysis, the correlation between FS and GWL in case of
103 The applicability value of both these correlations is very high. For any slope stability
104 design project, these correlations can be used to know about the value of FS in case of
106 Figure 2, 3, 4 and 5 presents the shear strength versus distance graphs.
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
29.410
0.000
5.882
11.764
17.646
23.528
35.292
41.174
47.055
52.937
58.819
64.701
70.583
Distance m
80
70
60
40
30
20
10
0
14.927
19.903
24.878
29.854
34.830
39.805
44.781
49.757
54.732
59.708
0.000
4.976
9.951
Distance m
160
Shear Stress & Shear Strength kPa
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Distance m
150
100
50
0
Distance m
111 Figure 2 to 5 proofs that shear strength of soil has a close relation with GWL. With increase
112 of GWL, the shear strength of soil also increased up to some extent and then declined after
113 the peak point is reached. In both seismic and non-seismic analysis, FS value is less than
114 1.5 in all the cases, which can be seen in table 2 and 3. Less than 1.5 FS means an unstable
115 or risky slope. So this slope needs stability solutions i.e. either to apply stepping
116 technique or insert nails. Another solution is to improve the soil strength by replacing the
117 soil or through compaction etc. Constructing a retaining wall is also an alternate solution
119 During this study, it is observed that FS, and also have very close relation. From table
120 2, a correlation between these three parameters with varying GWL is established in
123 From table 3, the correlation between SFS, and with varying GWL comes out to be:
128 Various events of landslides at Kotkai have been reported to occur. During recent
129 landslide, about 120 m stretch of road has completely displaced. However, during the
130 site visit, the road has been realigned after cutting the upside slopes. Secondly,
131 consultants also tried to realign the road through the left ridge shown in Figure 6, which
132 however was not practical due to steep gradient. During this activity, top layer of
133 alluvium, which was relatively impermeable, has been removed and underlying shale
134 has been exposed. These exposed portions of shale created a threat for source of seepage
135 intake and consequently increases the potential of further landslides in this area.
138 alignment by constructing the heavy fill foundation for road over the loose sliding
139 material. However, retaining wall is proposed along the outer edge of the road, which
140 will be placed over the compacted foundation. Beneath the foundation of retaining wall,
141 dowels bars have been proposed to increase the shear strength of foundation material. In
142 addition, it is suggested that realigned road should be placed over the 0.5 meter
143 compacted granular fill in order to drain the seepage water. Breast wall is proposed to be
144 constructed with a toe drain. Downside and upside slopes are proposed to be protected
145 with dry stone pitching. Table 6 presents the reliability percentage of all the developed
147 Table 6. Results comparison using analysis methods and developed correlations
Result by
SSA Results by the
S.
Description Correlation methods developed
No
(Bishop correlations
Simplified)
NSFS = 1.429 - 0.084
1 Factor of Safety 0.92 0.94
GWL
2 Factor of Safety SFS = 0.816 - 0.057 GWL 0.79 0.82
FS = 1.159 + 0.013 -
3 Factor of Safety 0.97 0.99
0.017
FS = 0.581 + 0.008 -
4 Factor of Safety 0.96 0.99
0.005
148
149 Table 6 proves that all the four developed correlations in this work have applicability
151
152 5. Conclusions
153 A soil slope embankment is analyzed in detail with considering the local soil material
154 and its proposed model in two phases, i.e. seismic and nonseismic conditions.
155 Correlations between FS, GWL, and are developed both in seismic and nonseismic
156 conditions mentioned in equation 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is found that all these diffent parameters
157 have very close relation as the applicability value R2 of the correlations, such as from
158 equation 1 to 3 is 84.1%, 83.7% and 91.9% respectively. This high R2 is a clear sign that all
159 these parameters are interdependent. These correlations can be used in design projects
160 provided that the material properties are in range of table 1. Further work can be done
161 with considering other soil parameters and other soil material types, such as silty clay,
163 Abbreviations:
177 The analysis data such as the SPSS regression analysis, excel graphs and software analysis
182 Muhammad Israr Khan is PhD scholars at Northeastern University China under the
184 References
185 Bogaard T, Greco R (2018) Invited perspectives: hydrological perspectives on
188 Conte E, Donato A, Pugliese L, Troncone A (2018a) Analysis of the Maierato landslide
195 displacements and velocities from groundwater level changes at the Vallcebre
197 Cotecchia F, Lollino P, Petti R (2016) Efficacy of drainage trenches to stabilise deep slow
199 Godt JW, Baum RL, Lu N (2009) Landsliding in partially saturated materials. Geophys.
201 Hong YM, Wan S (2011) Forecasting groundwater level fluctuations for rainfall-induced
203 Huang FM, Luo XY, Liu WP (2017) Stability analysis of hydrodynamic pressure
204 landslides with different permeability coefficients affected by reservoir water level
206 Iverson RM (2000) Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour. Res. 36(7):1897–
207 1910.
208 Khan MI, Wang S (2021a) Method for predicting factor of safety and seepage due to the
209 variation in dam width and other parameters. Proceedings of the ICE - Geotechnical
212 Angle and Shear Stress by Considering Saturated and Unsaturated Seismic
214 Khan MI, Wang S (2020) Comparing the various slope stability methods to find the
215 optimum method for calculating factor of slope safety. Earth and Environmental
217 Khan MI, Wang S (2021c) Developing correlations for advance prediction of slope factor
218 of safety using linear regression analysis – Karachi landslide is a case study. Polish
220 Khan MI, Wang S (2021d) Slope Stability Analysis to Develop Correlations between
221 Different Soil Parameters and Factor of Safety Using Regression Analysis. Polish
223 Khan MI, Wang S, Zhangze (2019) Analysis of earth fill hydraulic dam with varying crest
224 length and permeability to develop correlations. Earth and Environmental Science
225 304:1-8.
226 Ledesma A, Corominas J, Gonzàles A, Ferrari A (2009) Modelling slow moving landslides
227 controlled by rainfall. Proceeding of the 1st Italian workshop on landslides, Napoli.
228 1:196–205.
229 Mantovani F, Pasuto A, Silvano S, Zannoni A (2000) Collecting data to define future
230 hazard scenarios of the Tessina landslide. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2(1):33–40.
231 Martha TR, Roy P, Govindharaj KB, Kumar KV, Diwakar PG, Dadhwal VK (2015)
232 Landslides triggered by the june 2013 extreme rainfall event in parts of
234 Matsuura S, Asano S, Okamoto T (2008) Relationship between rain and/or meltwater,
237 Piccinini L, Berti M, Simoni A, Bernardi AR, Ghirotti M, Gargini A (2014) Slope stability
238 and groundwater flow system in the area of Lizzano in belvedere (Northern
240 Springman SM, Thielen A, Kienzler P, Friedel S (2013) A long-term field study for the
242 Xu Q, Zhang S, Li WL, Van Asch TWJ (2012) The 13 august 2010 catastrophic debris flows
243 after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12:201–
244 216.
246 landslides induced by fluvial incision in the Cenozoic Duero Basin (Spain).
248 Zhang LL, Fredlund M, Fredlund DG, Lu HH, Wilson GW (2015) The influence of the
249 unsaturated soil zone on 2-D and 3-D slope stability analyses. Eng. Geol. 193:374–
250 383.
251 Zhang Y, Meng XM, Jordan C, Novellino A, Dijkstra T, Chen G (2018) Investigating
252 slowmoving landslides in the Zhouqu region of China using Insar time series.
254 Zhi MM, Shang YQ, Zhao Y, Lü Q, Sun H (2016) Investigation and monitoring on a
256