1. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
Numerical modelling of slope–vegetation–atmosphere interaction: an overview
by Gaetano Elia, Federica Cotecchia, Giuseppe Pedone, Jean Vaunat, Philip J. Vardon, Carlos Pereira, Sarah M. Springman, Mohamed Rouainia, John Van Esch, Eugeniusz Koda, Josif Josifovski, Alessandra Nocilla, Amin Askarinejad, Ross Stirling, Peter Helm, Piernicola Lollino, and Piotr Osinski
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
Volume 50(3):
August 1, 2017
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

2. Schematic slope model and potential slope–vegetation–atmosphere interaction phenomena.
Schematic slope model and potential slope–vegetation–atmosphere interaction phenomena. GWT, ground water table.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

3. Pisciolo slope: finite-element mesh and boundary conditions employed in the hydraulic analyses (saturated permeabilities of the lithological units are reported on the model, together with the active landslide bodies for which the limit equilibrium analyses have been undertaken) and numerical results (dashed lines refer to the case in which the more permeable inclusions have not been implemented in the model; continuous lines refer to the model implementing also the more permeable inclusions) compared with in situ measurements (dots). b.g.l., below ground level.
Pisciolo slope: finite-element mesh and boundary conditions employed in the hydraulic analyses (saturated permeabilities of the lithological units are reported on the model, together with the active landslide bodies for which the limit equilibrium analyses have been undertaken) and numerical results (dashed lines refer to the case in which the more permeable inclusions have not been implemented in the model; continuous lines refer to the model implementing also the more permeable inclusions) compared with in situ measurements (dots). b.g.l., below ground level.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

4. Middelburgse kade peat dyke: (a) cross-section; (b) comparison between hydraulic head predictions; (c) comparison between predictions and measurements; (d) stability response. fem, finite-element model; fvm, finite-volume model.
Middelburgse kade peat dyke: (a) cross-section; (b) comparison between hydraulic head predictions; (c) comparison between predictions and measurements; (d) stability response. fem, finite-element model; fvm, finite-volume model.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

5. Viadana embankment along the Po river: (a) sketch of mesh adopted in the seepage analyses (all dimensions in metres); (b) predicted v. measured suction evolution within the prototype; (c) suction evolution predicted within the prototype obtained by accounting or not accounting for soil–atmosphere interaction.
Viadana embankment along the Po river: (a) sketch of mesh adopted in the seepage analyses (all dimensions in metres); (b) predicted v. measured suction evolution within the prototype; (c) suction evolution predicted within the prototype obtained by accounting or not accounting for soil–atmosphere interaction.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

6. Volturino slope: (a) geomorphological map with location of main cross-section indicated; (b) incremental shear strains for summer condition; (b) incremental shear strains for winter condition; (d) incremental vertical displacement for winter condition.
Volturino slope: (a) geomorphological map with location of main cross-section indicated; (b) incremental shear strains for summer condition; (b) incremental shear strains for winter condition; (d) incremental vertical displacement for winter condition.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

7. Ramina slope: (a) geological profile; (b) calibration of the SWRC adopted in the simulations; (c) total displacements (maximum 1.17 m); (d) suctions (maximum 169.7 kN m−2).
Ramina slope: (a) geological profile; (b) calibration of the SWRC adopted in the simulations; (c) total displacements (maximum 1.17 m); (d) suctions (maximum 169.7 kN m−2).
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

8. Newbury slope: (a) slope cross-section and soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity function properties for the modelled London Clay; (b) history of mid-slope pore surface water pressures and horizontal displacements for the present and future climate models.
Newbury slope: (a) slope cross-section and soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity function properties for the modelled London Clay; (b) history of mid-slope pore surface water pressures and horizontal displacements for the present and future climate models.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

9. Ruedlingen test site: (a) geometry of the model adopted in SEEP/W for the right-hand side of the test site and location of seven rain zones based on the Landslide Triggering Experiment (LTE); (b) enlarged view of the contour lines of porewater pressure in the upper part of the slope 7 h after the start of rainfall during the LTE (white arrows show the flow direction).
Ruedlingen test site: (a) geometry of the model adopted in SEEP/W for the right-hand side of the test site and location of seven rain zones based on the Landslide Triggering Experiment (LTE); (b) enlarged view of the contour lines of porewater pressure in the upper part of the slope 7 h after the start of rainfall during the LTE (white arrows show the flow direction).
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

10. Ruedlingen test site: (a) geometry and hydraulic boundary conditions for the 2D numerical model with exfiltration (2D_DE); (b) displacement contours of the 2D_DE model after 8.57 h of rainfall (displacements in metres).
Ruedlingen test site: (a) geometry and hydraulic boundary conditions for the 2D numerical model with exfiltration (2D_DE); (b) displacement contours of the 2D_DE model after 8.57 h of rainfall (displacements in metres).
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

11. Ruedlingen test site: porewater pressure at a depth of 150 cm in in the upper part of the slope, based on the field measurements and numerical simulations with (2D_DE) and without (2D_D) exfiltration.
Ruedlingen test site: porewater pressure at a depth of 150 cm in in the upper part of the slope, based on the field measurements and numerical simulations with (2D_DE) and without (2D_D) exfiltration.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏

12. Ideal slope case study: Bishop's stress for (a) homogeneous slope and (b) heterogeneous slope.
Gaetano Elia et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2017;50:
© 2017 The Author(s)‏