applied

sciences
Article
Three-Dimensional Numerical Investigation on the
Efficiency of Subsurface Drainage for
Large-Scale Landslides
Der-Guey Lin 1 , Kuo-Ching Chang 1 , Cheng-Yu Ku 2, * and Jui-Ching Chou 3, *
1 Department of Soil and Water Conservation, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan;
dglin@dragon.nchu.edu.tw (D.-G.L.); kuoching1226@gmail.com (K.-C.C.)
2 Center of Excellence for Ocean Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan
3 Department of Civil Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan
* Correspondence: chkst26@mail.ntou.edu.tw (C.-Y.K.); jccchou@nchu.edu.tw (J.-C.C.)




Received: 20 April 2020; Accepted: 9 May 2020; Published: 12 May 2020


Abstract: This paper presents a field monitoring study with emphasis on the design and construction
of a subsurface drainage system and evaluation of its stabilization efficiency on the slope of You-Ye-Lin
landslide using a three-dimensional finite element method program (Plaxis 3D) for the groundwater
flow and slope stability analyses. The subsurface drainage system consists of two 4-m diameter
drainage wells with multi-level horizontal drains and was installed to draw down the groundwater
level and stabilize the unstable slope of the landslide. Results demonstrate that the subsurface
drainage system is functional and capable of accelerating the drainage of the infiltrated rainwater
during torrential rainfalls during the typhoon season. The large groundwater drawdown by the
subsurface drainage system protects the slopes from further deterioration and maintains the slope
stability at an acceptable and satisfactory level.

Keywords: groundwater; slope stability; numerical analysis; drainage well; rainfall

1. Introduction
The You-Ye-Lin landslide, a large scale landslide in a mountainous area of Taiwan, has a long
history of intermittent large downslope ground movements during rainfall periods since Typhoon
Morakot in 2008. To prevent the expansion and deterioration of the landslide, systematic field
investigations, engineering designs, and emergency countermeasures for the slope stabilization have
been implemented by public agencies and remain underway to date. The main remediation work for
the You-Ye-Lin landslide is to lower the groundwater level through a deep subsurface drainage system
composed of two drainage wells (a well shaft equipped with multi-level horizontal drains).
For subsurface drainage, the effectiveness of horizontal drains on lowering the groundwater
level and improving the slope stability is closely related to the drainage length, spacing, number,
and installation location [1–5]. The function and the effect of horizontal drains on the groundwater
drawdown and the slope stabilization mechanism have also been investigated by several researchers
using numerical methods [6–12]. Cai et al. concluded that lengthening a group of horizontal drains is
more effective than shortening the spacing and increasing the number of a group of horizontal drains [6].
Rahardjo et al. found that the main benefit of using horizontal drains is lowering the groundwater
table and the drains located at the bottom of the slope contribute the most [7–9]. Eberhardt et al.
strongly suggested that a deep drainage system (a drainage gallery with sub-vertical drains) is the key
measure to successfully stabilize large landslides [10]. Furthermore, the potential effect of sub-vertical
drains drilled from drainage gallerys on slope stabilization has also been studied in large landslides

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346; doi:10.3390/app10103346 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 2 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23

also been
using studied inmodels
3D numerical large landslides
[11,12]. Lin using 3Ddemonstrated
et al. numerical models that a[11,12]. Lin et
subsurface al. demonstrated
drainage system in
athat a subsurface
large landslide is drainage
capablesystem in a large
of accelerating landslide
the drainageis of capable of accelerating
the infiltrated rainwaterthe induced
drainagefromof thea
infiltrated rainwater induced from a high intensity and long duration rainfall
high intensity and long duration rainfall during the typhoon season and protects the slope from a fast during the typhoon
season and protects
deterioration [13,14].the slope from a fast deterioration [13,14].
However, the
However, the parallel
parallel configuration
configuration of of horizontal
horizontal drains
drains in in previous
previous studies
studies waswas shallow
shallow and
and
simple compared to the configuration of horizontal drains in the You-Ye-Lin
simple compared to the configuration of horizontal drains in the You-Ye-Lin landslide where the landslide where the
horizontal drains
horizontal drains are
are installed
installedon onthe
thedrainage
drainagewells
wellsinina multi-level
a multi-level and fan-shape
and fan-shape configuration.
configuration.In
particular, although a large number of drainage wells have been constructed
In particular, although a large number of drainage wells have been constructed to improve the stability to improve the
stability
of of large
large scale scale landslides
landslides in Taiwan, in none
Taiwan, none effects
of their of theironeffects on the groundwater
the groundwater drawdown drawdown
and the
and the
slope slope stabilization
stabilization mechanism mechanism
have everhave evercautiously
been been cautiously inspected
inspected up-to-date.
up-to-date. In thisIn study,
this study,
the
the efficiency of the subsurface drainage system installed in the You-Ye-Lin
efficiency of the subsurface drainage system installed in the You-Ye-Lin landside is evaluated. Using landside is evaluated.
Using monitoring
monitoring data and data and numerical
numerical techniques,
techniques, this studythisaims
study aims at proposing
at proposing a practicala andpractical and
operative
operative three-dimensional
three-dimensional (3D) evaluation (3D)method
evaluation method
to quantify the to quantify
drainage the drainage
efficiency efficiency
of horizontal of
drains in
horizontal drains in response to the torrential rainfall during the typhoon
response to the torrential rainfall during the typhoon season. In this method, the groundwater level season. In this method,
the groundwater
variation evaluated level
usingvariation evaluatedrainfall
the complicated using the complicated
induced seepage rainfall
analysisinduced seepage analysis
in the unsaturated soil is
in the unsaturated soil is replaced by
replaced by the monitoring groundwater level data.the monitoring groundwater level data.

2. You-Ye-Lin landslide
landslide

2.1. Location of the Landslide

As shown
shown ininFigure
Figure1,1,the
theYou-Ye-Lin
You-Ye-Lin landslide is located
landslide in Chai-Yi
is located County
in Chai-Yi Countyand and
covers an area
covers an
of around 40 hectares. The main transportation route in this area is the county road
area of around 40 hectares. The main transportation route in this area is the county road Route-No. Route-No. 166.
The
166. main business
The main activities
business in thisin
activities area
thisare tea are
area manufacture, bamboobamboo
tea manufacture, shoot processing and tourism.
shoot processing and
The torrential rainfall during Typhoon Morakot (08/08–08/09) in 2008 triggered a
tourism. The torrential rainfall during Typhoon Morakot (08/08–08/09) in 2008 triggered a massive massive landslide
which endangered
landslide the safety of residential
which endangered the safetyhouses, agricultural
of residential crops and
houses, the transportation
agricultural crops and system.
the
According to thesystem.
transportation long-term monitoring
According to data and the distribution
the long-term monitoring of residential
data and areas, the study area
the distribution of
of the You-Ye-Lin landslide selected for further investigation and advanced analysis
residential areas, the study area of the You-Ye-Lin landslide selected for further investigation and is delineated in
Figure
advanced1. analysis is delineated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Satellite
Satellite image
image of
of the
the location
location of
of You-Ye-Lin landslide, study
You-Ye-Lin landslide, study area,
area, topography
topography and
and flows
flows in
in
the landslide.
the landslide.

2.2. Climate, Topography

2.2. Climate, Topography and
and Geology
Geology of
of the
the Landslide
Landslide
The average
averagetemperature
temperatureinin
You-Ye-Lin
You-Ye-Linlandslide areaarea
landslide is about 23.0 ◦ C.
is about The
23.0 °C.
annual averageaverage
The annual rainfall
approximates 3050 mm
rainfall approximates andmm
3,050 the and
annual
the average number number
annual average of rainy of
days is 166
rainy daysbased
is 166onbased
the rainfall
on the
rainfall records from 2003 to 2016. Most of the precipitation falls during summer (from May to
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 3 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

OR PEER REVIEW records 3 of from23 2003 to 2016. Most of the 3 ofprecipitation
23 falls during
3 of 23 summer (from May to September).
September). From October From October 3 toof the to the following
23 following March,
3 of 23the March, weather the weather
turns intoturns a dryintoseason a dryandseason
the plum andrainthe season
nswing October
intoMarch, a dry plum
to the
the
seasonrain
following
weather season
and the
turnsstarts
March, intofrom
the a
starts from the end of May to the beginning of June.the
weather
dry end
season of May
turns and to
into the
the a beginning
dry season of June.
and the
starts
May
her g March, tofrom
turns theinto the
the aThe
beginning
end
weather
dry ofterrain
May
of
season
The June.
turns ofand
to thebeginning
the
terraininto landslide
the
a dry
of is
of wavy
season
the landslide June. andiswiththe a with
wavy smallaflat small ground area. The
flat ground landslide
area. area descends
The landslide area descends
yy f The
the
with
June.
to thelandslide
landslide
a beginning
small from flat north
isareawavy
ground
ofdescends
from to
June.withsouth
north area. between
atosmallThe
south landslide
flat the elevation
ground
between area
thearea. of 820
descends
The
elevation m 820
landslide
of andmarea1,110 m
anddescends
1110 with an average
m with an averageelevation of 1,000
elevation of 1000 m.
th
ndon
ithanbetween
average
of
area. 820The
a small m the
elevation
and
flat elevation
landslide
m. TheThe 1,110
ground slope of m 1,000
area
area.
slope of
with
S (%) 820 an
descends
The
S (%) m average
and
landslide
or slope
or slope 1,110
angle area
angle β (degree°)
elevation
m β (degree of
with
descends of
an 1,000
average
◦ ) ofthe elevation
thelandslide
landslidearea of 1,000
areavaries
variesfromfrom grade-3 (15% < S ≦ 30% or
grade-3 (15%＜S
m of
ries
gree°)
) or with
820
from
slope manthe
of and average
grade-3
angle 1,110 β
landslide elevation
m◦with
(15%＜S
(degree°)
8.53 <
area β ≦an of
varies
of average
1,000
the
16.70 ◦landslide
from
) to elevation
grade-3
grade-6 area of
(15%＜S1,000
varies
(55%
30% or 8.53°＜β≦16.70°) to grade-6 (55%＜S≦100% or 28.81°＜β≦45°) and most of the landslide is < S ≦
from grade-3
100% or (15%＜S
28.81 ◦ < β ≦ 45◦ ) and most of the landslide is at

is <from
e°)
area of varies
the landslide
from grade-3 areaβvaries
grade-5 (15%＜S
(40% S≦ grade-3
55% or 21.80(15%＜S ◦ < β ≦ 28.81◦ ). The landslide area can be delineated in the watershed
%＜S≦100%
16.70°)
) and most to grade-6
atof or the 28.81°＜
grade-5 landslide
(55%＜S≦100% ≦45°)
(40%＜S≦55% and ormost 28.81°＜
or of the
21.80°＜ β≦45°)landslide and is
β≦28.81°). mostThe of the landslidearea
landslide is can be delineated in the
＜ β ≦45°)
S≦100% and
or 28.81°＜
most ofofthe β ≦45°)
the Shen-Mao-Shu
landslide
and most is ofRiver
the which flows
landslide is through the southern valley of the landslide area (refer to
＜S≦55%
ea β≦28.81°).
can be or delineated
The21.80°＜
watershed landslide βin
of ≦28.81°).
thethe area can
Shen-Mao-ShuThe be landslide
delineated
Riverarea whichincan the be delineated in southern
the
Figure 1). The slope of the valley is steep,flows with through
well-developed the ditch shapevalleyerosion
of the gullies
landslide which are
≦28.81°).
lide
thern area
Shen-Mao-Shu
whichvalley The
flows can
area of landslide
be(refer
through
River
the delineated
to
landslide
which
the area
Figure
southern can
in
flows 1). thebe
The delineated
through
valleyslope ofthe of
the thein
southern the
valley
landslide is
valley steep,of with
the well-developed
landslide ditch shape erosion
liable to collapse. Meanwhile, because of severe longitudinal and transverse erosions of the channel
ure
eveloped
theeich valley
1). The
southern
flows is gullies
ditch
slope
steep,
through shape
valley of which
with
bed the
the erosion
ofof the are
well-developed
valley
southern liable
is steep,
landslide
Shen-Mao-Shu valley to River,
collapse.
ditch
with
of thewell-developed
shape
the Meanwhile,
landslide
slopes erosionwithinditch because shape
the watershed of erosion
severe
become longitudinal
very unstable andduring
transverse
the typhoon
Meanwhile,
longitudinal
liableis to
alley
well-developed erosions
steep,collapse.
because
and
with ditch ofof the
transverse
Meanwhile,
severe
well-developed
shape channel bed
longitudinal
erosion because ditchof Shen-Mao-Shu
of and
shape severe transverse
erosion River,
longitudinal
season. In addition, Hai-Tu-Lun Creek which flows through the landslide area from north theandslopes within
transverse the watershed become very to south
nnwhile,
annel
o-Shu
the watershed
severe bed
River, unstable
of
longitudinal
because Shen-Mao-Shu
thebecomeslopes
of during
severe
and within
very the
River,
transverse typhoon
the
longitudinal the
watershed
slopesseason.
and within
become In
transverse addition,
thevery
cuts the landslide area into eastern and western topographic blocks (refer to Figure 1). watershed Hai-Tu-Lun
become Creek
very which flows through the
ek
ShuIn
shewithinwhich
addition,
typhoon
River,the landslide
flows
the Hai-Tu-Lun
season.
watershed
slopesthrough area
In
within
Due from
addition,
the
Creek
become tothethe north
which
very
watershed to flows
Hai-Tu-Lun
watershed southbecome cuts
through
Creek
boundaries thewhich
very landslide
theformed flows area
bythroughintoeastern
the eastern
the and andwestern
westernmountain
topographic ridges of
ern
saddition,
un mthe north
and
Creeklandslide
western
to blocks
south
Hai-Tu-Lun
which area (refer
topographic
cuts
flows into to
the
Creek Figure
eastern
through landslide
which 1).
and
the area
western
flows into
through topographic
eastern the and western
Hai-Tu-Lun Creek, the run-off of watershed is collected into Hai-Tu-Lun Creek and drains southward topographic
gure
he 1).
to landslide
eastern and area Due
western
into
into tothe the
eastern watershed
topographic
Shen-Mao-Shuand western boundaries
River. Theformed
topographic removalby of thethe slope
eastern toeand western mountain
of Hai-Tu-Lun Creek due ridges of bank
to severe
watershed
western
formed mountain byHai-Tu-Lun
boundaries
the eastern ridges Creek,
formedandof the
western
by therun-off
eastern
mountain of watershed
and ridges
western of is collected
mountain
erosion may lead to a slope failure. This failure mechanism is verified by the wide spreading of scarps into
ridges Hai-Tu-Lun
of Creek and drains
atershed
k, i-Tu-Lun
rmed
n andthe by run-offsouthward
isthe
Creek
western collected
of
eastern and
mountain
and into
watersheddrains
and
tension the
western
ridges Shen-Mao-Shu
Hai-Tu-Lun
is collected
cracks ofmountain
at the Creek intoRiver.
creek and
ridgesbanks.The
Hai-Tu-Lunof removal
drains Moreover, Creek of the
the
and slope toe of Hai-Tu-Lun
drains
construction disturbanceCreek of thedue to road
county
r.ento
ofShen-Mao-Shu
shed TheHai-Tu-Lun
removal
Hai-Tu-Lun
is severe
collected ofCreekbank
River.
the
Creek
into erosion
slope
dueThe to
toe
removal
Hai-Tu-Lun
and may
of
drains lead
Hai-Tu-Lun
of the
Creek to a
slope
and slope
Creek toe
drains failure.
of
due Hai-Tu-Lun
to This
Route-No. 166, which crosses through the entire hillside of You-Ye-Lin landslide, frequently triggers failure
Creek mechanism
due to is verified by the wide
nism
pe
on he failure.
lope may is verified
removal
toe lead
of spreading
This
oftothe
Hai-Tu-Lun failure
aby slope
slope theoffailures
scarps
mechanism
wide
failure.
Creek
toe of due and
inThis totension
Hai-Tu-Lun
the istyphoon
failure
verified cracks
mechanism
Creek by due
season. at the
the wide
to
The creek
issliding banks.
verified soilby Moreover,
mass theofwide the construction
You-Ye-Lin landslide disturbance
can be conjectured
ps at
the
failure.and
theconstruction
mechanism creek
tension
This ofbanks.
the
failure
is county
cracksdisturbance
as Moreover,
verified at byroad
mechanism
ancient the the Route-No.
creek the isbanks.
wide
colluviums verified 166,
construction
underlainbywhich
Moreover, the crosses
disturbance
bywidethe through
the construction
bedrock. Thethe entire hillside
disturbance
colluviums slideofdownward
You-Ye-Linalong landslide,
the interface
hside Route-No.
crosses
reover,
he of You-Ye-Lin
creek the frequently
through166,
banks. which
construction the
Moreover, triggers
landslide,
entire
crosses hillside
disturbance
the slope
through of
construction failures
You-Ye-Lin
the entire in the
hillside
disturbance typhoon
landslide, of season.
You-Ye-Lin
with the underlain sandstone because the soil mass absorbs the rainwater and increases the self-weight. The sliding
landslide, soil mass of You-Ye-Lin
he
ng
ntire s slope
osses typhoon
soil
hillside mass
through landslide
failures season.
of of
the in
You-Ye-Lin
entire
After can
You-Ye-Lin
the
The be
typhoon
hillside
the conjectured
sliding
landslide,
inspection, ofsoilseason.
You-Ye-Lin as ancient
mass
there The oflandslide,
seems nocolluviums
sliding
You-Ye-Lin soil mass
indication underlain by theplane
thatoftheYou-Ye-Lin
sliding bedrock.
extends Theinto
colluviums
the bedrock slideand as a
onjectured
he colluviums
edrock.
typhoon sliding The downward
asunderlain
season.
soilcolluviums
ancient
mass The ofalong
colluviums
by slide
the
sliding
You-Ye-Linthe
bedrock.
soil interface
underlain
mass The of with
colluviums
by thethe
You-Ye-Lin
consequence the ground movement is only within the uppermost colluviums. underlain
bedrock.
slide The sandstone
colluviums because
slide the soil mass absorbs the
se
by ethe
luviums underlain
theinterface
soil
bedrock. rainwater
mass
underlain sandstone
with
The absorbs
bythe and
colluviums
the increases
underlain
because
the
bedrock. the
slide the
sandstone
The soil self-weight.
mass
colluviums because
absorbs After
slide the the the
soil inspection,
mass
The strike of bedding plane of soil stratum in the You-Ye-Lin landslide directs towards north by absorbs there the seems no indication that the
seems
t.reases
underlain Afterno
because the
the sliding
indication
self-weight.
inspection,
sandstone
the soileast plane
mass that
because
(NE) extends
After
therethe
absorbs
and seems
the into
the
soil the
inspection,
no
topographicallymass bedrock
indication there
absorbs andthat
seems
the
constitutes asthe a no
consequence
a dipindication
slope. The the ground
thatLu-Kuthe fault movement is only within
passes through the southern
and
nds
After nd theremovement
into
asthe aseems
the the
consequence
inspection, uppermost
bedrock
nois onlyindicationand
the
within
there colluviums.
as
grounda
seems
that consequence
movement
the
no indication the is ground
only
that within
the movement
edge of the landslide with a strike of north by east (NE) and turns into a reverse fault inclined to the is only within
luviums.
he asground
a consequence movement The east strike
the is
ground
with ofanbedding
only within
movement
inclination plane is of
angle only soil
of 50 stratum
within
◦ . The outcropsin the You-Ye-Lin
of the You-Ye-Lin landslide directs towards
landslide, which arenorth situated on
ndslide
bedding
stratumdirects in by
plane theeast
towards
of the (NE)
You-Ye-Lin
soil western andlandslide
stratum
north topographically
in the
side of theYou-Ye-Lin
directs
Lu-Ku constitutes
towards landslide
Fault, can abe
north dip
directs slope.
towards
categorized The Lu-Ku
asnorth
part fault
of the passes Cho-Lan
Pliocene through Formation
the
Ku
stitutes
atumtopographically
-Lin faultin athe
landslide southern
passes
dip slope.
You-Ye-Lin through
directs edge
constitutes
The
towards of
the
Lu-Ku
landslide the
a landslide
dip
north fault slope.
directs passes with
The
towards a strike
through
Lu-Ku north of
fault
the north
passes
which consists of thick sandstone (Ss), shale (Sh), and sandstone/shale (Ss/Sh) alternating as shown in by east
through (NE) theand turns into a reverse fault
strike
nd the
he turns
utes landslide
a ofdip
Lu-Ku inclined
north
intofault with
slope.aby reverse
passes
Theatostrike
east
Figure the
(NE)
fault
Lu-Ku east
through
2a–c. ofand with
north
fault turns
the an
passes inclination
by into
eastthrough
a(NE)reverse angle
and the fault
turns of 50°.
into The a reverseoutcrops faultof the You-Ye-Lin landslide,
nofkest angle
(NE)the
with
of north
and anwhich
You-Ye-Lin
of 50°.
inclination
turns
by east The arelandslide,
into situated
outcrops
(NE) angle
aField
reverse
and on
of
of
turnsthe
the western
50°.
fault
investigations You-Ye-Lin
The aoutcrops
into and side
reverseboringof the
landslide,
of
fault Lu-Ku
the
explorations Fault,
You-Ye-Lin canlandslide,
indicate be that
categorized
the surficialas part of the Pliocene
colluvium of You-Ye-Lin
ngleorized
fon thethe
tcrops Lu-Ku
of as
of
50°. Cho-Lan
western
part
the Fault,
The ofsidethe
You-Ye-Lincan
outcropsFormation
Pliocene
of bethe categorized
Lu-Ku
landslide,
of thewhich Fault, consists
as
You-Ye-Lin part
can be
of of thick
categorized
the
landslide,Pliocenesandstone
landslide has a thickness of 8.65–35.8 m and is composed of unconsolidated sandy, silty, as part (Ss),
of theshale
Pliocene(Sh), and sandstone/shale (Ss/Sh)
or clayey
on
hehick
beand which
Lu-Kusandstone
categorized alternating
sandstone/shale
consists
Fault, as(Ss),
can of
part be as
shale
thick
of shown
(Ss/Sh) (Sh),
sandstone
categorized
the Pliocenein
and Figures
as sandstone/shale
(Ss),
part shale
of2(a)–(c).
the (Sh),
Pliocene (Ss/Sh)
and sandstone/shale
soil mixed with weathered rock or rock fragments as shown in Figure 2d. The bedding plane is not (Ss/Sh)
wn
kale in
sandstone
(Sh),Figures
and(Ss), Field
2(a)–(c).
sandstone/shale
shale
availableinvestigations
(Sh),inand (Ss/Sh)
the and boring
sandstone/shale
weathered rock explorations
(Ss/Sh)
or rock fragment, indicateasthat the surficial
a result, colluvium
the overall of You-Ye-Lin
mechanical behavior of the
lorations
ations
cial colluvium landslide
andindicate
boring of colluvium has
You-Ye-Lin
that thea surficial
explorations thickness
is dominated by fine particle soils. The soil of the colluvium can be classifiedclayey
indicate of
colluvium8.65–35.8
that theof m and
surficial
You-Ye-Lin is composed
colluvium of of unconsolidated
You-Ye-Lin sandy, silty, or as clay or silt
ickness
idated
ationsand
he isindicate
sandy,
surficial of soil
composed
8.65–35.8 mixed
silty,
colluvium
that of
with or
the with
munconsolidated
clayey
and
of
surficial
low weathered
is
You-Ye-Lincomposed
plasticity colluvium (CL rock
sandy,of orsilty,
ML) rock
orofunconsolidated
or or
You-Ye-Lin fragments
siltyclayey
sandsandy,(SM)as shown
silty, or
mixed inclayey
with Figure 2(d). The bedding
rock fragments. plane is color
A thin grey-black
weathered
knconsolidated
efragments
d 2(d).
is composed The not
rock as available
beddingor
shown
sandy, rock
ofshale plane
in
unconsolidated inFigure
silty,
with the
fragments is
or weathered
clayey
intercalary2(d).
as
sandy,shown
The rock
bedding
silty,
strata in(oror rock
Figure plane
orinter-bed)
clayey fragment,
2(d).isofThe assilty
finebeddinga result, plane
sandstone the overall
is(Sh/Ss)mechanical
is underlainbehavior of
by the colluvium.
ock
verall
e weathered
in
agments fragment,
Figure mechanical
as the
2(d). rock
shown colluvium
asTheaIt or
behavior
result,
inrock
bedding
Figure is
the dominated
fragment,
of overall
plane
2(d). as
The
is by
mechanical
a fine
result,
bedding particle
thebehavior
overall
plane soils.
is of The
mechanical
is considered that a large ancient landslide occurred in You-Ye-Lin area and the potential slidingsoil of the
behavior colluvium
of can be classified as clay
vium ominated
icle
t, thesoils.
fragment, can
overall beor
The
by silt
asclassified
fine
soil
amechanical
result,with
particle
of the
surface aslow
the colluvium
clay
soils.
behavior
overall
(PSS) plasticity
The soil(CL
ofcan
mechanical
developed be
ofalong orbehavior
ML)
classified
the colluvium
this thinor silty
asofclay cansand
shale be
layer. (SM)
classified mixed
As a proof, as clay with
the rockcore
boring fragments.
of the shale A thin
layer taken
with
eplasticity
he ) soils.
or rock
silty
colluvium The(CL grey-black
fragments.
sand
soil
can or
of(SM)
be ML)
the color
A
mixed
or
classified thin
colluvium shale
silty with
as sand
clay
can with
rock
be(SM) intercalary
fragments.
mixed
classified as strata
with
A
clay thin
rock (or
from the landslide area frequently shows traces of shearing and fragmentation. The base bedrock inter-bed)
fragments. A of fine
thin silty sandstone (Sh/Ss) is in
yrshale
mixede silty
strata
siltywith with
sand underlain
sandstone
(or intercalary
inter-bed)
rock
(SM) by
(Sh/Ss)
fragments.
mixed the
strata
of is
withcolluvium.
fine A (or silty
rock
thin It
inter-bed) is
sandstone
fragments. considered
of fine
(Sh/Ss)
A thin that
silty is a large
sandstone
the landslide area is a thick and layered sandstone (Ss) with greyish white color and the thickness is ancient(Sh/Ss) landslide
is occurred in You-Ye-Lin
dered
colluvium.
)slide
trata
of fineoccurred
that
(or silty area
ainter-bed)
Itlarge
isin and
considered
You-Ye-Lin
ancient
sandstone
more theofthanpotential
landslide
fine that
(Sh/Ss)
25siltym.a sliding
large
occurred
is
sandstone surface
ancient in(Sh/Ss)(PSS) isdeveloped
landslide
You-Ye-Lin occurred along this thin shale layer. As a proof, the
in You-Ye-Lin
nPSS)
ntial
dshale
nt that developed
sliding
landslidealayer. boring
large surface
As
occurred
ancientacore
along proof,
(PSS)of
this
in the
the
landslidedeveloped
thin shale
You-Ye-Lin shale layer
occurred taken
layer.
along inAs this from
athin
You-Ye-Lin the
proof, landslide
shale thelayer. area As afrequently
proof, theshows traces of shearing and
mthis shale
shows
) the landslide
developed
thinlayer
traces fragmentation.
shale takenofarea
along shearing
layer. from frequently
this Asthe thin The
aand landslide
proof,shalebase
shows the bedrock
area
layer.traces As ainproof,
frequently
of the landslide
shearing shows
theandtraces areaofisshearing
a thick and and layered sandstone (Ss) with
equently
elayered
landslide
base bedrock
landslide shows greyish
sandstone
area
area in
is
traces white
athe
frequently (Ss)
thick color
oflandslide
with and
shearing shows andlayered
area
and the is
traces thickness
sandstone
aofthick
shearing is
andmore
(Ss) than 25
layered
and with m.
sandstone (Ss) with
more
r and
ndslide
ick and than
thearea thickness
25 is
layered m.asandstone
thickis more and than (Ss)
layered 25 m.
with sandstone (Ss) with
re than 25 m.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 4 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 2. Geological characteristics of You-Ye-Lin landslide (a) sandstone (b) shale (c) sandstone/shale
Figure 2. Geological characteristics of You-Ye-Lin landslide (a) sandstone (b) shale (c)
alternative (d) colluvium.
Figure 2. Geological
sandstone/shale characteristics
alternative of You-Ye-Lin landslide (a) sandstone (b) shale (c)
(d) colluvium.
sandstone/shale alternative
2.3. Landslide of You-Ye-Lin (d) colluvium.
2.3. Landslide of You-Ye-Lin
2.3. Slope failures
Landslide occurred frequently in You-Ye-Lin landslide due to inherently adverse topographical,
of You-Ye-Lin
Slopeand
geological, failures occurred
hydrological frequently
influence factors in and
You-Ye-Lin
poor drainage landslide due toDuring
conditions. inherently adverse
the attack of
Slope
topographical, failures occurred
geological, and frequently
hydrological in You-Ye-Lin
influence landslide
factors and due
poor to inherently
drainage adverse
conditions. During
Typhoon Morakot
topographical,
in 2009and
geological,
(2009/08/06–08/09),
hydrological
the heavy rainfall
influence factors and
(a maximum 24-hour cumulative
the attack
rainfall of of Typhoon
1080 mm) causedMorakot
serious indamage
2009 (2009/08/06–08/09),
to transportation thepoor
heavy
routes,
drainage
rainfall
residential
conditions.
(a maximum
buildings
During
and 24-hour
public
the attack of Typhoon Morakot in 2009 (2009/08/06–08/09), the heavy rainfall (a maximum 24-hour
cumulative
facilities, rainfall
as shown of 1,080 mm) caused serious damage to transportation routes, residential
cumulative rainfallinofFigure
1,080 3.mm) A few yearsserious
caused later, after a 3-day
damage to rainfall with a cumulative
transportation rainfall of
routes, residential
buildings
629 mm and the
during public facilities,
attack of as shown
Typhoon in Figure
Soudelar 3. A few years another
(2015/08/06–08/09), later, after a 3-day precipitation
sequential rainfall with a
buildings and public facilities, as shown in Figure 3. A few years later, after a 3-day rainfall with a
cumulative
lasting rainfall ofto629
from rainfall
2015/08/09 mm during the numerous attack of Typhoon Soudelar (2015/08/06–08/09), another
cumulative of 6292015/09/01
mm duringcaused the attack of Typhoon tension cracks
Soudelar and subsidence
(2015/08/06–08/09), of county
anotherroad
sequential precipitation
Route-No. lasting from 2015/08/09 toMegi
2015/09/01 caused numerous tension rainfall
cracks and
sequential 166. Recently,lasting
precipitation the rainfall from
from 2015/08/09Typhoon to 2015/09/01 (2016/09/25–09/28)
caused numerous (a tension
cumulative cracks and of
subsidence
776 mm and of of county
maximum road Route-No.
dailyRoute-No.
rainfall of166. 166. Recently,
481 Recently,
mm/day on the rainfall from Typhoon Megi (2016/09/25–
subsidence county road the2106/09/26)
rainfall from enlarged
Typhoon theMegi
existing cracks again
(2016/09/25–
09/28)
and
09/28) (a(acumulative
caused cumulative
many small rainfall
scale of
rainfall of
slope
776 776 mm
failures.
mm andandEven maximum
maximum though daily
the
daily rainfall
movement
rainfall of mm/day
of
of 481 481 You-Ye-Lin
the mm/day onlandslide
2106/09/26)
on 2106/09/26) is
enlarged
enlarged slow
relatively the existing
the existing
and minor cracks
cracks again
again and
compared and caused
caused
to other many
severe many small
small scale
landslide scale
events slope slope failures.
failures.
occurred Even
Even though
in Taiwan, though
the the
the long-term
movement
movement ofofthe
displacement of the You-Ye-Lin
theYou-Ye-Lin landslide
landslide
slope still causes is relatively
is relatively
damages slow
slow and
to structures and minor
minor compared
and maintenance compared to other
to other severe
and stabilization severe
works
landslide
landslide
are eventsoccurred
events
still needed. occurredinin Taiwan,
Taiwan, thethe long-term
long-term displacement
displacement of slope
of the the slope still causes
still causes damagesdamages
tostructures
to structuresand andmaintenance
maintenance andand stabilization
stabilization works
works are are
stillstill needed.
needed.

(a) Tension crack on main road (b) Tension crack of buildings (c) Slope failure of main road
(a) Tension crack on main road (b) Tension crack of buildings (c) Slope failure of main road
Figure 3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 5 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

(d) Road subsidence due to sliding (e) Road subsidence due to damage (f) Damage of retaining wall
failure of retaining wall
(d) Road subsidence due to sliding (e) Road subsidence due to damage (f) Damage of retaining wall
Figure 3.failure
Damages caused by Typhoons of retaining wall
Morakot (2009/August/08–09) and Megi
(2016/September/27–28)
Figure 3. Damages
3. Damages in You-Ye-Lin landslide.
Figure causedcaused by Morakot
by Typhoons Typhoons Morakot (2009/August/08–09)
(2009/August/08–09) and Megi
and Megi (2016/September/27–28)
(2016/September/27–28)
in You-Ye-Lin landslide.in You-Ye-Lin landslide.
2.3.1. Field Monitoring
2.3.1.
2.3.1. Field Monitoring
Monitoring
After the large scale landslide in 2009, a remediation plan was initiated and approved by the
AfterWater
Soil After
and the large
the large scale landslide
landslide
Conservation
scale in 2009,
Bureau
in 2009, aa remediation
remediation
(SWCB), Taiwan.planThe
wasremediation approved
initiated andworks
approved by the Soil
encompassed
Soil Water
ground
and andsills,
Water Conservation
retaining
Conservation walls, Bureau
Bureau revetments,
(SWCB), (SWCB), check
Taiwan. Taiwan.
dams,
The The remediation
shallow
remediation works
horizontal
works encompassed
drains
encompassed and
groundsurface
sills,
ground
drainages. sills,
retaining walls, retaining
In addition,
revetments,walls,
in check revetments,
orderdams,
to design check
shallow a highdams, shallow
efficiency
horizontal horizontal
drainssubsurface drains
and surfacedrainage and surface
drainages.system (two
In addition,
drainages.
drainage
in order towellsIn addition,
design with in orderdrains),
horizontal
a high efficiency tosubsurface
design the aSWCBhigh efficiency
systemsubsurface
implemented
drainage (two drainage
a systematic
drainage system
field
wells (two to
monitoring
with horizontal
drainage
clarify
drains), thewells
the withimplemented
mechanism
SWCB horizontal drains),
triggering thethelandslide.
a systematic SWCB fieldimplemented
As shownto
monitoring a systematic
in thefield
Figure
clarify monitoring
4, inclinometer
mechanism to and
triggering
clarify
groundwater
the the mechanism
landslide. level
As shown intriggering
monitoring Figure the (B04-W,
stations landslide.
4, inclinometer Asgroundwater
B08-W,
and shown B10-W,
B09-W, in level
Figure 4, inclinometer
B12-W) werestations
monitoring and
installed in the
(B04-W,
groundwater level monitoring stations (B04-W, B08-W, B09-W, B10-W, B12-W) were installed in the
study area.
B08-W, B09-W, Residential areas (RA-1,
B10-W, B12-W) RA-2, and
were installed inRA-3) are the
the study area.main targets to
Residential be protected.
areas (RA-1, RA-2, In and
this
study area. Residential areas (RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3) are the main targets to be protected. In this
study, are
RA-3) thethe
numerical resultstoofbedrainage
main targets protected. and Inslope stability
this study, theanalyses
numerical along A-A′ofand
results B-B′ profiles
drainage and slopeare
study, the numerical results of 0 drainage 0 and slope stability analyses along A-A′ and B-B′ profiles are
adopted for detailed
stability analyses discussions.
along A-A and B-B profiles are adopted for detailed discussions.
adopted for detailed discussions.

Figure 4. Monitoring points and drainage systems in the You-Ye-Lin landslide.

Figure 4.
Figure Monitoring points
4. Monitoring points and
and drainage
drainage systems
systems inin the
the You-Ye-Lin
You-Ye-Lin landslide.
2.3.2. Groundwater
2.3.2. Groundwater Levels
Levels
2.3.2. Groundwater Levels
Figure 55 illustrates
Figure illustrates the
the variation
variation ofof groundwater
groundwater level
level with
with the
the rainfall
rainfall hyetograph
hyetograph showing
showing the
Figure 5 illustrates
the groundwater the variation
rise/drawdown of groundwater
in response level
to the torrential with during
rainfall the rainfall hyetograph
typhoons. As shown showing
in
groundwater
the groundwater rise/drawdown
rise/drawdown in response
in responseto the torrential rainfall during typhoons. As shown in
Figure 5(a), monitoring point B09-W indicatestothat
the torrential rainfall level
the groundwater during typhoons.
gradually Astoshown
rose the in
Figure 5a,
Figure monitoring point B09-W indicates that the groundwater level gradually rose to rose
the highest
highest5(a),
levelmonitoring
4–6 days afterpoint
the B09-W
attack ofindicates
Typhoonthat the groundwater
Dujuan. level gradually
Then, the groundwater to the
level gradually
level
highest4–6 days
level after
4–6 the
days attack
after of
the Typhoon
attack of Dujuan.
Typhoon Then, the
Dujuan. groundwater
Then, the level
groundwatergradually
level decreased
gradually
decreased to the level before the attack of Typhoon Dujuan after 10–15 days. The time-lagging
to the levelto
decreased before the attack
the level before of the
Typhoon
attackDujuan after 10–15
of Typhoon Dujuan days.
afterThe time-lagging
10–15 days. Theresponse of the
time-lagging
 slope stability and causes the onset of the ground movement. Further on, at the middle to bottom
slope of the study area, a thin shale layer of 2.0–4.5 m underlain by the colluvium is also
impermeable and the infiltrated rainwater accumulates on top of this layer causing the ground
movement of the slope (refer to Figure 6 for inclinometer measurement at B09-W borehole).
During Typhoon Megi (2016/09/25–09/28), as displayed in Figure 5(b), the groundwater level at
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 6 of 23
monitoring point B09-W was not immediately respond to the principal rainfall until 2016/10/01.
This time-lag of the groundwater rise can be attributed to the installation of several groups of
parallel
groundwater shallow
level tohorizontal drains
the rainfall implies(see
thatFigures 4) for
the overall subsurfaceofdrainage.
permeability soil stratumComparing the
in the landslide
monitoring point of B12-W (Figure 5(c)) with B09-W (Figure 5(b)), it can be found
area is comparatively low and may be lower than the average rainfall intensity. As a consequence, that groundwater
theresponses
infiltrated ofrainwater
these two ismonitoring
preservedpoints are correlated
in colluviums during
(CL–ML) dueTyphoon
to the lowMegi (2016/09/25–09/28)
permeability of fine soil
and both have the time-lag responses.
particle. The preserved water becomes an adverse factor to the slope stability and causes the onset of
According to the topographic and geologic features of the You-Ye-Lin landslide, it is estimated
the ground movement. Further on, at the middle to bottom slope of the study area, a thin shale layer
that a sequential rainfall after a principal rainfall with cumulative rainfall more than 800 mm may
of 2.0–4.5 m underlain by the colluvium is also impermeable and the infiltrated rainwater accumulates
trigger ground movement locally. The auto-recording rain gauge used for the monitoring program
on top of this layer causing the ground movement of the slope (refer to Figure 6 for inclinometer
is presented in Figure 5(d). The monitoring results of groundwater during 3 typhoon events are
measurement
summarizedat inB09-W
Table 1.borehole).

(a) B09-W (b) B09-W

(c) B12-W (d) Auto-recording rain gauge

Figure
Figure 5.5.Groundwater
Groundwaterlevel
leveland
and rainfall
rainfall time
time histories
historiesof
ofmonitoring
monitoringpoints
pointsB09-W
B09-Wand B12-W.
and B12-W.

During Typhoon Megi Table 1. Groundwater rise

(2016/09/25–09/28), during typhoon
as displayed events.5b, the groundwater level at
in Figure
monitoring point B09-W was not immediately respond to
Initial the principal
Maximum rainfall until 2016/10/01.
Groundwater Cumulative This
Observation
time-lag Typhoon
of the groundwater rise can be attributed to groundwater
groundwater the installation of several
level rise groups of parallel
rainfall
Well
level (m) level (m) (m)
shallow horizontal drains (see Figure 4) for subsurface drainage. Comparing the monitoring point (mm)
of B12-WSoudelor B08-W (Figure 5b),
(Figure 5c) with B09-W -11.60it can be found
-7.39 that groundwater
4.21 314 of these
responses
(2015/Aug./06–09) B09-W -34.00 -21.19 12.81 252
two monitoring points are correlated during Typhoon Megi (2016/09/25–09/28) and both have the
time-lag responses.
According to the topographic and geologic features of the You-Ye-Lin landslide, it is estimated that
a sequential rainfall after a principal rainfall with cumulative rainfall more than 800 mm may trigger
ground movement locally. The auto-recording rain gauge used for the monitoring program is presented
in Figure 5d. The monitoring results of groundwater during 3 typhoon events are summarized in
Table 1.
Measurements of groundwater levels are directly adopted for the numerical analyses to include
the rainfall effect instead of the infiltration and seepage analyses for unsaturated soil strata.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, 3346
x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of 23
23

(mm/day)
Table 1. Groundwater rise during typhoon events. 44 (mm/hr)
B08-W -6.88 -6.72 0.16 194
Initial Maximum Groundwater Cumulative
Dujuan Observation 144
Typhoon Groundwater Groundwater Level Rise Rainfall
Well
(2015/Sep./27–29) B09-W -35.22
Level (m) -24.32
Level (m) 10.90
(m) (mm/day)
(mm)
B08-W −11.60 −7.39 4.21 33 314
(mm/hr)
Soudelor 252 (mm/day)
B08-W -16.20 -15.00 1.20 484
(2015/Aug./06–09) B09-W −34.00 −21.19 12.81 44 (mm/hr)
Megi B09-W malfunction malfunction malfunction 345
(2016/Sep./27–28) B08-W −6.88 −6.72 0.16 194
(mm/day)
Dujuan B12-W -16.90 -12.97* 3.93 144 (mm/day)
(2015/Sep./27–29) B09-W −35.22 −24.32 10.90 3349(mm/hr)
(mm/hr)
-12.97 m*=the measured maximum
B08-W
groundwater
−16.20
level of B12-W
−15.00
during Typhoon
1.20
Megi was used to
calibrate the calculated initial groundwater level of numerical model.
Megi 484
B09-W malfunction malfunction malfunction 345 (mm/day)
(2016/Sep./27–28)
49 (mm/hr)
B12-W −16.90 −12.97* 3.93
Measurements of groundwater levels are directly adopted for the numerical analyses to
−12.97 m* = the measured maximum groundwater level of B12-W during Typhoon Megi was used to calibrate the
include the rainfall effect instead of the infiltration and seepage analyses for unsaturated soil strata.
calculated initial groundwater level of numerical model.

2.3.3. Ground Movements

2.3.3. Ground Movements
During Typhoon Megi (2016/09/25–09/28), the monitoring points B12-W, B09-W, and B10-W
During Typhoon Megi (2016/09/25–09/28), the monitoring points B12-W, B09-W, and B10-W
arrayed from upslope to downslope indicated that the maximum lateral displacements were 138.96,
arrayed from upslope to downslope indicated that the maximum lateral displacements were 138.96,
73.08 and 40.50 mm, respectively, and the corresponding depth of the potential sliding surface (PSS)
73.08 and 40.50 mm, respectively, and the corresponding depth of the potential sliding surface (PSS)
is approximately 12, 36 and 21 m below ground surface. The direction of the potential sliding block
is approximately 12, 36 and 21 m below ground surface. The direction of the potential sliding block
movement is oriented to the southeast. As shown in Figure 6, mapping the displacement profiles of
movement is oriented to the southeast. As shown in Figure 6, mapping the displacement profiles of
above monitoring points onto the B-B’ profile shows that most of the PSS is approximately located
above monitoring points onto the B-B’ profile shows that most of the PSS is approximately located at
at the interface between the colluviums and the underlain thin shale layer. The thin shale layer is
the interface between the colluviums and the underlain thin shale layer. The thin shale layer is only
only found in the center of the study area ranged from the middle to the bottom of the slope. The
found in the center of the study area ranged from the middle to the bottom of the slope. The existence of
existence of the thin shale layer makes the slope more active around this layer. The PSS of the
the thin shale layer makes the slope more active around this layer. The PSS of the You-Ye-Lin landslide
You-Ye-Lin landslide in the study area is deep-seated approximately at a depth of 12–36 m and
in the study area is deep-seated approximately at a depth of 12–36 m and extends into a large area.
extends into a large area.

Figure 6. Displacement profiles of inclinometers and the potential sliding surface (PSS) along B-B0
Figure 6. Displacement profiles of inclinometers and the potential sliding surface (PSS) along B-B′
profile (after Typhoon Megi, 2016/09/25–09/28).
profile (after Typhoon Megi, 2016/09/25–09/28).
2.3.4. Geophysical Survey
2.3.4. Geophysical Survey
As illustrated in Figure 7a, four transects (RP-1: longitudinal transect and RP-2~RP-4: transverse
As illustrated
transects) were set upinfor
Figure 7(a), four
2-D electrical transects
resistivity (RP-1:survey
imaging longitudinal transect
in the study and RP-1
area. The RP-2∼RP-4:
(250 m
transverse
long transects)
and adjacent to were0 set up for
A-A profile 2-D electrical
in Figure 4) was resistivity
aligned from imaging
SE tosurvey
NW closein the study
to the area. The
monitoring
RP-1 (250
point B09-Wm long and adjacent
and B10-W. to A-A′ profile
The purposes in Figure
of the survey are4)towas aligned
inspect the from SE to NW
distribution close of
pattern to the
the
monitoring point B09-W and B10-W. The purposes of the survey are to
groundwater and to provide information for the design of the subsurface drainage system. inspect the distribution
pattern
Theof the groundwater
resistivity andbefore
profile (RP) to provide information
and after Typhoon forMegi the(2016/09/25–09/28)
design of the subsurface drainage
were established
system.
for comparisons to show the approximate accumulation pattern of the infiltrated rainwater and to be
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 8 of 23

The resistivity profile (RP) before and after Typhoon Megi (2016/09/25–09/28) were established
for comparisons to show the approximate accumulation pattern of the infiltrated rainwater and to
beused
usedasasaadesign
designreference
referenceofofdrainage
drainagewells.
wells.Figure
Figures 7(b)
7b,c and (c)
display thedisplay
pseudothe3Dpseudo 3Dmodel
electrical electrical
of the
model
studyofarea
the with
studyelectrical
area with electricalρaresistivity
resistivity ρa (Ω-m)
(Ω-m) contours contours
before before
and after and after
Typhoon Typhoon
Megi. BecauseMegi.
of the
Because of of
influence thebuilding
influence of building
structures, structures,
groundwater, andgroundwater,
rock fragments, andtherock fragments,
electrical the distribution
resistivity electrical
resistivity distribution is rather scattered (ρ =15–500 Ω-m). Comparing Figures
is rather scattered (ρa =15–500 Ω-m). Comparing Figure 7b,c, the groundwater level is most
a 7(b) and (c), likely
the
groundwater
situated in thelevel is mostat likely
colluvium a depthsituated in m.
of 5.0–30.0 theThecolluvium at a stratum
water-bearing depth ofmight5.0–30.0 m. The
be situated at a
water-bearing stratum might be situated at a depth around 5–17 m and the upper boundary
depth around 5–17 m and the upper boundary of the sliding body might be close to the residential area of the
sliding
RA-1 body
(near might be close to
the monitoring the residential
point B12-W). area RA-1 (near the monitoring point B12-W).

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 7. Electrical resistivity survey of the You-Ye-Lin landslide. (a) Locations of resistivity profiles (RP);
(b) electrical
Figure resistivity
7. Electrical contour
resistivity distribution
survey before torrential
of the You-Ye-Lin rainfall
landslide. (a) (Typhoon
Locations Megi, 2016/09/27–09/28);
of resistivity profiles
(c) electrical resistivity contour distribution after torrential rainfall (Typhoon Megi, 2016/09/27–09/28).
(RP); (b) electrical resistivity contour distribution before torrential rainfall (Typhoon Megi,
2016/09/27–09/28); (c) electrical resistivity contour distribution after torrential rainfall (Typhoon
2.4. Shallow Horizontal Drains for Emergency Remediation
Megi, 2016/09/27–09/28).
There are five groups of shallow horizontal drains installed in the study area (see Figure 4) as
2.4. Shallow Horizontal
emergency drainage Drains
before for
theEmergency
subsurfaceRemediation
drainage system was installed, as shown in Figure 8. These
horizontal drains (length = 30 m, spacing = 3.0 m, diameter = 6.2, 8.8 and 13 cm, elevation angle = 7.6◦ )
There are five groups of shallow horizontal drains installed in the study area (see Figure 4) as
collect the infiltrated rainwater and drain off the groundwater at a shallow depth. Most of the shallow
emergency drainage before the subsurface drainage system was installed, as shown in Figure 8.
horizontal drains are functional, with discharge rates in a range of 54.60~0.18 m3 /day in dry season.
These horizontal drains (length=30 m, spacing=3.0 m, diameter=6.2, 8.8 and 13 cm, elevation
A groundwater drawdown of 1~3 m is expected via the shallow horizontal drains and this promotes
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23

angle=7.6°) collect the infiltrated rainwater and drain off the groundwater at a shallow depth. Most
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 9 of 23
of the shallow horizontal drains are functional, with discharge rates in a range of 54.60∼0.18 m3/day
in dry season. A groundwater drawdown of 1∼3 m is expected via the shallow horizontal drains
and this promotes
the slope the slope stability.
stability. Nevertheless, Nevertheless,
the shallow thedrains
horizontal shallow
are horizontal
incapable ofdrains are off
draining incapable
the risingof
draining off the
groundwater levelrising
causedgroundwater level rainfall
by the torrential caused during
by the the
torrential
typhoon rainfall
season. during the typhoon
As a consequence,
season. As a consequence,
a deep subsurface drainage for a deep subsurface
groundwater drainagebecomes
drawdown for groundwater
necessary todrawdown becomes
cope with the large
necessary
amount ofto cope with
rainwater the largeinto
infiltrates amount of rainwater infiltrates into the colluvium.
the colluvium.

Figure 8. Shallow
Shallow subsurface
subsurface drainages
drainages of
of the
the You-Ye-Lin
You-Ye-Lin landslide.

2.5. Drainage
2.5. Drainage Well
Well for
for Long-Term
Long-Term Remediation
Remediation
2.5.1. Design of Drainage Well
2.5.1. Design of Drainage Well
In Taiwan, the subsurface drainage is by far the most commonly used method for slope stabilization,
In Taiwan, the subsurface drainage is by far the most commonly used method for slope
either alone or in conjunction with other methods. Attempts have been made to provide a design
stabilization, either alone or in conjunction with other methods. Attempts have been made to
procedure to optimize the number and spacing of horizontal drains [1,2,15]. The design length of the
provide a design procedure to optimize the number and spacing of horizontal drains [1,2,15]. The
horizontal drain should not only extend to the sliding body but also penetrate through the potential
design length of the horizontal drain should not only extend to the sliding body but also penetrate
sliding surface (PSS) for an additional 3–5 m [4–6,16]. Due to lack of the consistence of design standards,
through the potential sliding surface (PSS) for an additional 3–5 m [4–6,16]. Due to lack of the
in general, the design spacing of horizontal drains shows large variation within a range of 3–30 m
consistence of design standards, in general, the design spacing of horizontal drains shows large
from the literature [1,17–20]. Crenshaw and Santi suggested that the drain spacing can be determined
variation within a range of 3–30 m from the literature [1,17–20]. Crenshaw and Santi suggested that
according to the in-situ drainage condition first and adjusted during the installation process [21].
the drain spacing can be determined according to the in-situ drainage condition first and adjusted
Xanthakos et al. indicated that natural slopes are rarely homogeneous enough to allow reliable
during the installation process [21].
subsurface drainage design according to simple principles of dewatering [22]. In addition, Hausmann
Xanthakos et al. indicated that natural slopes are rarely homogeneous enough to allow reliable
suggested that for a successful dewatering system, the designer must choose a drainage system layout
subsurface drainage design according to simple principles of dewatering [22]. In addition,
that increases the probability of intersecting the major water-bearing stratum [23]. Rahardjo et al.
Hausmann suggested that for a successful dewatering system, the designer must choose a drainage
(presented that the horizontal drain is most effective when it is installed at the bottom of a slope [7,8].
system layout that increases the probability of intersecting the major water-bearing stratum [23].
It was also indicated in Cornforth that the horizontal drain drilled toward the upslope can maximize
Rahardjo et al. (presented that the horizontal drain is most effective when it is installed at the
the intersection area with the PSS and can effectively lower the groundwater level [20]. Meanwhile,
bottom of a slope [7,8]. It was also indicated in Cornforth that the horizontal drain drilled toward
Cook et al. indicated that a horizontal drain can function effectively if the horizontal drain can catch
the upslope can maximize the intersection area with the PSS and can effectively lower the
the groundwater flow before it seeps into the unstable area of the landslide [24]. Lin pointed out that
groundwater level [20]. Meanwhile, Cook et al. indicated that a horizontal drain can function
to design the location of drainage well rationally, it is necessary to grasp the PSS, the main veins of
effectively if the horizontal drain can catch the groundwater flow before it seeps into the unstable
groundwater flow and their flow mode within the sliding body in advance [11,12]. Conclusively, for
area of the landslide [24]. Lin pointed out that to design the location of drainage well rationally, it is
the design of the subsurface drainage system in the You-Ye-Lin landslide, the locations and elevations
necessary to grasp the PSS, the main veins of groundwater flow and their flow mode within the
of drainage wells accompanied with well-configured drainage boreholes (or horizontal drains) are
sliding body in advance [11,12]. Conclusively, for the design of the subsurface drainage system in
crucial to the drainage efficiency.
the You-Ye-Lin landslide, the locations and elevations of drainage wells accompanied with
The drainage well (well shaft with drainage boreholes) in the You-Ye-Lin Landslide was designed
well-configured drainage boreholes (or horizontal drains) are crucial to the drainage efficiency.
to remove the groundwater in the deep soil strata followed the configuration in Figure 9. A large
The drainage well (well shaft with drainage boreholes) in the You-Ye-Lin Landslide was
amount of groundwater can be drained out from the slope through drainage wells lowering the
designed to remove the groundwater in the deep soil strata followed the configuration in Figure 9.
groundwater level. For You-Ye-Lin landslide, two drainage wells (Drainage Well-1 and Drainage Well-2)
A large amount of groundwater can be drained out from the slope through drainage wells lowering
were designed and the construction was completed in 2018.
the groundwater level. For You-Ye-Lin landslide, two drainage wells (Drainage Well-1 and Drainage
The drainage wells have a diameter of 4.0 m and the well shaft was assembled by galvanized
Well-2) were designed and the construction was completed in 2018.
corrugated steel ring liners. The drainage wells penetrated into the colluvium to a depth of 20 m and
The drainage wells have a diameter of 4.0 m and the well shaft was assembled by galvanized
16 m respectively and are close to the PSS. Along the well shaft, an array of 5–6 uncased drainage
corrugated steel ring liners. The drainage wells penetrated into the colluvium to a depth of 20 m
boreholes (with a diameter of 76.2 mm and length of 50 m radiating out of the well shaft) were
and 16 m respectively and are close to the PSS. Along the well shaft, an array of 5–6 uncased
drilled with an upward elevation angle of 8◦ ~10◦ at 4 different elevations of the well shaft (multi-level
drainage boreholes (with a diameter of 76.2 mm and length of 50 m radiating out of the well shaft)
horizontal drains with vertical spacing of 4.0 and 5.0 m). The horizontal drains are arrayed in a
were drilled with an upward elevation angle of 8°∼10° at 4 different elevations of the well shaft
 Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, 3346
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 23
of 23

(multi-level horizontal drains with vertical spacing of 4.0 and 5.0 m). The horizontal drains are
fan-shape
arrayed inconfiguration
a fan-shape with a 30◦ interval
configuration withcentral
a 30° angle andcentral
interval a horizontal spacing
angle and of 1.0–2.5 spacing
a horizontal m. Tableof
2
summarizes the design parameters of the drainage wells.
1.0–2.5 m. Table 2 summarizes the design parameters of the drainage wells.

(a) side view (b) top view

Figure 9. Typical configuration of well shaft with multi-level drainage boreholes (or horizontal drains)
for large9.landslide
Figure Typical (SWCB, 2003) [25].
configuration of well shaft with multi-level drainage boreholes (or horizontal
drains) for large landslide
Table (SWCB,parameters
2. The design 2003) [25]. of drainage wells in You-Ye-Lin landslide.

Design Parameters Drainage

Table 2. The design parameters Well-1wells in You-Ye-Lin landslide.
of drainage Drainage Well-2
Depth of well shaft (m) 20 16
Design Parameters Drainage Well-1 Drainage Well-2
Diameter of shaft (m) 4 4
Depth of well shaft (m) 20 16
Length of horizontal drains (m) 50 50
Diameter of shaft (m) 4 4
Number of Number of
Length of horizontal drains (m) Level Elevation
50 Level Elevation50
horizontal horizontal
No. (m) No. (m)
Number
drains of Number of
drains
Elevation and number of horizontal Elevation Elevation
Level No.
1st level 5 horizontal
6 1stLevel
level No. 4 6horizontal
drains installed at 1st ~4th levels (m) (m)
Elevation and number of horizontal 2nd level 10
drains
5 2nd level 8 5
drains
(Elevation below ground surface)
drains installed at 1st∼4th levels 1 level
st
3rd level 15
5
5
6 1 level
st
3rd level 12
4
5
6
(Elevation below ground surface) 2thnd level 10 5 2nd level 8 5
4 level 19 6 4th level 15 6
3rd level 15 5 3rd level 12 5
Elevation angle of horizontal drains (◦ ) 8◦ ~10◦ 8◦ ~10◦
4th level 19 6 4th level 15 6
Central angle of horizontal drains with ◦ , 150◦
Elevation angle of horizontal 1208°∼10° 120◦ , 150◦
fan-shape radial arraydrains
(◦ ) (°) 8°∼10°
Central angle ofofhorizontal
Diameter drains(mm)
horizontal drains with 7.62150° 7.62
120°, 120°, 150°
fan-shape radial array (°)
Diameter of drainage pipe (m) 10 10
Diameter of horizontal drains (mm)◦ 7.62 7.62
Depression angle of drainage pipe ( ) 8◦ ~10◦ 8◦ ~10◦
Diameter of drainage pipe (m) 10 10
Depression angle of drainage pipe (°) 8°∼10° 8°∼10°
2.5.2. Construction of the Drainage Well
2.5.2.Figure 10 illustrates
Construction of the aDrainage
typical construction
Well sequence of a drainage well in Taiwan. The shaft is
assembled by galvanized corrugated steel ring liners. One ring liner consists of seven segments and
Figure 10 illustrates a typical construction sequence of a drainage well in Taiwan. The shaft is
is erected every 0.5 m till the design depth. The completed liner is reinforced by steel hoop and the
assembled by galvanized corrugated steel ring liners. One ring liner consists of seven segments and
shaft entrance is also fixed by backfilling pure concrete. Then, PVC pipes with diameter of 100 mm
is erected every 0.5 m till the design depth. The completed liner is reinforced by steel hoop and the
are equipped at the bottom of the shaft to drain off the collected groundwater into the stilling pool.
shaft entrance is also fixed by backfilling pure concrete. Then, PVC pipes with diameter of 100 mm
Subsequently, the auxiliary works such as maintenance ladder, entrance cover, and safety fence are
are equipped at the bottom of the shaft to drain off the collected groundwater into the stilling pool.
setting up.
Subsequently, the auxiliary works such as maintenance ladder, entrance cover, and safety fence are
In Taiwan, a drainage well is usually designed with a diameter of 3.5 m or 4.0 m and a depth
setting up.
of 15–30 m or deeper. A drainage well should not penetrate through the PSS to avoid the shearing
In Taiwan, a drainage well is usually designed with a diameter of 3.5 m or 4.0 m and a depth of
failure of well shaft caused by the downward sliding of soil mass. According to the past works
15–30 m or deeper. A drainage well should not penetrate through the PSS to avoid the shearing
and experiences, in case of the drainage capacity of PVC pipes at the shaft bottom is not enough to
failure of well shaft caused by the downward sliding of soil mass. According to the past works and
accommodate the collected inflow water from horizontal drains, water pumps are equipped to pump
experiences, in case of the drainage capacity of PVC pipes at the shaft bottom is not enough to
out water into the stilling pool.
accommodate the collected inflow water from horizontal drains, water pumps are equipped to
pump out water into the stilling pool.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 11 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23

(a) Initial excavation of ground

surface (b) First installation of steel ring (c) Concrete backfill after first
liner installation of steel ring liner

(d) Staged excavation and (e) Installation of reinforced steel (f) Drilling borehole for installation
installation of steel ring liner hoop of horizontal drains

(g) Wrapping filter for horizontal (h) Supplementary facilities of (i) Safety fence and cover on well
drain drainage well entrance

Figure 10.10.Typical
Figure Typicalconstruction
constructionsequences
sequences of
of well shaft
shaft and
andmulti-level
multi-levelhorizontal
horizontaldrains
drainsinin Taiwan.
Taiwan.

3. Methodology
3. Methodology
Through
Through 3D3Dnumerical modelling,
numerical this paper
modelling, investigates
this paper the efficiency
investigates of subsurface
the efficiency drainages
of subsurface
and their effects on the groundwater drawdown (h ) and the corresponding
drainages and their effects on the groundwater drawdown (hwmax) and the corresponding factors
wmax factors of safety (FS)
of of
potential sliding surface (PSS) in the You-Ye-Lin landslide. In the phase calculations,
safety (FS) of potential sliding surface (PSS) in the You-Ye-Lin landslide. In the phase calculations, after a gravity
loading
after acalculation for in-situ
gravity loading stressesfor
calculation and a simulation
in-situ stresses ofandthea construction
simulation ofofthe two subsurface of
construction drainage
two
wells, a series of
subsurface fully coupled
drainage wells, flow-deformation
a series of fullyanalyses
coupledimmediately followed
flow-deformation by a safety
analyses calculation
immediately
using phi/c by
followed reduction
a safetymethod (or using
calculation strength
phi/creduction
reduction method,
methodSRM) are performed
(or strength reductiontomethod,
calculate the FS
SRM)
are in
value performed
responsetotocalculate the FS value
a groundwater in response
drawdown due totohorizontal
a groundwaterdrains.drawdown
It should due to horizontal
be pointed out that
drains.
a more It should
realistic andbe pointedvalue
a higher out that a more
FS will realistic and
be obtained for aafully
higher value FS
coupled will be obtainedanalysis
flow-deformation for a
fully coupled flow-deformation analysis
when the suction of unsaturated soil is considered.when the suction of unsaturated soil is considered.

3.1.3.1. Numerical
Numerical Modelwith
Model withBoundary
Boundaryand
andInitial
Initial Conditions
Conditions
According
According to to
thethe design
design parameters
parameters of of drainage
drainage wells
wells (see
(see Table
Table 2), 2), topographic,
topographic, geological
geological and
and hydrological data from long-term field surveys and tests of soil/rock samples
hydrological data from long-term field surveys and tests of soil/rock samples taken from boreholes taken from
boreholes
at the study at the the
area, study3Darea, the 3D model
numerical numerical model
of the of the You-Ye-Lin
You-Ye-Lin landslidelandslide is established
is established and in
and shown
shown in Figure 11 (a). The soil strata are modeled by 10-node tetrahedral soil elements (or
Figure 11a. The soil strata are modeled by 10-node tetrahedral soil elements (or 10-node volumetric soil 10-node
volumetric soil element, Plaxis 3D [26]) with four integration points and the elements have three
element, Plaxis 3D [26]) with four integration points and the elements have three degrees of freedom
degrees of freedom per node (or three displacement components per node) and provide a
per node (or three displacement components per node) and provide a second-order interpolation of
second-order interpolation of displacements (Figure 11(b)). The drainage well consists of the well
displacements (Figure 11b). The drainage well consists of the well shaft and multi-level horizontal
shaft and multi-level horizontal drains. The well shaft is assembled by a continuous galvanized
drains. The well shaft is assembled by a continuous galvanized corrugated steel ring liner and
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 12 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23

is corrugated
simulated by 6-node
steel ring triangular
liner and is plate elements
simulated by(or 6-node
6-node structural
triangular areaelements
plate elements) (orwith three
6-node
structural points
integration area elements)
provide awith three integration
second-order pointsofprovide
interpolation a second-order
displacements (Figure interpolation of
11c). As the plate
displacements (Figure 11(c)). As the plate elements cannot sustain torsional moments,
elements cannot sustain torsional moments, the plate elements have only five degrees of freedom per the plate
elements
node (three have only fiveand
translational degrees of freedom
two rotational per node
degrees (three translational
of freedom). and two
Plate elements arerotational
structuraldegrees
elements
of freedom).
used Platetwo-dimensional
to model thin elements are structural elements in
shaft structure used to model
ground with a thin two-dimensional
significant shaft
flexural rigidity
structure in ground with a significant flexural rigidity (bending stiffness) and based
(bending stiffness) and based on Mindlin’s plate theory [26] which allows for plate deflections due to on Mindlin’s
plate theory
shearing as well[26] which allows
as bending. for plate
Structural deflections
forces due toatshearing
are evaluated the plateaselement
well as integration
bending. Structural
points and
forces are evaluated at the plate element integration points and extrapolated to the element nodes.
extrapolated to the element nodes. At last, the horizontal drains in the numerical model are simulated
At last, the horizontal drains in the numerical model are simulated by a series of 3-node line drain
by a series of 3-node line drain elements with hydraulic condition or called line drains (Figure 11c),
elements with hydraulic condition or called line drains (Figures 11(c)), which is compatible with the
which is compatible with the side of a 6-node triangle plate elements and a 10-node tetrahedral soil
side of a 6-node triangle plate elements and a 10-node tetrahedral soil elements since these elements
elements since these elements also have three nodes on a side. 3-node line drain elements provide a
also have three nodes on a side. 3-node line drain elements provide a second-order (quadratic)
second-order (quadratic) interpolation of groundwater discharge rate for horizontal drains.
interpolation of groundwater discharge rate for horizontal drains.

colluvium

thin shale layer

sandstone

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 11. Numerical model of You-Ye-Lin landslide with subsurface drainage system (a) peel-off view
inside the numerical model (b) finite element mesh (c) well shaft with horizontal drains.

Ideally, the model boundaries are placed along natural hydrologic boundaries such as flow
divides (or watershed boundaries), water bodies (creeks), and impermeable bedrock. The numerical
model shown in Figure 12 places the model domain at the watershed boundary to reduce the amount
of elements needed to define the model. Locations, thicknesses and hydraulic properties of each
soil stratum are required for a groundwater flow calculation model. The initial groundwater level
for the landslide is determined and set up by a steady-state groundwater flow calculation which is
calibrated with the measured groundwater levels of observation well B08-W, B09-W, B10-W, and
B12-W (Figure 4). For a steady-state groundwater flow calculation and fully coupled flow-deformation
divides (or watershed boundaries), water bodies (creeks), and impermeable bedrock. The numerical
model shown in Figure 12 places the model domain at the watershed boundary to reduce the
amount of elements needed to define the model. Locations, thicknesses and hydraulic properties of
each soil stratum are required for a groundwater flow calculation model. The initial groundwater
level for the landslide is determined and set up by a steady-state groundwater flow calculation
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 13 of 23
which is calibrated with the measured groundwater levels of observation well B08-W, B09-W,
B10-W, and B12-W (Figure 4). For a steady-state groundwater flow calculation and fully coupled
flow-deformation
analysis, except the analysis,
bottom except
boundary the (x-y
bottom boundary
plane) which is(x-y plane)as
specified which
a closeis boundary
specified as a close
(zero flux
boundary
boundary),(zero flux
all the boundary), boundaries
surrounding all the surrounding
(x-z and boundaries
y-z planes) (x-z and y-z as
are defined planes) are head
constant defined
openas
constant
boundaries. headInopen boundaries.
addition, as shown In addition,
in Figure as the A-A’
12,shown in Figure
profile 12, thewhich
along A-A’ profile along which
two drainage wells
two drainage
installed wells installed
for subsurface for subsurface
drainage is selected drainage
to monitoris the
selected to monitor
calculation the calculation results.
results.

Figure 12. Dimension of numerical model and locations of protective residential areas (RA1, RA2),
Figure 12. Dimension of numerical model and locations of protective residential areas (RA1, RA2),
drainage well-1 & well-2, and A-A0′, C1-C1′0, C2-C2′0profiles for numerical calculation monitoring.
drainage well-1 & well-2, and A-A , C1-C1 , C2-C2 profiles for numerical calculation monitoring.

3.2. Drainage
Drainage Simulation
Simulation for Drainage Well and Horizontal Drains
In the
the slope
slopestability
stabilityanalysis,
analysis,interface
interfaceelements
elements (structural
(structural areaarea elements)
elements) of zero
of zero thickness
thickness are
are
addedadded at contact
at the the contact between
between well well
shaft shaft
(plate(plate elements)
elements) and the and the surrounding
surrounding soil to soil
allow tofor
allow for a
a proper
proper
modelling modelling of soil-plate
of soil-plate (soil-structure)
(soil-structure) interaction.
interaction. The plateThe plate elements
elements are fully permeable
are fully permeable by defaultby in
default
Plaxis 3D in Plaxis
program 3D and
program and therefore
therefore the well
the well shaft turnsshaft
intoturns into permeable
permeable as well. However,
as well. However, in Taiwan, in
Taiwan,
in order to inincrease
order tothe increase the moment
shear and shear and momentofresistance
resistance well shaft of welldownward
to the shaft to the downward
force force
from the slope,
from the slope, the construction gap between the well shaft and the surrounding
the construction gap between the well shaft and the surrounding soil is frequently backfilled with pure soil is frequently
backfilled
concrete makingwith pure concrete
the well shaft making the well
impermeable. shaft impermeable.
Therefore, in the numerical Therefore, in the
simulation, thenumerical
interface
simulation, the interface
elements assigned elements
to the well shaftassigned
are set toto theimpermeable
fully well shaft aretoset to fully
block impermeable
the flow to block
from surrounding
the
soil flow from surrounding soil strata.
strata.
The drainage
drainage of ofhorizontal
horizontaldrains
drainsininthethe numerical
numerical model
model is simulated
is simulated by line
by line draindrain
elementselements
(line
(line drains). A series of line drains are imposed to the locations of horizontal
drains). A series of line drains are imposed to the locations of horizontal drains to control the pore drains to control the
pore pressure
pressure distribution
distribution in thecoupled
in the fully fully coupled flow-deformation
flow-deformation analysis.analysis.
Line drains Lineare
drains
used are used to
to prescribe
prescribe
lines insidelines inside themodel
the geometry geometry
wheremodel where pore
pore pressures pressures
are reduced. In are
fullyreduced. In fully coupled
coupled flow-deformation
flow-deformation analysis, the
analysis, the pore pressures pore
in all pressures
nodes in alldrain
of the line nodes is of the linetodrain
reduced a giveishead
reduced to a give
equivalent tohead
zero
equivalent to zero forThe
for gravity drainage. gravity
pore drainage.
pressures The pore
in soil masspressures in soil mass
are not affected by theareline
notdrain
affected by theifline
anymore the
drain anymore
calculated if the calculated
pore pressures poreare
in soil mass pressures in soil
lower than the mass are lower
give head in linethan
drains.the give head in line
drains.
3.3. Material Model Parameters
A series of direct shear tests were carried out for soil and rock samples to determine the strength
parameters. The soil samples collected from colluviums are classified as clayey or silt soils with
low plasticity (CL, ML and CL~ML). The residual cohesions c0 res and frictional angles ϕres 0 are in
a range of 15~35 kPa and 26◦ –30◦ respectively. In addition, the rock samples collected from the
bedrock underlain the colluvium are classified as shale (Sh) and the residual strength parameters
are c0 res =0 and ϕ0 res =23◦ ~32◦ (uniaxial compressive strength qu =3060 kPa). For sandstone (Ss), the
strength parameters are c0 peak =0 and ϕ0 peak =32◦ ~35◦ at peak state and c0 res =0 and ϕ0 res = 25◦ ~33◦
at residual state (uniaxial compressive strength qu =4,000 kPa). The shear strength of the interface
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 14 of 23

between sandstone and shale was not tested in this study. The residual strengths of the colluvium
and the underlain shale are used in the analysis to include the strength reduction from the large
ground movement in the field. On the contrary, the sandstone was considered as the bedrock only
undertaking slight shearing and assigned by peak shear strength. The linear-elastic perfectly-plastic
model with Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria (Mohr-Coulomb model or M-C model) is used to simulate
the mechanical behaviours of soil strata in You-Ye-Lin landslide. The input parameters of M-C model
are summarized in Table 3. The linear isotropic material model parameters of corrugated steel ring
liner used for numerical simulation are listed in Table 4.

Table 3. Input of M-C material model parameters of soil strata for slope stability analysis.

γunsat (γsat ) Young0 s Modulus Poisson0 s Cohesion Friction Angle Dilatancy Angle
Soil Type
(kN/m3 ) E0 (kN/m2 ) Ratio ν0 c0 (kPa) φ0 (◦ ) ψ (◦ )
20.89
Colluvium 2.0 × 105 0.30 10.0 28 0
(23.37)
21.88
Shale 7.0 × 105 0.35 39.0 29 0
(23.82)
23.44
Sandstone 7.0 × 106 0.30 0.0 35 0
(23.84)

Table 4. Input of linear isotropic material model parameters of corrugated steel ring liner for slope
stability analysis.

Material Thickness Unit weight Poisson0 s Ratio Young0 s Modulus

Type t (m) γs (kN/m3 ) νs Es (GPa)
Steel liner 3.2 × 10−3 77.0 0.30 200.0

The saturated conductivity of the colluviums KS were measured by in-situ borehole constant
head permeability tests. KS varies between 2.08 × 10−5 ~1.04 × 10−4 cm/sec for tests performed in a
depth of 3.0~4.0 m. In addition, in-situ Lugeon tests (or Packer tests) were carried out to determine the
saturated conductivity of intact sandstone KSs =1.50 × 10−6 ~3.14 × 10−5 cm/sec and for sandstone with
intercalary strata (or inter-bed) of thin shale KSs/sh =6.22 × 10−5 ~1.06 × 10−4 cm/sec. In the You-Ye-Lin
landslide, the conductivity of the colluvium is crucial to the design (location of drainage well, drain
length and drain spacing) of the subsurface drainage because the drainage mainly occurs in the
colluvium. In numerical analyses, three conductivities of the colluvium, KS =1.0 × 10−3 , 1.0 × 10−4 , and
1.0 × 10−5 cm/sec are adopted to investigate their effects on the efficiency of the subsurface drainage
whereas KSh =1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec and KSs =1.0 × 10−5 cm/sec are fixed.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Groundwater Drawdown

Three-dimensional finite element analyses are performed to investigate the groundwater
drawdown due to subsurface drainage of horizontal drains. The variation of groundwater drawdown
with elapsed times along the A-A0 profile (refer to Figures 4 and 12) with two drainage wells for
Ks=1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec case is illustrated in Figure 13a. The A-A0 profile approximates along the
middle of the fan-shape array horizontal drains. As shown in the figure, for both two drainage wells,
the final groundwater level (at Day 20) after drawdown descends to the elevation of the bottom
horizontal drains (4th level in Table 2). After 20 days of the subsurface drainage, the groundwater
level drops from the initial groundwater level at the end of horizontal drains of Drainage Well-1 (50 m
away from Drainage Well-1) to the elevation of 4th level horizontal drains at approximately 32 m
(=Lt1 in Figure 13a) from the end of the horizontal drains. The length Lt1 is defined as the transition
length of effective groundwater drawdown (or transition length) of Drainage Well-1. Meanwhile, the
corresponding maximum groundwater drawdown is equal to 10.19 m (=hw1,max ). These calculated
 t (day) Hw(t) (m) Pdrawdown (%) FS(t) PFS (%)
0→1 -12.97 → -15.27 17.73 1.383 → 1.443 4.34
1→2 -15.27 → -16.97 30.84 1.443 → 1.479 6.94
2→3 -16.97 → -17.47 34.70 1.479 → 1.489 7.66
3→4 -17.47 → -18.17 40.09 1.489 → 1.499 8.39
4 → 10,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 5 3346 -18.17 → -18.67 43.95 1.499 → 1.501 8.53 15 of 23
9→ 10 -19.97 → -20.07 54.74 1.501 → 1.510 9.18
19 → 20 -20.57 → -20.62 58.98 1.520 → 1.521 9.98
drawdownRemarks: (1) of
behaviours Thegroundwater
groundwater levels
depth are
measured
identicalfrom
withthe
thoseground surface;
observed (2) Pdrawdown practice
in engineering
(%)=[ΔHw(t)]×100% / Hw(0 day) =[ Hw(t) − Hw(0 day)]×100% /(-12.97); (3) PFS (%)=[ΔFS(t)]×100% / FS(0
presented by Kleppe and Denby [27].
day) = [ FS(t) − FS(0 day)]×100% / (1.383).

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) 17 of 23

(b) (c)

Figure 13. For Ks=1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec case (a) variation of groundwater level along A-A’ profile with the
subsurface
Figure 13. For drainage, (b) groundwater
Ks=1.0×10-4 cm/sec level of
case (a) variation and groundwater
groundwater levelhead
alongcontour of C1-C1’
A-A’ profile profile after a
with the
subsurface drainage, (b)
20-day subsurface groundwater
drainage level
and (c) and groundwater
before head
the subsurface contour of C1-C1’ profile after a
drainage.
20-day subsurface drainage and (c) before the subsurface drainage.
Theoretically, the design length of the horizontal drains Ld (=50 m in this study) should be
extended beyond the potential sliding surface (PSS) to achieve the groundwater drawdown within
the PSS. As shown in Figure 13a, the transition length Lt1 of Drainage Well-1 is located far beyond the
PSS and the drawdown area (=the area between original and drawdown groundwater level) is only
partially located inside the PSS. Meanwhile, the groundwater level at the downslope of Drainage Well-1
tends to recover gradually to the original level and only a slight drawdown of the groundwater level
achieved by Drainage Well-2 after 10 days of the subsurface drainage.
Moreover, in Figure 13a, a length of Ldt2 for Drainage Well-2 is defined as the drain length at the
transition zone of effective groundwater drawdown (or drain length of transition zone) of Drainage
Well-2. Based on the definitions of Lt1 and Ldt2 , it can be seen that the Lt1 approximates the Ldt1 for
Drainage Well-1 (Lt1 = Ldt1 =32 m) whereas the Lt2 (=24 m) interrupted by the groundwater drawdown
at the downslope of Drainage Well-1 is not coincident with Ldt2 (=17 m) for Drainage Well-2. Further on,
the Figure
transition length Lt1 of
14. Comparison Lt2 is dependent
orgroundwater on the
drawdown of elevation
observationdifference
well B12-Wbetween
with and the initial groundwater
without
subsurface drainage for different hydraulic conductivity of colluviums.
table and the top drains, which is coincident with those presented by Klepp and Denby (1984).

4.2. Verification of Potential Sliding Surface in Dry Season without Subsurface Drainage
Figure 15(a) displays the total incremental displacement field calculated by SRM slope stability
analysis which directs to southeast and is similar to the main direction of ground movement
estimated by the directions of tension cracks, slumps, and subsidence lines as shown in Figure 15(b).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 16 of 23

According to the field condition, the 1st level horizontal drains of Drainage Well-1 are entirely situated
above the initial groundwater table under dry condition whereas the 1st level horizontal drains of
Drainage Well-2 are fully submerged prior to the function of subsurface drainage.
As listed in Table 5, the maximum groundwater drawdowns of Drainage Well-1 (hw1,max ) and
Drainage Well-2 (hw2,max ) are 10.19 and 13.00 m, respectively, after 20 days of the subsurface drainage.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the groundwater flow remains at transient state after a 20-day
drainage (t = 0→20 days) and the drawdown is continued with the increasing time till the steady-state
(t = 0→∞ days) is reached. The drawdown rate and drainage efficiency of Drainage Well-2 is higher than
those of Drainage Well-1 due to the fact that the horizontal drains of Drainage Well-2 are mainly placed
at the middle-zone of PSS and extended across a large range of soil mass within PSS allowing more
groundwater flowing into the drains. Figure 13b displays the transverse variation of groundwater level
and colourful groundwater head (or total pore pressure head=steady-state pore pressures head+excess
pore pressures head) contour along the C1-C10 profile (Figure 12) which is perpendicular to the A-A0
profile and adjacent to residential area RA-1. In contrast, Figure 13c illustrates the groundwater level
before the subsurface drainage starts. It can be found that after 20 days of the subsurface drainage, the
groundwater level is dropped to the elevation of bottom drains. The groundwater head at the middle
of the groundwater table along the C1-C10 profile approximate 81.0 m (light yellow-green colour) and
71.0 m (light grey-blue colour) before and after the subsurface drainage and the difference of 10 m is
very close to the groundwater drawdown of 10.19 m in Table 5.

Table 5. Maximum groundwater drawdown in subsurface drainage system (KS =1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec).

Time (day) 1 2 3 4 5 10 20
hw1,max (m) 5.96 7.76 8.59 8.84 8.97 9.85 10.19
hw2,max (m) 7.96 9.40 10.24 10.66 10.93 11.88 13.00

Figure 14 presents the calculated groundwater depth (Hw ) of observation well B12-W (monitoring
point B12-W in Figure 4) for a 20-day subsurface drainage in the You-Ye-Lin landslide. In Figure 14, the
initial groundwater depth (−13.0 m for t = 0) of B12-W without the subsurface drainage is determined
by a steady-state groundwater flow calculation under constant head boundary conditions assigned to
represent the rainfall effect during Typhoon Megi. The initial groundwater depth of simulation (−13.0 m
for t = 0 in Figure 14) is in excellent agreement with that of observation (−12.97 m in Table 1) and the
validity of numerical model for hydraulic calculation can be verified. Subsequently, the groundwater
depth of B12-W without the drainage remediation is monitored for 20 days (t = 0→20 days) and
compared with those with the subsurface drainage with different hydraulic conductivities of the
colluvium (KS =1.0 × 10−5 , 1.0 × 10−4 , and 1.0 × 10−3 cm/sec). For the three hydraulic conductivities
of the colluvium, the maximum drawdown of the transient analysis approximates 1.84, 5.31, and
6.89 m for a 20-day subsurface drainage and it can reach a final drawdown of 9.50 m=(22.5 m−13.0 m)
for a steady-state calculation. In general, the drawdown rate (or drainage efficiency) is promoted
with an increasing permeability of the colluvium and estimated to be 2.67 m/day (within 3 days for
KS =1.0 × 10−3 cm/sec), 1.50 m/day (within 6 days for KS =1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec), and 0.27 m/day (within
13 days for KS =1.0 × 10−5 cm/sec). For the colluvium with lower permeability (KS ≤ 1.0 × 10−5 cm/sec),
the drainage efficiency of subsurface drainage can be comparatively uneconomical.
Table 6 summarizes the variations of the groundwater depth of observation well B12-W, Hw (t)
and the factor of safety, FS(t) of the landslide with elapsed time in response to the subsurface drainage.
For the three hydraulic conductivities of the colluvium, the variation tendency of Hw (t) and FS(t) are
similar and only the calculation results of KS = 1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec are presented. It is found that the
factor of safety increases steadily with the drawdown of groundwater level.
 Figure 13. For Ks=1.0×10-4 cm/sec case (a) variation of groundwater level along A-A’ profile with the
subsurface drainage, (b) groundwater level and groundwater head contour of C1-C1’ profile after a
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 17 of 23
20-day subsurface drainage and (c) before the subsurface drainage.

Figure 14. Figure 14. Comparison

Comparison of groundwater
of groundwater drawdown ofofobservation
drawdown well B12-W
observation with and with
well B12-W without
and without
subsurface drainage for different hydraulic conductivity of colluviums.
subsurface drainage for different hydraulic conductivity of colluviums.
Table 6. Variations of groundwater drawdown and factor of safety with elapsed time during subsurface
drainage (KS =1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec).
4.2. Verification of Potential Sliding Surface in Dry Season without Subsurface Drainage
Drainage Groundwater Groundwater Drawdown Variation of Factor Increasing Percentage
Figure 15(a) displaysDepth
Duration the total
of B12-W incremental displacementoffield
Percentage Safety calculated by
of Factor SRM slope stability
of Safety
t (day) Hw (t) (m) Pdrawdown (%) FS(t) PFS (%)
analysis which 0directs
→1
to−12.97
southeast
→ −15.27
and is 17.73 similar to the main direction 4.34
1.383 → 1.443
of ground movement
estimated by the1directions
→2 of →
−15.27 tension
−16.97 cracks, 30.84 slumps, and subsidence 1.443 → 1.479 lines as6.94 shown in Figure 15(b).
In addition, the 2calculated
→3 potential
−16.97 → −17.47 sliding 34.70 area as shown 1.479in Figure 15(c) also
→ 1.489 7.66 approximates the
3→4 −17.47 → −18.17 40.09 1.489 → 1.499 8.39
measured scope of ground movement delineated by the ellipse in Figure 15(b). Further on,
4→5 −18.17 → −18.67 43.95 1.499 → 1.501 8.53
comparing Figure 15(d) with
9→ 10
Figure 6, it can 54.74
−19.97 → −20.07
be seen the calculated 1.501 → 1.510
(-11.4 m for 9.18
B12-W and -35.6 m
for B09-W) and19measured
→ 20 (-12.0
−20.57 m for B12-W
→ −20.62 58.98and -36.0 m 1.520for B09-W) depth
→ 1.521 9.98 of potential sliding
surface along B-B’ profile
Remarks: (1) The(see Figure
groundwater 4)measured
depth are infrom an the
excellent coincidence.
ground surface; (2) Pdrawdown (%)As a wresult,
= [∆H (t)] × 100%the
/ effectiveness
Hw (0 day) = [ Hw (t) − Hw (0 day)] × 100% /(−12.97); (3) PFS (%) = [∆FS(t)] × 100% / FS(0 day) = [ FS(t) − FS(0 day)] ×
of the numerical
100%model
/ (1.383). can be verified once more.

4.2. Verification of Potential Sliding Surface in Dry Season without Subsurface Drainage
Figure 15a displays the total incremental displacement field calculated by SRM slope stability
analysis which directs to southeast and is similar to the main direction of ground movement estimated
by the directions of tension cracks, slumps, and subsidence lines as shown in Figure 15b. In addition,
the calculated potential sliding area as shown in Figure 15c also approximates the measured scope of
ground movement delineated by the ellipse in Figure 15b. Further on, comparing Figure 15d with
Figure 6, it can be seen the calculated (−11.4 m for B12-W and −35.6 m for B09-W) and measured
(−12.0 m for B12-W and −36.0 m for B09-W) depth of potential sliding surface along B-B’ profile (see
Figure 4) are in an excellent coincidence. As a result, the effectiveness of the numerical model can be
verified once more.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 18 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 15. Sliding mechanism of study area without subsurface drainage in dry season (a) total
Figure 15. Sliding mechanism of study area without subsurface drainage in dry season (a) total
incremental displacement field (b) sliding direction based on surface surveys (c) potential sliding area
incremental displacement field (b) sliding direction based on surface surveys (c) potential sliding area and
and factor of safety (d) potential sliding surface along B-B0 profile.
factor of safety (d) potential sliding surface along B-B′ profile.
4.3. Comparisons of Potential Sliding Surface with and without Subsurface Drainage
4.3. Comparisons of Potential Sliding Surface with and without Subsurface Drainage
Figure 16 demonstrates the effectiveness of the subsurface drainage on improving the slope
Figure
stability 16 landslide.
of the demonstrates the effectiveness
The potential of the
sliding area subsurface
(Figure 16a-1) drainage
without the on drainage
improving the slope
remediation
stability out
spreads of tothea large
landslide.
area inThe potential sliding
the downslope and thearea (Figures 16(a-1))
corresponding potential without
sliding the drainage
surface (PSS)
along A-A0 profile
remediation spreads out to4)aislarge
(Figure also area
deeplyin seated
the downslope
near the and
bottomthe of
corresponding
drainage wells potential
(Figuresliding
16a-2).
surface
The study(PSS)
areaalong A-A′in
is situated profile (Figure condition
an instability 4) is also during
deeplytyphoon
seated near
seasonthewith
bottom of drainage
a lower wells
factor of safety
(Figure
of (FS)t=0-day =1.383.
16(a-2)). The A study
factorarea is situated
of safety FS<1.0in means
an instability
that thecondition
slope is atduring
failuretyphoon
and it was season
agreedwith a
that
alower
FS=1.5factor
wasof safety of
required to (FS)
meet long=1.383.
t=0-day A factorof
term stability ofremedial
safety FS<1.0
worksmeans
[28]. Inthat the slope
Taiwan, threeis FS
at failure
values
and itadopted
were was agreed that a FS=1.5
as technical criteriawasfor required to meet long
slope engineering term(1)
design: stability of remedial
for ordinary works [28].
time FS≥1.50, In
(2) for
Taiwan, three
earthquake FS values
FS≥1.2, (3) for were adopted
torrential as FS≥1.10.
rainfall technicalMoreover,
criteria forPopescu
slope engineering
[29] proposed design: (1) for
a three-stage
ordinary time
continuous FS≥1.50,
spectrum of FS(2) for earthquake
to define the stability FS≥1.2,
state of(3) for torrential
slopes: rainfall
FS>1.3 (stable), FS≥1.10. (marginally
1.0<FS<1.3 Moreover,
Popescuand
stable), [29]FS<1.0
proposed a three-stage
(actively unstable). continuous spectrum
On the contrary, of the
after FS to define of
function thesubsurface
stability state of slopes:
drainage and
FS>1.3 (stable),
groundwater 1.0<FS<1.3the
drawdown, (marginally stable), area
potential sliding and FS<1.0
(Figure(actively
16b-1) isunstable).
confined at On the contrary,
a limited area atafter
the
the function of subsurface drainage and groundwater drawdown, the potential
downslope and the PSS merely mobilizes at a comparatively shallow depth (Figure 16b-2). Eventually, sliding area (Figure
16(b-1))
the slope is confined atinaa limited
is maintained more stableareasituation
at the with
downslope
a higherand theofPSS
factor safetymerely t=20-day =1.521.
of (FS)mobilizes at a
comparatively shallow depth (Figure 16(b-2)). Eventually, the slope is maintained in a more stable
situation with a higher factor of safety of (FS)t=20-day=1.521.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 19 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

(a-1) (FS)t=0-day =1.383 (typhoon season)

(a-2) without subsurface drainage

(b-1) (FS)t=20-day =1.521 (typhoon season)

(b-2) with subsurface drainage

Figure 16. Potential sliding area and potential sliding surface along A-A’ profile in typhoon season
Figurewithout
(a-1,a-2) 16. Potential sliding
(b-1,b-2) area
with and potential
subsurface sliding surface along A-A’ profile in typhoon season
drainage.
(a-1,a-2) without (b-1,b-2) with subsurface drainage.
4.4. Discharge Efficiency of Horizontal Drains
4.4. Discharge Efficiency of Horizontal Drains
Figure 17 presents the discharge rate (or discharge capacity) of the two drainage wells in the
typhoon Figure
season.17 presents the discharge
The subscripts w1, w2 rateand (or
d1~d4discharge
represent capacity) of the two
the Drainage drainage
Well-1, Drainagewells in the
Well-2, and
st typhoon
th season. The subscripts w1, w2 and d1∼d4 represent the Drainage
1 ~4 level of horizontal drains. In the typhoon season, the average initial groundwater level prior Well-1, Drainage Well-2, and
to 1the∼4subsurface
st th level of horizontal drains. In the typhoon season, the average initial groundwater level prior
drainage approximates 11.0 m below ground surface for Drainage Well-1 and 5.0 m
below ground surface for Drainage Well-2. For Drainage Well-1, 1st and for
to the subsurface drainage approximates 11.0 m below ground surface
2ndDrainage Well-1 and 5.0 m
level horizontal drains are
below ground surface for Drainage Well-2. For Drainage Well-1, 1 and 2 level horizontal drains are
st nd
placed at 5.0 m and 10.0 m below the ground surface which are above the average initial groundwater
placed at 5.0 m and 10.0 m below the ground surface which are above the average initial
level (11.0 m below ground surface). Under such circumstances, the discharge rate of 1st and 2nd
groundwater level (11.0 m below ground surface). Under such circumstances, the discharge rate of
level horizontal drains (Qw1d1 and Qw1d2 ) becomes zero and ineffective for groundwater drawdown as
1st and 2nd level horizontal drains (Qw1d1 and Qw1d2) becomes zero and ineffective for groundwater
shown in Figure 17a. Concurrently, the Drainage Well-2 (Qw2d1 and Qw2d2 ) possesses a similar situation
drawdown as shown in Figure 17(a). Concurrently, the Drainage Well-2 (Qw2d1 and Qw2d2) possesses a
the Drainage
to similar Well-1
situation as Drainage
to the shown inWell-1 Figure as17b.
shown in Figure 17(b).
OnOn thethe
contrary,
contrary,
th
4 4thlevel
levelhorizontal
horizontaldrainsdrainsfor for both
both drainage
drainage wells
wells (Q(Qw1d4
w1d4 =163.104
=163.104 m3m
3 /day and
/day and
Qw2d4=236.664 /day) exhibit
Qw2d4 3
=236.664 m m3/day) exhibit thethe highest
highestdischarge
dischargerate. rate.According
According toto theparametric
the parametric study
study andand
field
field monitoring
monitoringresults,
results, Rahardjo
Rahardjo et etal.
al.also
also indicated
indicated thatthat the horizontal
the horizontal draindrain
is mostis effective
most effective
and
and beneficial
beneficial forfor
thethe subsurface
subsurface drainage
drainage when whenit isit located
is located at the
at the bottom
bottom zone
zone of the
of the slope
slope [8,9].
[8,9].
However, the discharge rate of 3rdrdand 4th level horizontal drains decrease gradually with elapsed
However, the discharge rate of 3 and 4 th horizontal drains decrease gradually with elapsed
timetime due due toto
the groundwater
the groundwaterdrawdown.
drawdown. The The total discharge
dischargerate rateof DrainageWell-2
ofDrainage Well-2(Q(Q is) higher
w2)w2 is higher
thanthan that
that ofofDrainage
DrainageWell-1
Well-1(Q (Qw1w1)) because
because the the horizontal
horizontaldrainsdrainsofofDrainage
DrainageWell-2
Well-2areareallall
located
located
below
below thethe groundwaterlevel
groundwater (refertotot t==00 day
level(refer day inin Figure
Figure 13a).
13(a)).Table
Table77summarizes
summarizes discharge
discharge rates of
of horizontal
horizontal drainsdrains at different
at different elevations
elevations of theof well
the well
shaftshaft
and and the total
the total discharge
discharge raterate of drainage
of drainage wells.
In wells.
You-Ye-LinIn You-Ye-Lin
landslide, landslide, the discharge
the discharge rate of arate of ashallow
single single shallow
horizontalhorizontal drain varies
drain varies in a of
in a range
range of 54.60∼0.18
54.60~0.18 m3 /day in m
3/day in dry season.
dry season.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 20 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23

(a) (b)

Figure 17. Discharge rate of horizontal drains installed at different elevations of well shaft during 20-day
subsurface drainage
Figure 17. in typhoon
Discharge season. (a)drains
rate of horizontal Drainage Well-1at(b)
installed Drainage
different Well-2 (Ks=1.0
elevations 10−4during
of well×shaft cm/sec).
20-day subsurface drainage in typhoon season. (a) Drainage Well-1 (b) Drainage Well-2 (Ks=1.0×10-4
cm/sec).
Table 7. Discharge rate of horizontal drains of Ks=1.0 × 10−4 cm/sec case.
Table 7. Discharge rate of horizontal drains of Ks=1.0×10-4 cm/sec case.
Drainage Well-1
Drainage
Discharge Rate of Horizontal DrainsWell-1
at Four Elevations Total Discharge Rate of
Drainage Discharge RateQof 3 /day)
Horizontal Drains at Drainage Well-1
i (m Total Discharge Rate of
DurationDrainage (i = w1d1~w1d4)
Four Elevations QW1 (m3 /day)
Drainage Well-1
t (day)Duration Qi (m3/day)
w1d1 w1d2 w1d3 w1d4 QW1 (m3/day)=ΣQi
t (day) (i = w1d1∼w1d4)
1 0.648
w1d1 5.808
w1d2 w1d359.016 w1d4 163.104 =ΣQi 228.576
2 1 0.648
0.456 5.808
3.864 59.016
44.904 163.104144.072 228.576 193.296
2 0.456 3.864 44.904 144.072 193.296
3 0.456 2.664 37.128 129.576 169.824
3 0.456 2.664 37.128 129.576 169.824
4 4 0.456
0.456 2.160
2.160 32.616
32.616 117.120117.120 152.352 152.352
5 5 0.480
0.480 1.896
1.896 29.832
29.832 106.728106.728 138.936
138.936
10 0.624 1.032 21.312 78.648 101.616
10 0.624 1.032 21.312 78.648 101.616
20 0.048 0.480 16.008 58.848 75.384
20 0.048 0.480 16.008
Drainage Well-2 58.848 75.384
Discharge Rate of Horizontal Drains
Drainage Well-2 at
Total Discharge Rate of
Drainage Four Elevations
Discharge Rate of Horizontal Drains at Four Elevations TotalWell-2
Drainage Discharge Rate of
Duration Qi (m /day)
3
Drainage Qi (m3 /day) QW2 (mDrainage
3/day) Well-2
Durationt (day) (i = w2d1–w2d4)
(i = w2d1 − w2d4) QW2 (m3 /day)
t (day) w2d1 w2d2 w2d3 w2d4 =ΣQi
1 w2d17.848 w2d2
21.696 w2d3 236.664 w2d4
101.760 367.968 =ΣQi
1 2 2.808
7.848 14.592
21.696 76.704
101.760 214.440236.664 308.544 367.968
2 3 2.424
2.808 10.368
14.592 60.432
76.704 195.696 214.440 268.920 308.544
4 2.544 8.208 51.456 182.112 244.320
3 5 2.424
1.488 10.368
6.984 60.432 171.552195.696
45.816 225.840 268.920
4 10 2.544
0.384 8.208
3.408 51.456 140.736182.112
32.832 177.360 244.320
5 20 0.240
1.488 1.296
6.984 24.264
45.816 119.112 171.552 144.912 225.840
(1 m3/day=1.157×10-5 cms (m3/sec), w1d1=horizontal drains of Drainage Well-1 installed at highest
10 0.384 3.408 32.832 140.736 177.360
elevation d1), w2d4=horizontal drains of Drainage Well-2 installed at lowest elevation d4).
20 0.240 1.296 24.264 119.112 144.912
4.5.
(1 Considerations
m3 /day=1.157 × to thecms
10−5 Location Adjustment
(m3 /sec), of Drainage
w1d1=horizontal Wells
drains of Drainage Well-1 installed at highest elevation d1),
w2d4=horizontal drains of Drainage Well-2 installed at lowest elevation d4).
As shown in Figure 18, the circular points represent the contact point of the horizontal drain.
According to the calculated groundwater drawdown, it is obvious that both drainage wells
4.5. Considerations to the Location Adjustment of Drainage Wells
(Drainage Well-1 and Drainage Well-2) can be moved down simultaneously to improve the drainage
As shown
efficiency in Figure drains
of horizontal 18, thewithin
circular
thepoints represent
main sliding bodytheorcontact
within point of the horizontal
the potential drain.
sliding surface
(PSS). Considering
According (1) thegroundwater
to the calculated effective zonedrawdown,
of groundwater drawdown
it is obvious that with
both adrainage
range ofwells
24 m(Drainage
at the
upslope
Well-1 of Drainage
and Drainage Well-1can
Well-2) (2) be
themoved
ineffective
downzone of groundwater
simultaneously to drawdown
improve the with a rangeefficiency
drainage of 13.5 m of
horizontal drains within the main sliding body or within the potential sliding surface (PSS). Considering
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 23

at the downslope of Drainage Well-1, Drainage Well-1 and Drainage Well-2 can be moved a horizontal
distance of 24 m and 10.5 m (=24 m-13.5 m) respectively to Adjusted Well-1 and Adjusted Well-2 as
illustrated in Figure 18.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 21 of 23
If Drainage Well-1 were substituted by Adjusted Well-1, the effective zone of groundwater
drawdown at the upslope will be situated within the main sliding body of the landslide and
(1)compensates
the effective thezoneineffective zone of groundwater
of groundwater drawdown withdrawdown
a range at
ofthe downslope.
24 m On the
at the upslope ofother hand,
Drainage if
Well-1
Drainage Well-2 were substituted by Adjusted Well-2, the effective zone of groundwater drawdown
(2) the ineffective zone of groundwater drawdown with a range of 13.5 m at the downslope of Drainage at
the upslope
Well-1, Drainage can shelter
Well-1 andmore unstable
Drainage areacan
Well-2 within the main
be moved sliding body
a horizontal of theoflandslide.
distance 24 m andAs10.5am
consequence, the overall drainage efficiency of the subsurface drainage system in the landslide can
(=24 m–13.5 m) respectively to Adjusted Well-1 and Adjusted Well-2 as illustrated in Figure 18.
be greatly promoted.

Figure 18.18.Location
Figure Locationadjustment
adjustment ofof drainage well (circular
drainage well (circularpoint=contact
point=contact point
point of of horizontal
horizontal drain,
drain,
adjusted well
adjusted wellwith
withhatched
hatchedline=drainage well after
line=drainage well after location
locationadjustment).
adjustment).

If Drainage Well-1 were substituted by Adjusted Well-1, the effective zone of groundwater drawdown
5. Conclusions
at the upslope will be situated within the main sliding body of the landslide and compensates the
Based on the field monitoring and 3D fully coupled flow-deformation numerical analyses, the
ineffective zone of groundwater drawdown at the downslope. On the other hand, if Drainage Well-2
appropriateness of the two deep drainage wells on the groundwater drawdown and slope
were substituted
stabilization areby AdjustedThe
inspected. Well-2,
slopethe effective
stability zone of groundwater
is evaluated drawdown
by the evolution at the
of potential upslope
sliding areacan
shelter more
and the unstable areafactor
corresponding within
ofthe main
safety sliding
using SRM.body
Theoftwo
the landslide. As a wells
deep drainage consequence, the overall
with multi-level
drainage efficiency of the subsurface drainage system in the landslide can be greatly promoted.
horizontal drains are effective to increase the slope stability and reduce the landslide potential.
According to the numerical results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
5. Conclusions
1) The effectiveness of the fully coupled flow-deformation numerical model for steady-state and
Based on the
transient field monitoring
groundwater and 3D fully
flow calculations and coupled flow-deformation
slope stability analyses usingnumerical analyses,
SRM is verified thruthe
appropriateness of the two deep drainage wells on the groundwater drawdown and
(a) the calibration of the initial groundwater depth of B12-W monitoring point (-13.0 m from slope stabilization
are inspected.
simulationTheandslope
-12.97stability is evaluated(b)
m from observation); bythe
theground
evolution of potential
movement sliding
direction of thearea and the
landslide
corresponding factor of safety using SRM. The two deep drainage wells with multi-level
(toward southeast from simulation and observation); (c) the depth of potential sliding surface horizontal
drains(PSS)
are effective
along B-B′ to increase the slope
profile (-11.4 m for stability
B12-W andand-35.6
reduce
m for theB09-W
landslide
frompotential.
simulation)According
and (-12.0tomthe
numerical results,
for B12-W andthe following
-36.0 conclusions
m for B09-W can be drawn:
from observation).
2) In general, the design of the drain length Ld should pass through the PSS for an additional
(1) The effectiveness of the fully coupled flow-deformation numerical model for steady-state and
length and the transition length Lt1 should be situated at the main part of the sliding body to
transient groundwater
achieve the flow calculations
maximum groundwater and slope
drawdown stability
result withinanalyses
the PSS.using SRMinis this
However, verified thru
study,
(a) the calibration of the initial groundwater depth of B12-W monitoring
the Lt1 length locates far beyond the PSS which lowers the effectiveness of the groundwaterpoint (−13.0 m from
simulation
drawdownand −12.97 m from
on promoting observation);
the stability (b) the ground movement direction of the landslide
of the PSS.
3) (toward
Drainagesoutheast
Well-1 andfrom simulation
Drainage andbe
Well-2 can observation);
moved toward (c) the depth ofbypotential
downslope sliding
a horizontal surface
distance
(PSS) B-Bm,0 profile (−11.4 m for B12-W and −35.6 m for B09-W from simulation) and (−12.0 m
of 24along
and 10.5 respectively, to improve the drainage efficiency. After such an adjustment, the
for B12-W anddrawdown
groundwater −36.0 m forand B09-W
slopefrom observation).
stabilization becomes more effective on the PSS due to the
(2) In general, the design of the drain length Ld should pass through the PSS for an additional length
and the transition length Lt1 should be situated at the main part of the sliding body to achieve
the maximum groundwater drawdown result within the PSS. However, in this study, the Lt1
length locates far beyond the PSS which lowers the effectiveness of the groundwater drawdown
on promoting the stability of the PSS.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 22 of 23

(3) Drainage Well-1 and Drainage Well-2 can be moved toward downslope by a horizontal distance of
24 and 10.5 m, respectively, to improve the drainage efficiency. After such an adjustment, the
groundwater drawdown and slope stabilization becomes more effective on the PSS due to the
fact the Lt1 length is configured within the main sliding body. In addition, the groundwater level
at the downslope of Drainage Well-1 can be effectively dropped by Drainage Well-2 because of the
reduction of the distance between the two drainage wells.
(4) Conclusively, the drainage well may exhibit higher drainage efficiency and groundwater
drawdown rate if the corresponding horizontal drains are mainly placed at the middle-zone of
PSS and extend across a large area of soil mass within PSS to allow for groundwater flow into
the drains.
(5) For the horizontal drains situated above the groundwater table, the subsurface drainage becomes
ineffective to the groundwater drawdown. For both drainage wells, the bottom horizontal drains
have the highest discharge rate. In addition, the groundwater drawdown rate (or drainage
efficiency) of a subsurface drainage system can be promoted with an increasing hydraulic
conductivity of the colluvium, however, it may turn into uneconomical for the colluvium with a
lower permeability (KS < 1.0 × 10−5 cm/sec).
(6) Eventually, it should be pointed out that the subsurface drainage remediation with high
engineering cost remains necessary because of the unfeasibility of the relocation of the existing
three residential communities. In addition, although the locations of the two drainage wells are not
optimum, still it is considered to be appropriate because of the limitation of the land availability.

Author Contributions: D.-G.L. developed the conceptualization, and wrote the manuscript; K.-C.C. worked on
the mathematical development, performed the numerical analysis; C.-Y.K. revised the manuscript; J.-C.C. analyzed
the data and the data curation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Soil and Water Conservation Bureau, Taiwan, the Republic of China.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kenney, T.C.; Pazin, M.; Choi, W.S. Design of Drainage boreholes for Soil Slopes. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE
1977, 103, 1311–1323.
2. Prellwitz, R.W. Analysis of Parallel Drains for Highway Cut Slope Stabilization. In Proceedings of the 16th
Annual Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering Symposium, Boise, ID, USA, 5–7 April 1978; pp. 153–180.
3. Nonveiller, E. Efficiency of horizontal drains on slope stability. In Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 15–19 June 1981; Volume 3,
pp. 495–500.
4. Lau, K.C.; Kenney, T.C. Horizontal drains to stabilize clay slopes. Can. Geotech. J. 1984, 21, 241–249.
[CrossRef]
5. Nakamura, H. Landslide control works by horizontal Drainage works. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Symposium on Landslides, Lausanne, Switzerland, 10–15 July 1988; Volume 2, pp. 893–896.
6. Cai, F.; Ugai, K.; Wakai, A.; Li, Q. Effects of horizontal drains on slope stability under rainfall by
three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput. Geotech. 1998, 23, 255–275. [CrossRef]
7. Rahardjo, H.; Leong, E.C. Horizontal Drains in Unsaturated Soil Slopes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Recife, Brazil, 10–13 March 2002; pp. 773–777.
8. Rahardjo, H.; Hritzuk, K.J.; Leong, E.C.; Rezaur, R.B. Effectiveness of drainage boreholes for slope stability.
Eng. Geol. 2003, 69, 295–308. [CrossRef]
9. Rahardjo, H.; Satyanaga1, A.; Leong, E.C. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics for Slope Stabilization. Geotech. Eng. J.
SEAGS AGSSEA 2012, 43, 48–58.
10. Eberhardt, E.; Bonzanigo, L.; Loew, S. Long-term investigation of a deep-seated creeping landslide in
crystalline rock. Part II. Mitigation measures and numerical modelling of deep drainage at Campo
Vallemaggia. Can. Geotech. J. 2007, 44, 1181–1199. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3346 23 of 23

11. Tacher, L.; Bonnard, C.; Laloui, L.; Parriaux, A. Modelling the behaviour of a large landslide with respect to
hydrogeological and geomechanical parameter heterogeneity. Landslides 2005, 2, 3–14. [CrossRef]
12. Matti, B.; Tacher, L.; Commend, S. Modelling the efficiency of a drainage gallery work for a large landsldie
with respect to hydrological heterogeneity. Can. Geotech. J. 2012, 49, 968–985. [CrossRef]
13. Lin, D.G. Design Guidelines of Subsurface Horizontal Drains Used for Slope Stabilization-Theory and Practice;
Department of Soil and Water Conservation, National Chung Hsing University: Taichung, Taiwan, 2018.
(In Chinese)
14. Lin, D.G.; Chang, K.C.; Choo, E.; Su, M.B. Evaluating the Efficiency of Subsurface Drainage Systems during
Large Landslides. J. Chin. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 49, 199–213. (In Chinese)
15. Long, M.T. Camp Five Slide−Exploration, Design and Construction of a Horizontal Drain Solution.
In Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering, Boise, ID, USA,
24–26 February 1986; pp. 246–265.
16. Royster, D.L. Horizontal Drains and Horizontal Drilling: An Overview. In Rock Classifications and Horizontal
Drilling and Drainage: Transportation Research Record 783; Transportation Research Board, National Academy
of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 1980; pp. 16–20.
17. Smith, T.W.; Stafford, G.V. Horizontal drains on California highways. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 1957,
83, 1–26.
18. Huculak, N.A.; Brawner, C.O. The use of horizontal drains in landslide stabilization. In Proceedings of the
42nd Annual Canadian Good Roads Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, 12–16 September 1961; pp. 383–400.
19. Hunt, R.E. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Hand-Book, 2nd ed.; Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2005; p. 1066.
20. Cornforth, D.H. Landslides in Practice: Investigation, Analysis, and Remedial/Preventative Options in Soils;
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 315–327.
21. Crenshaw, B.A.; Santi, P.M. Water table profiles in the vicinity of horizontal drains. Environ. Eng. Geosci.
2004, 10, 191–201. [CrossRef]
22. Xanthakos, P.P.; Abramson, L.W.; Bruce, D. Ground Control and Improvement; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
23. Hausmann, M.R. Slope Remediation. Proceedings: Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments-II.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 31; ASCE: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992; pp. 1274–1317.
24. Cook, D.; Santi, P.M.; Higgins, J.D. Horizontal landslide drain design: State-of-the-art and suggested
improvements. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 2008, 14, 241–250. [CrossRef]
25. Soil and Water Conservation Bureau, Taiwan. Handbook: A Brief Description of Remedial Plan for Li-Shan
Landslide Area; Soil and Water Conservation Bureau: Taipei, Taiwan, 2003.
26. Plaxis 3D. Scientific Manual; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
27. Kleppe, J.H.; Denby, G.M. Design and Performance of Horizontal Drains. In First International Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering; Missouri University of Science and Technology: Rolla, MO, USA,
1984; pp. 593–598.
28. Hoek, E. Practical Rock Engineering; ResearchGate: Gatersleben, Germany, 2006; e-book; Available online:
www.rocscience.com (accessed on 1 March 2020).
29. Popescu, M.E. A suggested method for reporting landslide remedial measures. IAEG Bull. 2001, 60, 69–74.
[CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).