Abstract
Existence of soil pipes is reported in many collapsed slopes indicating their influences on landslide initiation. Flume model tests with different soil pipe configurations, (a) no pipe, (b) closed pipe and (c) open pipe, were conducted to understand the influence of soil pipes on slope stability during rainfall. Porewater pressures, discharges through the soil pipe and seepage from the slope end were recorded. Open pipe works as a hillslope drainage and reduces the porewater pressure of an entire slope, but if blocked, porewater pressure close to the lower end of pipe rises up rapidly, leading to immediate soil mass movement. Average hillslope saturation at the time of failure in a hillslope with “initially open but later blocked” pipe is lower than that in other cases. Discharge measurement shows that soil pipe even if ended within the hillslope, increases hillslope discharge. In all the three cases of experiments, shallow retrogressive sliding occurred. However, backward progress is faster in the hillslope without soil pipe because of more uniform distribution of moisture throughout the slope than the other two cases. The simple numerical analysis developed is able to predict the timing of the first crack for piped and no-piped hillslope.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Casadei M, Dietrich WE, Miller NL (2003) Testing a model for predicting the timing and location of shallow landslides initiation in soil-mantled landscapes. Earth Surf Process Landf 28:925–950
Crosta GB, Frattini P (2003) Distributed modeling of shallow landslides triggered by intense rainfall. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:81–93
Hardenbicker U, Crozier MJ (2002) Soil pipes and slope stability. In: Rybar J, Stemberk J, Wagner P (Eds.) Landslides. Proceedings of the first European conference on landslides, Prague, Czech Republic, June 24–26, 2002, Balkema Publishers: 565–570
Iverson RM (2000) Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour Res 36(7):897–1910
Kosugi K, Uchida T, Mizuyama T (2004) Numerical calculation of soil pipe flow and its effect on water dynamics in a slope. Hydrol Process 18:777–789
Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour Res 30(4):1153–1171
Nieber JL, Warner GS (1991) Soil pipe contribution to steady subsurface storm flow. Hydrol Process 5:329–344
Pierson TC (1983) Soil pipes and slope stability. Q J Eng Geol 16:1–11
Sidle RC, Kitahara H, Terajima T, Nakai Y (1995) Experimental studies on the effects of pipeflow on throughflow partitioning. J Hydrol 165:207–219
Tsutsumi D, Sidle RC, Kosugi K (2005) Development of a simple lateral preferential flow model with steady state application in hillslope soils. Water Resour Res 41:1–15
Uchida T (2004) Clarifying the role of pipe flow on shallow landslide initiation. Hydrol Process 18:375–378
Uchida T, Kosugi K, Mizuyama T (2001) Effects of pipeflow on hydrological process and its relation to landslide: a review of pipeflow studies in forested headwater catchments. Hydrol Process 15:2151–2217
Uchida T, Meerveld IT, McDonnell JJ (2005) The role of lateral pipe flow in hillslope runoff response: an intercomparison of non-linear hillslope response. J Hydrol 311(1–4):117–133
Weiler M, McDonnell JJ (2007) Conceptualizing lateral preferential flow and flow networks and simulating the effects on gauged and ungauged hillslopes. Water Resour Res 43:1–13
Wilkinson PL, Anderson MG, Lloyd DM (2000) An integrated hydrological model for rain-induced landslide prediction. Earth Surf Process Landf 27:1285–1297
Wu W, Sidle RC (1995) A distributed slope stability model for steep forested basins. Water Resour Res 31(8):2097–2110
Acknowledgments
The first author wants to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for providing a fellowship to conduct this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharma, R.H. Laboratory experiments on the influence of soil pipes on slope failure. Landslides 12, 345–353 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0479-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0479-8