TAJE_A_762942.

3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23

Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013)

60, 283290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2013.762942

Evaluating the effect of slope curvature on slope stability

by a numerical analysis
RAJ H. SHARMA*

School of Engineering and Technology, Higher Education Division, Central Queensland University,
Rockhampton, QLD, Australia, 4701.

This paper investigates, using three-dimensional numerical modelling, the stability of curvature-based
nine general hillslope types created by combining three profile and three lateral curvatures. The results
show that the hillslopes with a concave profile curvature possess the highest pore-water pressure along
the axial line, and hillslopes with a convex profile curvature generate the smallest pore-water pressure
along the line. The results also show that the profile curvature dominates the pore-water pressure along
the axial line, and the effect of lateral curvature is minimal. Displacement shapes are generally the op-
posite of lateral curvature shapes for hillslopes with convex and concave lateral curvatures, whereas
they are parallel to the bed for the slopes with straight lateral curvatures. Even though the rainfall
amount and duration are equal, the fully saturated volume and average saturation of hillslope are sig-
nificantly different. Concave-profile types of hillslope possess a larger volume of fully saturated area
than others possessing larger deformations. This indicates that the hillslopes with concave profile curva-
tures are susceptible to mud and debris flows. These slopes also show a possibility of greater run-out
distances, as their X-displacements are higher than others. Calculation of the Factor of Safety indicates
that hillslopes with straight-profile curvatures are more stable. Increase in curvature in either direction is
the most significant factor in decreasing the overall stability of a hillslope.
KEY WORDS: slope curvature, hillslope types, slope stability, pore-water pressure.

INTRODUCTION average recurrence interval of shallow landsliding.

Delineation of potential landslide locations in a catch-
ment scale is difficult because of the strong influence of
very local parameters such as surface and subsurface to-
pography, root strength owing to vegetation, soil thick-
ness, mechanical properties of soil and development of
local pore-water pressure owing to presence of soil pipes
and macropores. Landscape geometry is one of the major
factors that influences hydrological response and re-
straint capacity of slope against failure; thus, an insight
into the effects of the shape and characteristics of land-
scape elements is required to extend our ability to model
slope-stability processes (Talebi et al. 2008), especially
for catchment-scale modelling. Slope morphology affects
the susceptibility of a slope to landslide in several ways.
The shape of a slope influences the direction and amount
of surface runoff or subsurface drainage, which eventu-
ally influences ground pore-water pressure. For shallow
translational landsliding, topography, particularly slope
angle and convergence, plays an important role in con-
trolling stability (Hennrich & Crozier 2004). Iida (1999)
states that the angle of a slope, its shape (e.g. concavity
or convexity) and the soil (regolith) depth are important
controlling factors of shallow landsliding.
Yanai (1989) found that both slope angle and slope
shape (hollow or nose) are important factors for the
According to various authors (Pierson 1980; Ellen 1988;
Sitar et al. 1992), slope shape is important in initiating
sliding phenomena. Avanzi et al. (2004) studied the distri-
bution of the landslides in Tuscany (Italy) dividing slope
surface morphology into planar slope, hollow and ridge.
The study showed that 56% of landslide scars occurred
on hollow surfaces (i.e. concavities), 38% on planar surfa-
ces and the remaining 6%, on ridge surfaces. A similar
distribution was found by Jibson (1989) for debris flows
triggered during 58 October 1985 in Puerto Rico. Dai &
Lee (2002) analysed the relationship between landslide
frequency and slope morphology in Hong Kong and
showed that the landslide frequency is generally higher
for concave side slopes than for straight side slopes. Con-
centration of subsurface drainage within a concave
slope, resulting in higher pore-water pressures in the ax-
ial areas than on flanks, is one possible mechanism re-
sponsible for triggering landslides (Pierson 1980).
Although most authors have shown concave lateral
curvatures are the most unstable, others have shown
straight ones are more unstable than concave curva-
tures. Jacobson et al. (1993) found that planar slopes are
more prone to failure than other slope morphological
configurations. Ayalew & Yamagishi (2003), in their
study on slope failures on the Blue Nile basin, showed
that topographic surfaces with concave lateral curvatures

*r.sharma@cqu.edu.au
2013 Geological Society of Australia
TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23

284 R. H. Sharma

shelter mudflows and some retrogressive rotational

slumps, while slopes characterised by planar lateral curva-
tures are the main sites for translational slides. Landslides
are rare in convex-shaped slopes, but when they occur,
they are big and deep-seated (Ayalew & Yamagishi 2003).
This paper investigates the stability of nine different
hillslope types formed by combining three profile curva-
tures and three lateral curvatures using three-dimen-
sional numerical models. Nine basic forms of hillslope
types (as used by Pennock et al. 1987; Troch et al. 2002;
Ayalew & Yamagishi 2003) are considered in this study
as the basic landform elements. Ayalew & Yamagishi
(2003) extensively describe the localities where such
kinds of landscapes are common. The relationships of Figure 1 Schematic view of hillslope with straight curvature
profile and lateral curvature with the landform stability both on slope and plan profiles.
are investigated under a constant rainfall infiltration.

hillslope; and L is the corresponding slope length along

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NUMERICAL MODELS the x-axis. The parameter n defines the profile curvature
with n > 1 defining concave profiles, n < 1 defining con-
Nine characteristic hillslopes vex profiles and n 1 defining the profile is linear. Pa-
A set of nine typical hillslope models were developed that rameter v is a lateral curvature parameter with v > 0
combine concave, convex and straight shapes in longitu- defining concave lateral curvatures, v < 0 defining con-
dinal X and lateral Y directions. Equation 1 is used to de- vex lateral curvatures and v 0 denoting the lateral cur-
velop basic hillslopes: vature as linear. Figure 1 shows a typical hillslope and
its dimensions. Three-dimensional views of the nine hill-
 slopes are given in Figure 2. Table 1 lists the parameters
x n
zx; y H 1  vy2 1 used to develop nine hillslopes.
L The hillslopes are prepared with 50 m length (x 0 to
50) and 25 m width (y 12.5 to 12.5). The elevation dif-
where x, y and z are the coordinates of a hillslope point; ference between the downslope and upslope ends along
H is the elevation difference of the bedrock along the the central axis is 25 m (H 25). Soil depth is set at

Figure 2 Nine different hillslope types used in the study (axis rotation x10 , y10 , z340 ).
TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23

Slope curvature and slope failure 285

Table 1 Parameters to create nine hillslope models. hillslope response with time were evaluated. Initial dry
soil with zero pore pressure at all grids was taken as an
w () initial condition. For shallow landslides, hillslope beds
Figure 1 Name Profile Plan H (m) L (m) n ()  103 are normally taken as an impermeable bed, so hillslope
beds are treated as a zero-flux boundary condition.
A Cc-Cc Concave Concave 25.00 50.00 1.75 5.00
B Cc-St Concave Straight 25.00 50.00 1.75 0.00
Hillslope side walls are also assumed to be the zero-flux
C Cc-Cv Concave Convex 25.00 50.00 1.75 5.00 boundary condition for simplicity. The hydro-mechani-
D St-Cc Straight Concave 25.00 50.00 1.00 5.00 cal input parameters used in this analysis are given in
E St-St Straight Straight 25.00 50.00 1.00 0.00 Table 2.
F St-Cv Straight Convex 25.00 50.00 1.00 5.00
G Cv-Cc Convex Concave 25.00 50.00 0.25 5.00
H Cv-St Convex Straight 25.00 50.00 0.25 0.00 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
I Cv-Cv Convex Convex 25.00 50.00 0.25 5.00
Pore-water pressures
Figure 3 shows the contour of pore-water pressures
4.25 m throughout including bottom 1 m, which is along axial lines (centre line in the X-direction; Figure 1)
treated as fixed bedrock. Hillslope bottoms are prepared of the nine hillslopes. The result shows that pore-water
parallel to the slope surface, which is a common assump- pressure are uniformly distributed in the hillslopes with
tion found in almost all shallow landslide models concave profile (longitudinal) curvatures (Figure 3ac;
(Okimura & Kawatani 1987; Montgomery and Dietrich max to 9 kPa), and higher pressures are concentrated at
1994; Dietrich et al. 1995, 2001; Terlien et al. 1995; Wu & lower ends in the hillslopes with convex profile curva-
Sidle 1995). tures (Figure 3gi; max to 22 kPa) irrespective of their
Numerical analyses for instability of nine hillslopes lateral curvatures. This indicates that profile curvatures
are carried out with FLAC3D code (Itasca 2005). FLAC3D are main factors to create a higher pore-water pressure
is a three-dimensional explicit finite difference program, than the lateral curvatures. The result shows high pore-
which can be used to simulate groundwater flow, pore- water pressures close to the lower end of the hillslopes
water pressure and the behaviour of soil slope under with convex profile curvature creating a higher local wa-
changing pore-water conditions. The parameters ter gradient than any other part of the slope. This is im-
involved in the description of fluid flow through porous portant to note because the higher exit velocity or the
media are the pore-water pressure, saturation and three seepage velocity close to the lower end of the slope
components of the specific discharge vector. These increases the chance of seepage erosion and ultimately
parameters are related through Darcys law for fluid may initiate the slope failure.
transport, the fluid mass-balance equation, a constitu- Figure 4 shows the cross-sectional contours of pore-
tive equation specifying the fluid response to changes in water pressures measured at the centre of the hillslope
pore-water pressure, saturation and volumetric strains, (i.e. at x 25 m) on the YZ plane. Because of the concave
and an equation of state relating pore-water pressure to curvature, the subsurface flow tends to concentrate to
saturation in the unsaturated range. An elasto-plastic the centre from both directions in hillslope types a, d
constitutive law, i.e. the MohrCoulomb failure criterion, and g. This causes higher pore-water pressure at the
has been used to describe the material response. centre. In straight lateral curvatures (i.e. hillslope types
Each of the nine slope models was divided into three- b, e and h), the pore pressures are constant throughout
dimensional grids with materials represented by polyhe- the section.
dral elements, adjusted to fit the shape of the object to be Curvature in lateral directions shows less influence
modelled. In this study, the simulations of the hillslopes in the volume of the fully saturated part and also in the
are discretised using dx 1 m; dy 1 m and variable dz average soil saturation of the entire slope, whereas the
(from 0.25 m at the top to 1.0 m at the bottom). dx, dy and profile curvatures show greater influences (Figure 5).
dz are grid sizes in x, y and z directions. This gives total Concave profile hillslopes (Figure 5ac) have the highest
15 000 zones in each hillslope. A constant rainfall of average soil saturation value and highest volume of satu-
35 mm/h is applied for 6 h for each hillslope from the rated soil, whereas they are lowest for the hillslopes
top. As the purpose of our work is to determine the in- with convex profiles (Figure 5gi). A higher saturation
crease in slope instability with increase in pore pressure means a greater chance of liquefaction and increased
with time, the recharge of the subsurface soil and risk of mud and debris flow. The result is similar to the
finding by Ayalew & Yamagishi (2003) that the concave
lateral curvatures shelter mudflows.
Table 2 Parameters used as properties of soil in the hillslopes.

Property Symbol Value Unit Relative displacement

Dry density gd 1540 kg/m3
Figure 6 shows a three-dimensional view of the total rel-
Saturated density gs 1690 kg/m3 ative displacement of the hillslopes. The relative dis-
Porosity N 0.44 placement indicates the distance that the material
Bulk modulus K 12 500 kPa moves away from its original position owing to changed
Shear modulus G 5769 kPa
forces within the hillslope.
Cohesion C 0.4 kPa
In accordance with the pore-water pressure genera-
Friction angle f 36.8 deg
tions, the concave profile slopes (Figure 6ac) show
TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23

286 R. H. Sharma

Figure 3 Pore-water pressure profile (measured on planeXZ, y 0 m) for the nine hillslopes.

Figure 4 Pore-water pressure profile (measured on planeYZ, x 25 m) for nine hillslopes (width 50 m thickness 2 m; not
in scale).
TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23
Figure 5 Percentage of fully saturated
volume and average saturation value
for the hillslopes.
maximum displacements at the upslope end, the straight
profile slopes (Figure 6df) show uniform type of dis-
placement throughout, and the convex profile slopes
(Figure 6gi) show maximum displacement close to
downslope end. Larger displacements in concave profile
hillslopes are due to higher saturations and the presence
of a larger topographic gradient close to the upslope end.
Thus, this type of hillslope might suffer retrogressive
sliding in the upper parts.
The straight profile type of hillslopes (Figure 6df)
exerts deformation throughout the whole hillslope, indi-
cating that the slope failure in this type of hillslope
is likely to cover a larger area, with either form of
shallow failure, or deep-seated landsliding, depending
on rainfall conditions.
Convex profile slopes (Figure 6gi) have a smaller de-
formation than others. Because of their convex nature of
Figure 6 Three-dimensional view of total displacement for nine hillslopes.
Slope curvature and slope failure 287
topography, they drain away water from the region to
make them more stable. However, the figure shows that
the displacements are larger close to downslope end. So,
if the downstream ends are not supported as assumed in
this numerical model, the toe parts are likely to fail rap-
idly, owing to vigorous groundwater flow at the higher
water gradient.
Figure 7 shows that the X-axis displacement is highest
in the hillslopes with a concave profile. This indicates
that the run-out distance in concave in profile type
of slopes is higher. Figure 8 shows the cross-section of
X-axis displacement measured at half the distance from
the downstream end (i.e. x 25 m). Figure 8b, e, h indi-
cates that in the straight lateral curvature hillslopes, the
failure planes are parallel to the bottom surfaces (assum-
ing the highest deformation seen, as the top contour will
eventually fail). However, convex hillslopes in lateral
TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23

288 R. H. Sharma

Figure 7 X-axis displacement (measured on planeXZ, y 0 m) for nine hillslopes.

Figure 8 X-axis displacement (measured on planeYZ, x 25 m) for the nine hillslopes.

TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23
Figure 9 Variation of average FoS for different hillslope
types.
direction shows a concave type of deformation
(Figure 8c, f, i). For concave lateral hillslopes, the defor-
mation pattern is convex (Figure 8a), but it is not clear
for hillslopes d and g (Figure 8d, g).
Factor of safety
The factor of safety (FoS) for each grid in the hillslopes
was calculated at the centroid of each element by calcu-
lating the normal stress, shear stress and shear strength
at its centroid. The FoS of an entire hillslope is taken as
an average FoS of all the individual grids. Based on this
concept, Figure 9 shows the overall FoS of all nine
hillslopes.
All hillslopes are stable for the current simulation
scenario, as the FoS value of every hillslopes is above 1
(Figure 9). However, the values vary significantly.
Straight-profile hillslopes, in both lateral and profile cur-
vature (hillslope type e), provides the maximum FoS.
The FoS values are the same for hillslope types g, h and i
because they all have supported boundaries near the
lower end. Concave profile hillslopes (Figure 9ac) pos-
sess the lowest FoS. In general, straight-profile hillslopes
are more stable, but an increase in curvature in either
direction increases the instability.
Digital-elevation-model-based shallow landslide mod-
els used in a catchment scale generally ignore the curva-
ture of the landform. Assuming all the slopes are
straight-profile hillslopes in both lateral and profile
directions, gives a tendency of a larger FoS than actually
available which is in line with the conclusion of Dietrich
et al. (2001) that there is a tendency of overpredictions of
shallow landslides. Hence, incorporation of curvature
in such models is likely to improve the model
predictions.
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that lateral curvature has less influ-
ence than profile curvature on the pore-water pressure
along the hillslope. A comparison of the effects of lateral
curvatures at fixed profile curvatures shows that con-
cave lateral curvature creates the highest pore-water
pressure at the axial line, and the convex lateral curva-
ture creates the smallest pore-water pressure. The dis-
placement curvatures are generally the opposite of
Slope curvature and slope failure 289
lateral curvature for convex and concave curvature. For
straight lateral curvatures, displacements are also
straight and parallel to the bed shape.
Even though the rainfall amount and duration are
equal, the fully saturated volume and average saturation
of the hillslopes are significantly different. The concave
profile type of hillslope possesses a larger fully saturated
volume than others, increasing the risk of liquefaction
and mud/debris flows. Concave profiles have risks of
larger run-out distances, as their X-displacements are
higher. Calculation of FoS indicates that straight profile
hillslopes in plan and/or profile are the most stable, an
an increase in curvature in either direction will increase
the instability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is supported by Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation under Postdoctoral fellowship program.
REFERENCES
AVANZI G. D., GIANNECCHINI R. & PUCCINELLI A. 2004. The influence of the
geological and geomorphological settings on shallow landslides.
An example in a temperate climate environment: the June 19,
1996 event in northwestern Tuscany (Italy). Engineering Geology
73, 215228.
AYALEW L. & YAMAGISHI H. 2003. Slope failures in the Blue Nile basin, as
seen from landscape evolution perspective. Geomorphology 57,
95116.
DAI F. C. & LEE C. F. 2002. Landslide characteristics and slope instabil-
ity modeling using GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Geomorpholo-
gy 42, 213228.
DIETRICH W. E., BELLUGI D. & REAL DE ASUA R. 2001. Validation of the
shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. In:
Wigmosta M. S. & Burges S. J. eds. Land use and watersheds:
human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and
forest areas, pp. 195227. Water Science and Application 2, Ameri-
can Geophysical Union.
DIETRICH W. E., REISS R., HSU M. & MONTGOMERY D. R. 1995. A process-
based model for colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding
using digital elevation data. Hydrological Processes 9, 383400.
ELLEN S. D. 1988. Chapter 6: Description and mechanism of soil slip/
debris flow in the storm. In: Ellen S. D. & Wieczorek G. F. eds.
Landslides, floods, and marine effect of the storm of January 35,
1982, in San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geolological
Survey, Professional Paper 1434.
HENNRICH K. & CROZIER M. J. 2004. A hillslope hydrology approach for
catchment-scale slope stability analysis. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 29, 599610.
IIDA T. 1999. A stochastic hydro-geomorphological model for shallow
landsliding due to rainstorm. Catena 34, 293313.
ITASCA 2005. Fast Langrangian analysis of continua in 3 dimensions:
theory and background, fluid mechanical interaction. Itasca
Consulting, Nill Place Minneapolis, Minnesota.
JACOBSON R. B., MCGEEHIN J. P., CRON E. D., CARR C. E., HARPER J. M. &
HOWARD A. D. 1993. Landslides triggered by the storm of November
35, 1985, Willis Mountain anticline, West Virginia and Virginia.
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1981, pp. C1C33.
JIBSON R. W. 1989. Debris flows in Southern Puerto Rico. Geological
Society of America 236, 2955.
MONTGOMERY D. R. & DIETRICH W. E. 1994. A physically based model for
the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources
Research 30, 11531171.
OKIMURA T. & KAWATANI T. 1987. Mapping of the potential surface-
failure sites on granite slopes. In: Gardiner V. ed. International
geomorphology 1986, Part I, pp. 121138. Wiley, Chichester.
PENNOCK D. J., ZEBARTH B. J. & DE JONG E. 1987. Landform classification
and soil distribution in Hummocky Terrain, Saskatchewan.
Canada.Geoderma 40, 297315.
TAJE_A_762942.3d (TAJE) 01-04-2013 17:23
290 R. H. Sharma
PIERSON T. C. 1980. Piezometric response to rainstorms in forested
hillslope drainage depressions. Journal of Hydrology (New
Zealand) 19, 110.
SITAR N., ANDERSON S. A. & JOHNSON K. A. 1992. Conditions for initia-
tion of rainfall-induced debris flows. Proceedings of Stability and
Performance of Slopes and EmbankmentsII, New York, pp. 834
849.
TALEBI A., TROCH P. A. & UIJLENHOET R. 2008. A steady-state analytical
slope stability model for complex hillslopes. Hydrological
Processes 22, 546553.
TERLIEN M. T. J., ASCH T. W. J. & VAN WESTEN C. J. 1995. Deterministic
modelling in GIS-based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara
A. & Guzzetti F. eds. Geographical information system in assessing
natural hazard, pp. 5777. Kluwer, New York.
TROCH P. A., VAN LOON E. & HILBERTS A. 2002. Analytical solutions to a
hillslope-storage kinematic wave equation for subsurface flow.
Advances in Water Resources 25, 637649.
WU W. & SIDLE R. 1995. A distributed slope stability model for steep
forested basins. Water Resources Research 31, 20972110.
YANAI S. 1989. Age determination of hillslope with tephrochronologi-
cal method in Central Hokkaido, Japan. Transactions of the
Japanese Geomorphology Union 10, 285301 (in Japanese with
English abstract).
Received 25 July 2012; accepted 5 December 2012
Copyright of Australian Journal of Earth Sciences is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.