Water (Jan 2024)

Comparing Different Coupling and Modeling Strategies in Hydromechanical Models for Slope Stability Assessment

  • Shirin Moradi,
  • Johan Alexander Huisman,
  • Harry Vereecken,
  • Holger Class

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/w16020312
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 2
p. 312

Abstract

Read online

The dynamic interaction between subsurface flow and soil mechanics is often simplified in the stability assessment of variably saturated landslide-prone hillslopes. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of conventional simplifications in coupling and modeling strategies on stability assessment of such hillslopes in response to precipitation using the local factor of safety (LFS) concept. More specifically, it investigates (1) the impact of neglecting poroelasticity, (2) transitioning from full coupling between hydrological and mechanical models to sequential coupling, and (3) reducing the two-phase flow system to a one-phase flow system (Richards’ equation). Two rainfall scenarios, with the same total amount of rainfall but two different relatively high (4 mm h−1) and low (1 mm h−1) intensities are considered. The simulation results of the simplified approaches are compared to a comprehensive, fully coupled poroelastic hydromechanical model with a two-phase flow system. It was found that the most significant difference from the comprehensive model occurs in areas experiencing the most transient changes due to rainfall infiltration in all three simplified models. Among these simplifications, the transformation of the two-phase flow system to a one-phase flow system showed the most pronounced impact on the simulated local factor of safety (LFS), with a maximum increase of +21.5% observed at the end of the high-intensity rainfall event. Conversely, using a rigid soil without poroelasticity or employing a sequential coupling approach with no iteration between hydromechanical parameters has a relatively minor effect on the simulated LFS, resulting in maximum increases of +2.0% and +1.9%, respectively. In summary, all three simplified models yield LFS results that are reasonably consistent with the comprehensive poroelastic fully coupled model with two-phase flow, but simulations are more computationally efficient when utilizing a rigid porous media and one-phase flow based on Richards’ equation.

Keywords