The climate data for the hydrological year 2018–19 illustrate the local climate seasonality, with rainfall concentrated between October and March (972mm), and a dry season between April and September (199.1 mm). The annual precipitation in this hydrological year was 1171.1 mm, below the regional average (1348 mm), but within the measured range, between 1024 mm a 1744 mm (Bacellar 2000). This drought was a consequence of an abnormally dry January, a phenomenon regionally called "veranico" (dry spell). The potential evapotranspiration estimated using the Thornthwaite (1948) method was 1099.5 mm, with higher values in the dry season, when actual evapotranspiration is lower. The cumulative water balance, based on the actual evaporation (Wilson et al. 1997), showed the climatic seasonality, with an excess of water during rainy months and deficit in the dry months.
The two gullies in the Holland station are on the side of a hill gently sloping to the south and southeast (Fig. 3a). On the gully slopes, it is possible to see that saprolite has decametric thicknesses, while horizon Bw is 2–10 m. Horizon A is almost completely eroded.
The erosion rills on the gully slopes occur only in the saprolite, confirming its greater erodibility. As a result of the lower erodibility of the solum (Bw horizon), the slopes are subvertical in the upper third part. Gully 1 has a maximum height of ~50 m in the most critical section, an average width of 250 m, and length over 310 m. Sound rock occurs at the bottom of the gully and the phreatic surface occurs at the base of the saprolite. In the satellite image of 05/31/19, in the dry season and after 15 days with no precipitation, there is a large effluent flow at the base of the slopes of the two gullies feeding the main channel (Fig. 3b).
The intact vegetation indicates that some slopes are more stable, while bare slopes, such as those located in the northwest section of Gully 1 and the northern extremity of Gully 2, are unstable (Fig. 3b). A comparison of historical aerial photos shows that the two gullies in the area have expanded not only in the direction of the topographic slope but also in other directions due to the influence of subsurface erosion processes induced by the centripetal force of groundwater percolation. In other words, although the topographical slope is northward, both gullies are expanding even to the south, mainly by the action of slumps.
The gneiss outcrop at the bottom of the gully shows narrow banding, conferred by alternating feldspathic-quartz bands with ferromagnesian minerals ones. This gneiss is moderately fractured, but the fractures are largely filled with kaolinite, resulting in a very low hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass. The overlying saprolite presents variegated colors and inherits the banded structure of the rock, but this does not significantly influence shear strength (Futai 2002). The pedological horizon Bw (solum) is solid, reddish-brown, or yellowish, with a clayey texture, but with granular structure, as typical in well-evolved tropical pedological horizons (horizon Bw, of Ferrasols). The solum characterization test results confirm its clay texture (Table 1), qualifying as high-plasticity clays or silts according to the USCS classification (D2487-17 ASTM 2017). The saprolite has a silt-sandy texture and is classified as a low-plasticity silt. The hydraulic conductivity is greater in the solum due to the aggregation of clay particles, which confer high porosity, as is common in tropical soils (Lacerda 2010). These data are similar to those from other studies conducted in the region (Parzanese 1991; Bacellar 2000; Bacellar et al 2005; Futai 2002; Morais 2003).
Table 1
Physical and hydraulic parameters of soil horizons
Soil Horizon
|
LL
|
IP
|
ϒnat (kN/m3)
|
w
(%)
|
Gs
|
e
|
S
(%)
|
n
(%)
|
k
(cm/s)
|
Solum (Bw horizon)
|
51
|
31
|
13.54
|
31.5
|
1.545
|
1.42
|
34.27
|
58.703
|
7.00×10-04
|
Saprolite (C horizon)
|
44
|
NP
|
15.67
|
17.24
|
1.578
|
0.891
|
30.53
|
47.13
|
6.45×10-05
|
The retention curves and hydraulic conductivity functions of both soil horizons are represented in Figure 4 and the adjustment parameters in Table 2. The obtained results were in agreement with those by Futai (2002) in the same area. The solum exhibits a bimodal behavior, typical of well-evolved pedological horizons like Bw (Carvalho and Leroueil 2000). Horizon C also presents bimodal behavior, unusual for this type of soil, but already identified in the area by Futai and Almeida (2005). If the minimum limit to drain macropores is set as 10 kPa suction (Marshall 1959), the solum, unlike saprolite, is distinguished by the large volume of macropores. This favors infiltration and decreases the surface flow, consequently reducing erosivity, in contrast to the behavior of the saprolite.
Table 2
Parameters of the Gitirana and Fredlund model (2004).
Soil Horizon
|
θs
|
ψb1
|
ψres1
|
Sres1
|
ψb2
|
Sb
|
ψres2
|
Sres2
|
a
|
R2
|
Solum (Bw horizon)
|
0.5868
|
1.42
|
11.28
|
0.432
|
7601.8
|
0.405
|
17454.0
|
0.052
|
0.085
|
0.981
|
Saprolite (C horizon)
|
0.4712
|
15.00
|
30.00
|
0.67
|
180.0
|
0.62
|
6000.0
|
0.080
|
0.030
|
0.993
|
Systematic monitoring of several gullies in the region during the last 20 years has shown that surface erosion processes are important in the early stages of erosion in channels; however, when the water table is reached, subsurface processes become more prominent. The influence of surface flow becomes less relevant as measures to contain floods such as terraces on contour lines, also adopted upstream of the gullies of the Holland station, are often unsuccessfully deployed in the region (Fig. 3b).
The gullies in the region exhibit the following mechanisms of erosion (Bacellar 2000; Drumond and Bacellar 2006): rotational slides (slumps) mobilizing the whole slope; falling soil blocks from horizon Bw, which break by tension (tension joints) over the saprolite that is eroded by plunge-pool erosion; wash, rill and splash erosion of saprolite exposed on slopes; boiling and piping erosion and creep or small flow slides of saprolite in the area of exfiltration of the phreatic surface at the toe of the slopes (Fig. 5).
As already verified by Drumond and Bacellar (2006), the creep and flow slide processes in these gullies intensify in the dry season, when the phreatic surface rises due to delayed recharge. It is possible to verify that in May 2019, already in the dry period and after 15 days of drought, the volume of exfiltrating water from the aquifer at the base of the slope of these gullies was extremely high (Fig. 3b). Consequently, the gully slopes are vulnerable to the action of these two processes, facilitating subsequent development of slips. Therefore, the undercutting of the slope base during the dry period is fundamental to the continuous advancement of gullies (Fig. 5b).
To better understand the role of water dynamics in the seasonal behavior of slope stability, it was performed a slope stability analysis coupled with a numerical model of groundwater flow in a geologically representative section of an unstable slope in the northwest sector of gully 1 (Fig. 3b). Data from previous surveys and geophysical mapping, such as electrical resistivity and georadar (ground penetrating radar) (Bacellar 2000) were used to build the conceptual model. To resolve ambiguities, particularly regarding the actual position of the groundwater and the top of the sound rock, additional geoelectric data were acquired (vertical electrical soundings - VES).
The joint processing of these data allowed to build a conceptual model of the soil horizon distribution, the top of the sound rock, and the position of the phreatic surface, from which the analysis section was built (Fig. 6a). The natural slope has an average magnitude of 12.2 %. At the gully face, the eroded slope has sub-vertical declivities towards the top (maintained by the more resistant solum) that softens towards the inner gully channel, with a permanent drainage. In the direction of the topographic divider, it is possible to notice that the overall thickness of the weathering cover decreases, from 6 m to 2 m for solum and from 38 to 22 m for saprolite. The water table is on average 18 m deep in the divider and 26 m under the erosion ridge, with an average hydraulic gradient 0.1–0.4% under the natural slope, increasing in the eroded portion of the slope caused by the lowering of the aquifer by the gully.
The hydrodynamic parameters for simulating the saturated and unsaturated flows were obtained in hydraulic conductivity tests (Table 2) and characteristic curves (Fig. 4). The boundary conditions specified for the finite element simulation (Anderson and Woessner, 2002) were: specified flux (Type 2), such as impermeable border at the base (contact with the gneissic rock mass) and on the right (hydraulic boundary on the drainage divider) and at the top (specified flux by weather conditions); known head (Type 1) at the left border, where occurs the drainage channel inside the gully.
Results of the subsurface flow analysis under transient regime along the hydrologic year revealed two distinct patterns: one on the eroded slope and the other on the natural slope (Fig. 6a). The phreatic surface in the corresponding hydrological year varied more on the eroded slope (2.97 m) than on the natural slope (maximum variation 1.24 m) and the hydraulic gradients for the eroded slope have lower values during the wet season (0.66) than at the peak of the dry season (0.77). The decrease in the hydraulic gradient and the higher variation in the hydraulic head on the eroded slope is caused by the faster recharge due to the lower thickness of the unsaturated zone in this section (Fig. 6a). It is also worth mentioning the high vertical upward flow component throughout the hydrological year, which is manifested by the presence of soil boiling points in some stretches, especially in the dry season.
A water balance enabled an estimate of the water exfiltration flows on the gully face, showed the highest value in January (3.57×10-6 m3/s), and a second high in May (3.30×10-6 m3/s), which falls again until the end of the dry season. These results are similar to the ones presented by Drumond and Bacellar (2006) for the flow in the drainage channels of a gully in the region, with large flows in the rainy season and an increase in the dry period due to the increase in the base flow (Fig. 2b).
Slope safety factor analysis was conducted in the same hydrological year, by importing the flow simulations (head distribution) and not adding the phreatic surface, as is usual in this kind of approach (Ventura and Bacellar 2011). It then became possible to analyze the influence of the hydraulic head magnitude and direction in the saturated and unsaturated zone on slope stability. When the phreatic surface is just added in a limit equilibrium analysis, it is wrongly assumed that the water flows are horizontal and the head equipotentials vertical. It was noticed that the critical slipping surface throughout the hydrological year showed little variation in the safety factor (Fig. 6b, c), always remaining in the potential range of rupture, as is expected for such unstable slopes. A bimodal behavior of the safety factor is observed, with two minimum values, one at the height of the rainy season in January (01/01/19), influenced by the phreatic surface near the eroded slope, and another in April (04/17/19), when this surface rises inside the slope. The lowest value persists during the dry season, influenced by delayed water table recharge. The highest safety factor occurs at the end of the dry season (10/08/18) when the water table is deeper again. The increase in the safety factor during the second half of January is a consequence of the dry spell (veranico).
The small variation in the safety factor may be a consequence of the lower rainfall of the year studied, which was approximately 82% of the local historical average (1348mm.y-1). Slope undercutting during the dry season may also result in a decrease in the safety factor. However, stability analyses of the safety factor in this condition have not been done, as the forms of erosion at the slope base are very variable in space and time.
Therefore, it was possible to confirm two patterns of water percolation and aquifer recharge, which reflect the characteristics of the soils and the geometry of the gully slopes. On the portion of the natural slope, unaffected by the gully, the solum is more porous and permeable and water infiltrates more easily. However, it takes longer to recharge the aquifer at a depth of over 18 m due to the thick, relatively less permeable saprolite. In this section, the phreatic surface reaches its peak between July and August in the period of drought, confirming the findings of Drumond and Bacellar (2006), who found a 5-month lag time between the peak of the rain and the recharge of groundwater located 20 m deep.
Conversely, on the gully face, the saprolite emerges and the phreatic surface is shallower (<3 m), enabling faster recharge, especially when considering the rising capillary fringe which is high in this silty material. As a result of this distinct behavior, the safety factor is low at two different times: the peak of the wet season when the water table rises at the bottom of the slope, and the middle of the dry season when the water table rises inside the slope. In the rainy season, global slumps, involving the entire slope may occur, associated with others surface erosion processes (Fig. 7a). In the dry season slope undercut prevails because of the increase in the hydraulic gradient (Fig. 7b).
The rising hydraulic gradient at the toe of the slope is not sufficient to cause the static liquefaction of the saprolite but contributes to the decrease in the effective stress and, therefore, in the stability of the slope. However, the small slips observed on this stretch cause dynamic liquefaction, transforming them into smaller silt flow slides (Fig. 7b). The channelized flow through small discontinuities also generates small-scale piping erosion. All these mechanisms lead to the removal of slope-supporting soil in the dry season, facilitating global slump reactivation in the subsequent wet season.
Since the instability of these slopes is influenced by the groundwater regime, providing efficient drainage at the slope base is an effective means of stabilization. However, the difficult accessibility of the gully bottom and the high instability in this stretch, which is susceptible even to quicksand condition, makes it impossible to use most conventional slope stabilization methods, such as the installation of toe drains in trenches or horizontal drains (Abramson et al. 2001). Any excavation on this stretch is dangerous and may trigger a global rupture.
This work simulated a variation of the method proposed by Prandini et al. (1974) to stabilize a gully in a sandstone region. This involves the installation of alternative drains, which consists of throwing bags of soil-cement at the toe of the slope to work as a toe drain and its subsequent covering by a landfill. This variation includes a 2-m-high and 4-m-wide toe drain connected to a 0.5-m-thick subsurface drainage blanket (Figs. 7c and 8a). Note that unlike the solution of Prandini et al. (1974), a small excavation at the site of the toe drain is proposed, due to the difference in the geometry of the gully slope that would not allow the launch of the soil-cement bags from the ridge to the final site. It is complemented by a retaining wall designed with gabions and connected to the drainage blanket. It is completed with a landfill in 2.5:3 slope benches, with material from the slope, thus achieving greater economy and speed in execution. Except for the gabion screens, all other materials can be obtained locally and executed by unskilled labor, reducing costs. The recommended time to build this structure is at the end of the dry season, when the slope is more drained and more stable.
The slope safety factor was raised to values of approximately 1.32 (Fig. 8b) in this configuration, thus ensuring gully stability. This passive containment method makes it possible to reduce exfiltration at the toe of the gully (Fig. 8a), also reducing the undercutting caused by subsurface flows and reducing the fast water table recharge on the face of the gully. It is also possible to notice the change in the most critical rupture surface, making it more superficial, located above the water table, and of much smaller volume than in the natural condition (Fig. 8b). For complete stabilization, it is recomended to continue with the control of surface runoff.
Therefore, this is a feasible and low-cost solution to stabilize the slopes and prevent gullies from expanding. This is of great importance to the region, which has suffered severe economic, social, and environmental impacts because of the accelerated evolution of hundreds of gullies.