Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1429–1434

DOI 10.1007/s12665-012-1840-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Modeling of layered infinite slope failure triggered by rainfall

Tung-Lin Tsai • Sen-Jung Chiang

Received: 5 January 2012 / Accepted: 9 July 2012 / Published online: 28 July 2012
Ó Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract The infinite slope is typically regarded as com- dW Water depth

posed of a single-layered soil with a uniform property in dLZ Slope depth
various physical-based models used for modeling rainfall- FS Factor of safety
induced shallow landslides. This study extends the physical- IZ Rainfall intensity
based model to consider the layered infinite slope to examine KL Hydraulic conductivity in lateral direction
the importance of soil layer distribution for rainfall-induced (x and y)
shallow landslides. Hypothetical scenarios of infinite slope Kz Hydraulic conductivity in slope-normal
composed of soil layers with different thicknesses and direction (z)
parameters are employed to conduct this examination. The Ksat Saturated hydraulic conductivity
results show that pressure heads caused by rainfall infiltra- T Rainfall duration
tion are strongly related to soil layer distribution. This shows Z The coordinates
the significant influence of soil layer distribution in assessing w Groundwater pressure head
infinite slope stability. Failure of a layered infinite slope does h Soil volumetric water content
not necessarily occur at the impervious bottom of the hill- a Slope angle
slope soil, but may also occur at the interface between two / Soil friction angle
soil layers. This result shows that a neglect of soil layer csat and cw Unit weights of saturated soil and water
distribution could misestimate failure depth. Hence, soil csat Depth-averaged unit weight of saturated soil
layer distribution must be considered to reliably analyze
infinite slope failure induced by rainfall.

Keywords Infinite slope  Rainfall  Soil layer Introduction

distribution
Slope failures may occur because of human-induced factors
Abbreviations such as slope loading or toe cutting for construction pur-
C The change in volumetric water content per poses. However, rainfall-induced landslides threaten
unit change in pressure head numerous locations worldwide, particularly in regions with
C0 The minimum value of C residual soil. Therefore, assessing rainfall-induced land-
c Soil cohesion slides has been a common research topic for soil scientists.
D0 Soil diffusivity Landslides are strongly associated with the pore water
pressure of soil that rapidly varies with time during rainfall
and redistributes after the rainfall ends. Assuming a steady
T.-L. Tsai (&)  S.-J. Chiang or quasi-steady water table, and groundwater flows parallel
Department of Civil and Water Resources Engineering,
to the hillslope, various physical-based models have cou-
National Chiayi University, 300 Sefu Road,
Chiayi City 60004, Taiwan pled infinite slope stability analysis with hydrological
e-mail: tltsai@mail.ncyu.edu.tw modeling (Montgomery and Dietrich 1994; Wu and Sidle

123
1430 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1429–1434

1995; Borga et al. 1998) to model landslides caused by land
use or hydrological conditions. To release these assump-
tions, Iverson (2000) built a flexible modeling framework of
a shallow landslide using the approximation of Richards’
equation (1931), valid for general hydrological conditions.
Extending the Iverson model to consider variable rainfall
intensity, the TRIGRS model was developed for modeling
failures of hillslopes with finite soil depth (Baum et al.
2002, 2008). Because of its practicability, the TRIGRS
model became popular for assessing shallow landslides
(Crosta and Frattini 2003; Keim and Skaugset 2003; Frattini
et al. 2004; Lan et al. 2005; D’Odorico et al. 2005; Liu and
Wu 2008). By amending the boundary condition at the
hillslope surface for modeling a more general rainfall
infiltration process, the Iverson model was modified without
assuming constant infiltration capacity (Tsai and Yang
2006). The modified Iverson model eliminates unrealistic
high-pressure heads from the Iverson model and the
TRIGRS model because of overestimating the infiltration
rate. Although the beta-line correction (Iverson 2000) is
used to avoid unrealistic high-pressure heads, the Iverson
model and the TRIGRS model still overestimate soil failure
potential compared with the modified Iverson model.
In the Iverson model, TRIGRS model and modified Iv-
erson model, the hillslope soil, overlaying a substantially
less permeable substrate such as bedrock, is typically
assumed to have a uniform property. However, the hillslope
soil over bedrock may have two or more different properties
arranged in layers. This study first extends the modified Iv-
erson model to model layered infinite slope failure induced
by rainfall and then examines the influences of soil layer
distribution on infinite slope failure induced by rainfall.
The coordinate x points down the ground surface; y points
to the tangent of the topographic contour that passes
through the origin; and z points to the slope, normal to the
x–y plane. Kx, Ky and Kz, function of soil properties and
groundwater pressure head, are hydraulic conductivities in
lateral directions (x and y) and the slope-normal direction
(z), respectively.
For the case of a nearly saturated shallow soil and a
rainfall time less than the time necessary for transmitting
lateral pore water pressure, Eq. (1) can be simplified in the
vertical direction (Iverson 2000; Baum et al. 2008) as
follows:
ow D0 o2 w
¼ ; ð2Þ
ot cos2 a oZ 2
in which D0 ¼ Ksat =C0 denotes soil diffusivity. C0 is the
minimum value of C(w), and Ksat is the saturated hydraulic
conductivity in the vertical direction. CðwÞ ¼ dh=dw is the
change in volumetric water content per unit of change in
the pressure head. The elevation Z, shown in Fig. 1, is
vertically measured downward from a horizontal reference
plane.
Equation (2) can be used for modeling groundwater flow
in each soil layer as shown in Fig. 1. The interface between
two soil layers must satisfy the continuity of the ground-
water pressure head and groundwater flux. The continuity
of groundwater flux at the interface between two soil layers
can be written as
   
ow ow
ðKsat Þupper  cos2 a ¼ ðKsat Þlower  cos2 a ð3Þ
oZ oZ
where (Ksat)upper and (Ksat)lower denote the saturated
hydraulic conductivities in the upper and lower soil

Hydrological modeling and slope failures modeling

for layered infinite slope

hillslope ground surface

Hydrological modeling
dW
x
The unsteady and variably saturated Darcian flow of d1
groundwater in response to rainfall infiltration of a hill- groundwater table
slope can be governed by Richards’ equation with a local
rectangular Cartesian coordinate system (Bear 1972; Hur- d LZ Layer 1
ley and Pantelis 1985) as follows: d2
      layered interface
Z
ow dh o ow o ow Z
¼ Kx ðwÞ  sin a þ Ky ðwÞ Layer 2
ot dw ox ox oy oy
  
o ow
þ Kz ðwÞ  cosa ; ð1Þ impervious bottom
oz oz
α
in which w is the groundwater pressure head; h is the
volumetric water content; a is the slope angle, and t is time. Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of layered infinite hillslope

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1429–1434 1431

layers, respectively. The appropriate initial and boundary
conditions at the hillslope surface and the impervious
bottom are also needed for solving Eq. (2). For the initial
steady state with a water table of dW in the vertical
direction, shown in Fig. 1, the initial pressure head can be
expressed as
wðZ; 0Þ ¼ ðZ  dW Þ cos2 a: ð4Þ
For a slope with a depth of dLZ measured in the vertical
direction, the boundary condition at the impervious bottom
can be written as
ow
ðdLz ; tÞ ¼ cos2 a: ð5Þ
oZ
The hillslope surface subjected to a rainfall with
intensity Iz yields
ow
ð0; tÞ ¼ IZ =Ksat þ cos2 a if wð0; tÞ  0 and t\T
oZ
ð6Þ
wð0; tÞ ¼ 0 if wð0; tÞ [ 0 and t\T ð7Þ
ow
ð0; tÞ ¼ cos2 a if t [ T ð8Þ
oZ
where T is the rainfall duration.
Equations (2)–(8) must be numerically solved with an
iterative procedure because of nonlinearity (Tsai and Yang
2006). The groundwater pressure head at the hillslope
ground surface, i.e., w(0, t), is first obtained by assuming
consistency between the infiltration rate and the rainfall
intensity shown in Eq. (6). If w(0, t) is less than or equal to
zero, ponding does not occur. The computed results are
accepted and the simulation for the next time step is con-
ducted. However, ponding occurs when w(0, t) is greater
than zero. Equation (7), based on neglecting the water
depth of overland flow (Hsu et al. 2002; Wallach et al.
1997), is used as a boundary condition to recalculate for the
same time step.
Soil failures modeling
The assessment of hillslope failure potential can be con-
ducted using infinite slope stability analysis after obtain-
ing groundwater pressure heads w(Z, t) through
hydrological modeling. Infinite slope stability analysis is a
commonly used tool for evaluating shallow landslides
because of its simplicity and practicability (Montgomery
and Dietrich 1994; Wu and Sidle 1995; Borga et al. 1998;
Iverson 2000; Morrissey et al. 2001; Crosta and Frattini
2003; Collins and Znidarcic 2004). This approach is valid
in landside cases with a small depth compared to its
length and width. This assumption is also compatible with
that used for hydrological modeling. A slope failure at a
certain depth Z occurs when the acting stress equals the
resisting stress due to friction and cohesion. In other
words, slope failure occurs at a certain depth Z when
satisfying
FS ¼ Ff þ Fw þ Fc ¼ 1 ð9Þ
where the dimensionless value FS is a safety factor
representing the ratio of the resisting stress to the acting
stress. The gravity performing term Ff, the water pressure
performing term Fw, and the cohesion performing term Fc
in the safety factor can be, respectively, expressed as
tan /0
Ff ¼ ð10Þ
tan a
wðZ; tÞcw tan /0
Fw ¼ ð11Þ
csat Z sin a cos a
c0
Fc ¼ ð12Þ
csat Z sin a cos a
where /0 is the effective friction angle, c0 denotes the
effective cohesion, and cw represents the unit weight of
water. csat is the depth-averaged unit weight of saturated
soil and is expressed as

Table 1 Soil parameters,

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
hillslope conditions, and
hydrological conditions for Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 2
Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3
Ksat (m/s) 0.00001 0.0000005 0.00001 0.0000005 0.00001 0.000005
c0 (N/m2) 15,000 22,000 15,000 22,000 12,000 22,000
u0 (°) 30 25 30 25 30 25
csat (N/m3) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
D0 (m2/s) 0.002 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.002 0.0001
d1 and d2 (m) 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0
a (°) 32 32 32
dW (m) 3 3 3
Rainfall amount (mm) 400 400 400
Rainfall duration (h) 24 24 24

123
1432 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1429–1434

Z Z a greater effective friction angle but less effective cohesion

1
csat ¼ csat ðZ  ÞdZ  ;
Z 0
in which csat(Z) represents the function of the unit weight
of saturated soil in the vertical direction. Z* is a dummy
variable of integration.
Examinations
The influence of soil layer distribution on infinite slope
failure triggered by rainfall is examined using the case of
two soil layers shown in Fig. 1. The hillslope with a con-
stant soil depth of 4 m is employed to conduct this
examination and is composed of different thicknesses of
soil layers, denoted by Case 1 and Case 2. In Case 1, layer
1 and layer 2 have thicknesses of 1 and 3 m, respectively
(i.e., d1 = 1 m and d2 = 3 m), as shown in Fig. 1. In Case
2, the thicknesses of layer 1 and layer 2 are 3 and 1 m,
respectively. Table 1 shows the soil parameters for two soil
layers. Layer 1 is more permeable than layer 2, and also has
ð13Þ than layer 2. The hillslope has a slope angle of 32° and is
subjected to a rainstorm with precipitation of 400 mm
lasting 24 h. The initial water table is 3 m below the hill-
slope surface.
The simulated pressure heads with respect to time from
Case 1 and Case 2 are displayed in Fig. 2, which shows
that the pressure heads caused by rainfall infiltration are
strongly associated with soil layer distribution. The pres-
sure heads vary severely at the interface between two soil
layers, particularly for Case 1 at an early stage of rainfall.
Because the thickness of the highly permeable soil layer in
Case 1 is less than that in Case 2, Case 1 takes less time to
reach ponding than Case 2. Case 2 causes ponding at 6 h
after the rainfall begins. In Case 1, ponding is reached at
2 h after the rainfall starts. Because the highly permeable
soil layer in Case 1 is not thick, the interface between two
soil layers quickly obstructs the downward transmission of
groundwater. This permits ponding to occur quickly and
lessens the amount of rainfall infiltration. Infinite slope

Layer 1 Layer 1
1
1
Layer 2
Case 1
Layer 2
Case 1 2 initial
2 t = 1 hr
initial t = 2 hrs
t = 1 hr t = 6 hrs
t = 2 hrs 3 t = 24 hrs
3 t = 6 hrs t = 36 hrs
t = 24 hrs steady
t = 36 hrs SF = 1
Z direction (m)

steady
Z direction (m)

4
4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Case 2 Case 2
1
1

2
2
Layer 1 Layer 1
3
3
failure Layer 2
Layer 2

4 4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Pressure head (m) Safety factor

Fig. 2 Simulated results of pressure heads with respect to time from Fig. 3 Simulated results of safety factors with respect to time from
Case 1 and Case 2 Case 1 and Case 2

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1429–1434 1433

stability strongly depends on the amount of rainfall infil-

tration. Therefore, infinite slope failure could be misas- Case 3
sessed if the soil layer distribution is not considered. By 1
contrast, Case 1 with the thicker low permeable soil layer
initial

Z direction (m)
takes more time to reach a steady state than Case 2. Fig- t = 1 hr
ure 2 shows that Case 2 reaches a steady state at 12 h after t = 2 hrs
2 t = 4 hrs
the rainfall begins. The time to steady state in Case 1 is SF = 1
nearly three times longer than that in Case 2. This implies failure
Layer 1
that in assessing the time to failure, soil layer distribution
3
must be considered.
Figure 3 displays simulated soil failure potential in Layer 2
terms of the safety factor with respect to time from Case 1
4
and Case 2, and indicates that the discontinuous safety 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
factor is generated at the interface because two soil layers Safety factor
have different effective friction angles and effective co-
Fig. 5 Simulated results of safety factors with respect to time from
hesions. However, continuous use of the groundwater Case 3
pressure head and groundwater flux for hydrological
modeling causes a continuous pressure head at the inter-
face, as shown in Fig. 2, although the two soil layers have Case 2 induces soil failure at the impervious bottom of
different hydraulic conductivities. Figure 3 shows that hillslope soil at 12 h after the rainfall begins, whereas Case
1 does not cause a shallow landslide. This outcome is
consistent with the simulated results of the mentioned
3.5 pressure heads. Case 2, composed of a thicker highly
Pressure head permeable soil layer, causes ponding later and has a greater
3.0 amount of rainfall infiltration than Case 1. Therefore, Case
2 is more likely to cause a shallow landslide than Case 1.
2.5 For a more detailed description of the differences in sim-
Pressure head (m)

ulated results between Case 1 and Case 2, Fig. 4 shows the

2.0 pressure heads and safety factors with respect to time at the
case 1
impervious bottom of hillslope soil.
case 2
1.5 Figure 3 shows that the simulated safety factor at the
interface between two soil layers from Case 2 approxi-
1.0 mates to unity. Whether soil failure could be caused at the
interface between two soil layers is a topic of interest.
0.5 Figure 5 shows the simulated safety factors with respect to
0 20 40 60
time from Case 3. The only difference between Case 2 and
1.30 Case 3 is that the cohesion of layer 1 in Case 3 decreases
from 15,000 to 12,000 N/m2 as shown in Table 1. For a
1.25 Safety factor
more detailed description of simulated results from Case 3,
case 1
Fig. 6 shows the corresponding pressure heads and safety
1.20
factors with respect to time at the interface between two
Safety factor

case 2
1.15 SF = 1.0 soil layers (Z = 300 cm) and the impervious bottom of
hillslope soil (Z = 400 cm). Figures 5 and 6 show that the
1.10 impervious bottom reaches the safety factor less than unity
later than the interface. Therefore, soil failure is triggered
1.05
at the interface rather than at the impervious bottom. The
1.00 interface causes soil failure at 4 h after the rainfall begins,
although the impervious bottom has a greater steady-state
0.95 pressure head than the interface. It can be concluded that
0 20 40 60
failure depth and time to failure are associated with soil
Time (h)
layer distribution. The misestimation of failure depth and
Fig. 4 Simulated results of pressure heads and safety factors at the time to failure may affect the assessment of landslide
impervious bottom of hillslope soil from Case 1 and Case 2 environmental impacts.

123
1434 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:1429–1434

3.5 assessment of infinite slope failure caused by rainfall relies

Pressure head on considering soil layer distribution. However, it must be
3.0
noted that obtaining information on the in situ properties of
2.5
Pressure head (m)

soil remains a challenging task.

2.0

1.5

1.0 References

0.5 Baum RL, Savage WZ, Godt JW (2002) TRIGRS-a Fortran program
for transient rainfall infiltration and grid-based regional slope-
0.0
stability analysis, Virginia, US Geological Survey Open file
report 02-424
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Baum RL, Savage WZ, Godt JW (2008) TRIGRS-a Fortran program
for transient rainfall infiltration and grid-based regional slope-
1.4 stability analysis, Virginia, US Geological Survey Open file
report 2008-1159
Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Dover, Mineola
1.3
Borga M, Fontana GD, De Ros D, Marchi L (1998) Shallow landslide
hazard assessment using a physically based model and digital
1.2 elevation data. Environ Geol 35:81–88
Safety factor

Z = 400 cm (bottom)
Z = 300 cm (interface)
1.1 SF = 1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (h)
Fig. 6 Simulated results of pressure heads and safety factors at the
interface and the impervious bottom from Case 3
Conclusions
Many regions with residual soil are threatened by rainfall-
induced landslides. The popular physical-based model
developed with the Iverson concept has been widely used
to investigate shallow landslides triggered by rainfall. A
modified Iverson model has been developed without
assuming constant infiltration potential by amending the
boundary condition at the hillslope surface to model the
typical rainfall infiltration process. In various physical-
based models based on the Iverson concept, hillslope soil
over bedrock is typically considered composed of a single-
layered soil with constant parameters. However, hillslope
soil may have two or more distinctly diverse soil properties
arranged in layers. This study examines the layered infinite
slope stability due to rainfall by extending the modified
Iverson model. The simulated results indicate that the
misassessment of slope failure could be produced by
neglecting to consider soil layer distribution. Failure depth
and time to failure are also associated with soil layer dis-
tribution. Therefore, it can be concluded that reliable
Collins BD, Znidarcic D (2004) Stability analyses of rainfall induced
landslides. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(4):362–372
Crosta GB, Frattini P (2003) Distributed modeling of shallow
landslides triggered by intense rainfall. Nat Hazards Earth Syst
Sci 3:81–93
D’Odorico P, Fagherazzi S, Rigon R (2005) Potential for landsliding:
dependence on hyetograph characteristics. J Geophys Res Earth
Surf 110(F1)
Frattini P, Crosta GB, Fusi N, Negro PD (2004) Shallow landslides in
30 pyroclastic soil: a distributed modeling approach for hazard
assessment. Eng Geol 73:277–295
Hsu SH, Ni CF, Hung PF (2002) Assessment of three infiltration
formulas based on model fitting on Richards’ equation. J Hydrol
Eng 7(5):373–379
Hurley DG, Pantelis G (1985) Unsaturated and saturated flow through
a thin porous layer on a hillslope. Water Resour Res 21:821–824
Iverson RM (2000) Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water
Resour Res 36:1897–1910
Keim RF, Skaugset AE (2003) Modelling effects of forest canopies
on slope stability. Hydrol Process 17:1457–1467
Lan HX, Lee CF, Zhou CH, Martin CD (2005) Dynamic character-
istics analysis of shallow landslides in response to rainfall event
using GIS. Environ Geol 47:254–267
Liu CN, Wu CC (2008) Mapping susceptibility of rainfall-triggered
shallow landslides using a probabilistic approach. Environ Geol
55:907–915
Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for
the topographic control on shallow landslide. Water Resour Res
30:83–92
Morrissey MM, Wieczorek GF, Morgan BA (2001) A comparative
analysis of hazard models for predicting debris flows in Madison
County, Virginia. US Geological Survey Open file report 01-67
Richards LA (1931) Capillary conduction of liquids in porous
mediums. Physics 1:318–333
Tsai TL, Yang JC (2006) Modeling of rainfall-triggered shallow
landslide. Environ Geol 50(4):525–534
Wallach R, Grigorin G, Rivlin J (1997) The errors in surface runoff
prediction by neglecting the relationship between infiltration rate
and overland flow depth. J Hydrol 200:243–259
Wu W, Sidle RC (1995) A distributed slope stability model for steep
forested basins. Water Resour Res 31:2097–2110

123