Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph
Abstract
Most of the slopes of the hilly areas of the Apennines are composed of colluvial soils originating from the weathering of the
bedrock and down slope transportation. Shallow slides affect this superficial cover, depend largely on the surface topography and
are a recurrent problem. SINMAP and SHALSTAB are terrain stability models that combine steady state hydrology assumptions
with the infinite slope stability model to quantify shallow slope stability. They have a similar physical basis but they use different
indices to quantify instability. The purposes of this study are to test and compare the approaches of SINMAP and SHALSTAB
models for slope stability analysis and to compare the results of these analyses with the locations of the shallow landslides that
occurred on November 2002 in an area of the Oltrepo Pavese (Northern Apennines). The territory of S. Giuletta, characterized by
clayeysilty colluvial soils, represents the test site. The Digital Elevation Model was constructed from a 1:5000 scale contour map
and was used to estimate the slope of the terrain as well as the potential soil moisture conditions. In situ and laboratory tests
provided the basis for measuring values for soil hydraulic and geotechnical parameters (moisture content, soil suction, Atterberg
limits, methylene blue dye adsorption, hydraulic conductivity). Soil thickness was extracted from a soil database. An inventory of
landslide from interpretation of aerial photographs and field surveys was used to document sites of instability (mostly soil slips)
and to provide a test of model performance by comparing observed landslide locations with model predictions. The study discusses
the practical advantages and limitations of the two models in connection with the geological characteristics of the studied area,
which could be representative of similar geological contexts in the Apennines.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shallow landslide; Colluvial soils; SINMAP; SHALSTAB; Oltrepo Pavese
1. Introduction
Most of the slopes of the hilly areas of the Apennines
are covered by colluvial soils originating from the
weathering of the bedrock and down slope transportation.
Shallow translational landslides are the most commonly
208
1
Where Cr = root cohesion [N/m2], Cs = soil cohesion [N/
m2], = slope angle, s =wet soil density [kg/m3], w =
the density of water [kg/m3], g =gravitational acceleration
(9.81 m/s2), D =the vertical soil depth [m], Dw =the vertical
height of the water table within the soil layer [m], and the
internal friction angle of the soil []. The slope angle is the
arc tangent of the slope, S, expressed as a decimal drop per
unit horizontal distance. Soil thickness, h [m], and depth
are related as follows
h Dcosh
With this change FS reduces to
FS
C cosh1wrtan/
sinh
(1) Shallow lateral subsurface flow follows topographic gradients. This implies that the contributing area to flow at any point is given by the specific
catchment area (a) defined from the surface
topography (Fig. 1);
(2) Lateral discharge q at each point is in equilibrium
with a steady state recharge R [m/h];
(3) The capacity for lateral flux at each point is Tsin,
where T is the soil transmissivity [m2/h], i.e. hydraulic conductivity [m/h] times soil thickness, h [m].
Assumptions 1 and 2 together imply that lateral
discharge (depth integrated per unit contour length), is
209
210
together with the largest x (i.e. x2) defines the worst case
(most conservative) scenario under this assumed uncertainty (variability) in the parameters. Areas, where under
this worst case scenario FS is greater than 1, are in terms of
this model unconditionally stable and SINMAP define
a
C1 cosh 1min X 2 sinh
; 1 r t1
5
SI FSmin
sinh
For areas where the minimum factor of safety is less
than 1, there is a possibility (probability) of failure. This
is a spatial probability due to the uncertainty (spatial
variability) in C, tan and T. This probability does have
a temporal element in that R characterizes a wetness that
may vary with time. Therefore the uncertainty in x
combines both spatial and temporal probabilities. In
these regions (with FSmin b 1) SI = Prob(FS N 1).
The best case scenario is when C = C2, x = x1, and
t = t which leads to
a
C2 cosh 1min X 1 sinh
; 1 r t2
6
SI FSmax
sinh
In the case that FSmax b 1, then SI = Prob(FS N 1) = 0.
SINMAP differentiates between six different classes
of SI. Stable, moderately-stable and quasi-stable classes
have SI N 1.5 and FS N 1.0, and they represent regions
that should not fail with the most conservative
parameters in the specified range (destabilizing factors
are required for instability, as local loading, road
drainage, etc). For lower threshold and upper
threshold classes the calculated FS is b1.0, yet the
probability of failure is less than and greater than 50%,
respectively. These two classes define a lower and upper
limit for ground failure and have SI values 1.01.5 and
01.0, respectively. The unconditionally unstable
(defended) class means that the probability of failure,
within the specified range of parameters, is greatest
(assumed N 90% probability).
SHALSTAB predicts the steady state rainfall necessary
for slope failure throughout a study area. The output is log
q/T that is the hydrological ratio (q =amount of water
infiltration into the soil; T = water flow within the soil).
q
q
tanh b
s 1
sinh
T qw
tan/ a
211
Fig. 2. Geological sketch of the study area (from Scagni and Vercesi, 1987, modified). 1: Alluvial deposits (HolocenePleistocene); 2: Lugagnano
Clay (lower-medium Pliocene); 3: M. Arzolo Sandstone (Upper Messinian); 4: GessosoSolfifera Formation (Messinian); 5: S. Agata Fossili Marls
(Tortonian); 6: fault; 7: probable fault; 8:study area.
212
213
Fig. 6. 3D-block diagram showing some shallow landslides triggered by the November 2002 event.
214
Fig. 7. Soil map (ERSAL, 2001) (between brackets the calibration regions used in SINMAP).
215
Fig. 8. Geotechnical profile of colluvium type A (borehole S3). w: natural water content, Wl: liquid limit; Wp: plastic limit; Sr: degree of saturation;
d: dry density.
216
Fig. 9. Geotechnical profile of colluvium type B (borehole S2). w: natural water content, Wl: liquid limit; Wp: plastic limit; Sr: degree of saturation;
d: dry density.
217
Fig. 10. Geotechnical profile of the soils in the Pizzolo area (colluvium type A) (see Fig. 3). w: natural water content, Wl: liquid limit; Wp: plastic
limit; Sr: degree of saturation; d: dry density, Vb: value of blue.
218
Table 3
Input parameters for SHALSTAB
[]
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6
18.0
18.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
21.0
19.4
24.0
27.0
35.00
30.00
35.00
24.00
32.00
0
0
0
0
0.054
0
0.20
Cmax
0.05
3.083
0
50.00
0.097 134.40
0
193.63
0.060
7.06
0.034
4.87
0.231
1.79
6614.1
6.000.0
3696
3227.32
635.59
481.23
172.78
Infiltration (%)
015
1530
3060
75%
40%
20%
28
C [N/m2]
1044
s [kN/m3]
19.50
219
T [m2/h]
q [m]
2
8.93 10
7.93 10 5
220
221
Area
(%)
Landslides
(n)
Landslides
(%)
Landslide
density (#/km2)
2.09
17
38.64
125
2.84
4.31
6.62
5.03
2.79
76.32
5
6
9
2
0
5
11.36
13.64
20.45
4.55
0.00
11.36
27
21
21
6
0
1
222
223