Landslides

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 497–517 | Cite as

SHIA_Landslide: a distributed conceptual and physically based model to forecast the temporal and spatial occurrence of shallow landslides triggered by rainfall in tropical and mountainous basins

  • Edier Aristizábal
  • Jaime Ignacio Vélez
  • Hernán Eduardo Martínez
  • Michel Jaboyedoff
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Landslides are a main cause of human and economic losses worldwide. For this reason, landslide hazard assessment and the capacity to predict this phenomenon have been topics of great interest within the scientific community for the implementation of early warning systems. Although several models have been proposed to forecast shallow landslides triggered by rainfall, few models have incorporated geotechnical factors into a complete hydrological model of a basin that can simulate the storage and movement of rainwater through the soil profile. These basin and full hydrological models have adopted a physically based approach. This paper develops a conceptual and physically based model called open and distributed hydrological simulation and landslides—SHIA_Landslide (Simulación HIdrológica Abierta, or SHIA, in Spanish)—that is supported by geotechnical and hydrological features occurring on a basin-wide scale in tropical and mountainous terrains. SHIA_Landslide is an original and significant contribution that offers a new perspective with which to analyse shallow landslide processes by incorporating a comprehensive distributed hydrological tank model that includes water storage in the soil coupled with a classical analysis of infinite slope stability under saturated conditions. SHIA_Landslide can be distinguished by the following: (i) its capacity to capture surface topography and effects concerning the subsurface flow; (ii) its use of digital terrain model (DTM) to establish the relationships among cells, geomorphological parameters, slope angle, direction, etc.; (iii) its continuous simulation of rainfall data over long periods and event simulations of specific storms; (iv) its consideration of the effects of horizontal and vertical flow; and (vi) its inclusion of a hydrologically complete water process that allows for hydrological calibration. SHIA_Landslide can be combined with real-time rainfall data and implemented in early warning systems.

Keywords

Landslides Rainfall Physical model Tropical environments 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Hans Wildsdorf Foundation and the Colombian Association of Petroleum Geologists and Geophysicist (ACGGP) for providing financial support for conducting this research. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor for their constructive and useful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MG, Lloyd DM (1991) Using a combined slope hydrology-stability model to develop cut slope design charts. Proc Inst Civ Eng 91:705–718Google Scholar
  3. Anderson A, Sitar N (1995) Analysis of rainfall-induced debris flows. J Geotech Eng 121:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (1995) The description and classification of weathered rocks for engineering purposes. Geologial Society Engineering Group Working Party Report. Q J Eng Geol 28:207–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apip, Takara K, Yamashiki Y, Ibrahim AB, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2010) A distributed hydrological–geotechnical model using satellite-derived rainfall for shallow landslide warning in a large basin. Landslides 7(3):237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnaud P, Lavabre J (1995) Couplage de modèles de simulation de hyétogrammes aux pas de temps journalier et horaire. Les modèles au Cemagref - Séminaire inter-chercheurs (1) - 23–31Google Scholar
  7. Arnone E, Noto LV, Lepore C, Bras RL (2011) Physically-based and distributed approach to analyze rainfall-triggered landslides at watershed scale. Geomorphology 133:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Askarinejad A, Laue J, Zweidler A, Iten M, Bleiker E, Buschor H, Springman S M (2012) Physical modelling of rainfall induced landslides under controlled climatic conditions. In Eurofuge 2012, Delft, Netherlands, published on CD onlyGoogle Scholar
  9. Baum R L, Savage W Z, Godt W (2002) TRIGRS—a Fortran program for transient rainfall infiltration and grid-based regional slope-stability analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 2008–1159, 75 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergström S (1995) The HBV model. In: Singh VP (ed) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertoldi G, Rigon R (2004) Geotop: a hydrological balance model: technical description and programs guide, version 0.875, Technical Report DICA-04-001, University of Trento, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  12. Biondi D, Freni G, Iacobellis V, Mascaro G, Montanari A (2012) Validation of hydrological models: conceptual basis, methodological approaches and a proposal for a code of practice. Phys Chem Earth 42–44:710–776Google Scholar
  13. Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique 5:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borga M, Dalla Fontana G, Daros D, Marchi L (1998) Shallow landslide hazard assessment using a physically based model and digital elevation data. Environ Geol 35(2–3):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brand EW (1985) Predicting the performance of residual soil slopes. Proc 11th Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 5:2541–2578Google Scholar
  16. Bray DI (1979) Estimating average velocity in gravel-bed rivers. J Hydraul Div ASCE 105:1103–1122Google Scholar
  17. Brunsden D (2002) The fifth Glossop Lecture. Geomorphological roulette for engineers and planners: some insights into an old game. Q J Eng Geol 35:101–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burton A, Bathurst JC (1998) Physically based modeling of shallow landslide sediment yield at a catchment scale. Environ Geol 35(2–3):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carrara A, Crosta G, Frattini P (2008) Comparing models of debris-flow susceptibility in the alpine environment. Geomorphology 94:353–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cepeda J, Hoeg K, Nadim F (2010) Landslide triggering rainfall thresholds: a conceptual framework. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 43:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernandez T, El Hamdouni R (2006) Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical information systems. Eng Geol Environ 65:341–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collins BD, Znidarcic D (2004) Stability analyses of rainfall induced landslides. J Geotech Geoenviron 130(4):362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corominas J, Moya J (1999) Reconstructing recent landslide activity in relation to rainfall in the Llobregat river basin, Eastern Pyrenees, Spain. Geomorphology 30:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crosta G (1998) Regionalization of rainfall threshold: an aid for landslide susceptibility zonation. Environ Geol 35(2–3):131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crosta G, Frattini P (2003) Distributed modeling of shallow landslides triggered by intense rainfall. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 3:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crosta G, Frattini P (2008) Rainfall-induced landslides and debris flows. Hydrol Process 22:473–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deere D U, Patton F D (1971) Slope stability in residual soils. En Proc., Fourth Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Puerto Rico. 1:87–170Google Scholar
  28. Dhakal AS, Sidle RC (2003) Distributed simulations of landslides for different rainfall conditions. Hydrol Process 18:757–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. D’Odorico P, Fagherazzi S (2003) A probabilistic model of rainfall-triggered shallow landslides in hollows: a long term analysis. Water Resour Res 39(9):1262Google Scholar
  30. D’Odorico P, Fagherazzi S, Rigon R (2005) Potential for landsliding: dependence on hyetograph characteristics. J Geophys Res 110:1–10Google Scholar
  31. Edijatno N, Michel C (1989) Un modèle pluie-débit à trois paramètres. La Houille Blanche 2:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 27:861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage W Z, (2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102:85–98Google Scholar
  34. Frances F, Vélez J J, Munera J C, Medici C, Busii G (2012) Descripción del modelo conceptual distribuido de simulación hidrológica TETIS v.8. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, pp 86Google Scholar
  35. Frances F, Vélez JI, Vélez JJ (2007) Split-parameter structure for the automatic calibration of distributed hydrological models. J Hydrol 332:226–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frattini P, Crosta G, Fusi N, Dal Negro P (2004) Shallow landslides in pyroclastic soils: a distributed modeling approach for hazard assessment. Eng Geol 73:277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New York, p 517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Godt JW, Sener-Kaya B, Lu N, Baum RL (2012) Stability of infinite slopes under transient partially saturated seepage conditions. Water Resour Res 48:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Graham J (1984) Methods of stability analysis. In: Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley, New York, pp 171–215Google Scholar
  40. Grifiths J A, Collison A J C (1999) The validity of using a simplified distributed hydrological model for estimation of landslide probability under a climate change scenario. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on GeoComputation, Virginia, USA. (http://www.geocomputation.org/1999/index.htm ). Accessed 12 Oct 2012
  41. Hack JT (1957) Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 294-B:45–97Google Scholar
  42. Hammond C, Hall D, Miller S, Swetik P (1992) Level I stability analysis (LISA) documentation for version 2.0, general technical report INT-285, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
  43. Hermelin M, Mejía O, Velásquez E (1992) Erosional and depositional features produced by a convulsive event, San Carlos, Colombia, September 21, 1990. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 45:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hey RD (1979) Dynamic process-response model of river channel development. Earth Surf Process 4:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hutchinson J, Bhandari R (1971) Undrained loading, a fundamental mechanism of mudflows and other mass movements. Geotechnique 21(4):353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. IGAC – Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (2007) Estudio general de suelos y zonificación de tierras del departamento de Antioquia. Bogotá, pp 207Google Scholar
  47. Iida T (1999) A stochastic hydro-geomorphological model for shallow landsliding due to rainstorm. Catena 34:293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. INTEGRAL S A (1990) Informe sobre daños en la central de calderas por la avalancha ocurrida en la quebrada La Arenosa el 21 de septiembre de 1990 y su reparación. Report Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. ISA. pp 45Google Scholar
  49. Ivanov VY, Vivoni E, Bras RL, Entekhabi D (2004) Catchment hydrologic response with a fully-distributed triangulated irregular network model. Water Resour Res 40:W11102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Iverson R (2000) Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour Res 36(7):1897–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jaramillo A (2006) Evapotranspiración de referencia en la región Andina de Colombia. Cenicafé 57(4):288–298Google Scholar
  52. Klemes V (1986) Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrol Sci J 31:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kojima T, Takara K (2003) A grid-cell based distributed flood runoff model and its performance. In: Tachikawa Y, Vieux BE, Georgakakos KP, Nakakita E (eds) Weather radar information and distributed hydrological modelling. IAHS, Publication No. 282, 234–240Google Scholar
  54. Kubota J, Sivapalan M (1995) Towards a catchment-scale model of subsurface runoff generation based on synthesis of small-scale process-based modeling and field studies. In: Sivapalan M (ed) Scale issues in hydrological modeling. Wiley, New York, pp 297–310Google Scholar
  55. Larsen MC (2008) Rainfall-triggered landslides, anthropogenic hazards and mitigation strategies. Adv Geosci 14:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leopold L B, Maddock T J (1953) Hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252, pp 55Google Scholar
  57. Leopold L B, Wolman M G, Miller J P (1964) Fluvial Processes and Geomorphology. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California. pp 522Google Scholar
  58. Limerinos J T (1969) Relation of the Manning coefficient to measure bed roughness in stable natural channels. U S Geological Survey Professional paper 650D, pp 45Google Scholar
  59. Little A L (1969) The engineering classification of residual tropical soils. Proceedings of 7th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1:1–10Google Scholar
  60. Martínez C (2012) Susceptibilidad a la ocurrencia de movimientos en masa superficiales detonados por lluvia utilizando el modelo SHALSTAB: Cuenca La Arenosa, municipio de San Carlos, Antioquia. Dissertation. University of Antioquia, Medellín, pp 60Google Scholar
  61. Mejía R, Velásquez M E (1991) Procesos y depósitos asociados al aguacero de septiembre 21 de 1990 en el Área de San Carlos (Antioquia). Dissertation, University of Colombia, Medellín, pp160Google Scholar
  62. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for the topographic control of shallow landsliding. Water Resour Research 30:1153–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USGS—United States Geological Survey (2005) NOAA-USGS debris flow warning system. Final report, circular 1283. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1283/. Accessed 11 January 2012
  64. O’Loughlin EM (1986) Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resour Res 22:794–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pack R T, Tarboton D G, Goodwin C N (1998) Terrain stability mapping with SINMAP, technical description and users guide for version 1.00, Report Number 4114-0, Terratech Consulting Ltd, Salmon Arm, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  66. Paniconi C, Troch PA, van Loon EE, Arno G, Hilberts J (2003) Hillslope-storage Boussinesq model for subsurface flow and variable source areas along complex hillslopes: 2. Intercomparison with a three-dimensional Richards’s equation model. Water Resour Res 39(11):1317–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parsons AJ, Abrahams AD, Wainwright J (1994) On determining resistance to interrill overland flow. Water Resour Res 30(12):3515–3521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rahardjo H, Leong EC, Rezaur RB (2008) Effect of antecedent rainfall on pore-water pressure distribution characteristics in residual soil slopes under tropical rainfall. Hydrol Process 22:506–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rahardjo H, Li XW, Toll DG, Leong EC (2001) The effect of antecedent rainfall on slope stability. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 19:371–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rahardjo H, Lim TT, Chang MF, Fredlund DG (1995) Shear strength characteristics of a residual soil. Can Geotech J 32:60–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Restrepo P, Jorgensen D P, Cannon S H, Laber J E, Major J, Marter J A, Purpura J, Werner K (2008) Prototype debris flow warning system for recently burned areas in Southern California. Bulletin of the Meteorological Society, Insights and Innovation, American Meteorological Society, pp 1845–1851Google Scholar
  72. Rezzoug A, Schumann A, Chifflard P, Zepp H (2005) Field measurements of soil moisture dynamics and numerical simulation using the kinematic wave approximation. Adv Water Resour 28:917–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richards LA, Weaver LR (1944) Moisture retention by some irrigated soils as related to soil moisture tension. J Agric Res 69:215–235Google Scholar
  74. Rossi G, Catani F, Leoni L, Segoni S, Tofani V (2013) HIRESSS: a physically based slope stability simulator for HPC applications. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci (13) 151–166Google Scholar
  75. Sassa K, Wang, G H (2005) Mechanism of landslide-triggered debris flows: liquefaction phenomena due to the undrained loading of torrent deposits. Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer Praxis Books 81–104Google Scholar
  76. Saxton KE, Rawls WJ (2006) Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1569–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schuster RL (1996) Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 247. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 129–177Google Scholar
  78. Sidle RC, Ochiai H (2006) Landslides: processes, prediction, and land use. Water Resources Monograph 1. American Geophysical Union, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simoni S, Zanotti F, Bertoldi G, Rigon R (2008) Modelling the probability of occurrence of shallow landslides and channelized debris flows using GEOtop-FS. Hydrol Process 22:532–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Singh VP (2003) On the theories of hydraulic geometry. Int J Sediment Res 18(3):196–218Google Scholar
  81. Singh V P, Dickinson W T (1975) An analytical method to determine daily soil moisture. Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Water Resources, Delhi, India (4): 355–365Google Scholar
  82. Strickler A (1923) Beiträge zur Frage des Geschwindigheitsformel und der Rauhigkeitszahlen für Strome, Kanale und Geschlossene Leitungen. Mitteilingen des Eidgennössischer Amtes für Wasserwirtschaft, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  83. Takasao T, Shiiba M (1988) Incorporation of the effect of concentration of flow into the kinematic wave equations and its applications to runoff system lumping. J Hydrol 102:301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Take WA, Bolton MD, Wong PCP, Yeung FJ (2004) Evaluation of landslide triggering mechanisms in model fill slopes. Landslides 1:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Terlien MTJ (1998) The determination of statistical and deterministic hydrological landslide-triggering thresholds. Environ Geol 35(2–3):124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Troch P, van Loon E, Hilberts A (2002) Analytical solutions to a hillslope-storage kinematic wave equation for subsurface flow. Adv Water Resour 25:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1928) Plants. Plant Physiol 3(3):355–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vélez J I (2001) Desarrollo de un modelo hidrológico conceptual distribuido orientado a la simulación de crecidas. Valencia. Dissertation. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, pp 202Google Scholar
  89. Vélez JI, Villarraga MR, Álvarez OD, Alarcón JE, Quintero F (2004) Modelo distribuido para determinar la amenaza de deslizamiento superficial por efecto de tormentas intensas y sismos. XXI Congreso latinoamericano de hidráulica, Sao Pedro, Brasil, p 8Google Scholar
  90. Wang G, Sassa K (2003) Pore pressure generation and movement of rainfall-induced landslides: effects of grain size and fine particle content. Eng Geol 69:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wu W, Sidle R C (1995) A distributed slope stability model for steep forested basins. Water ResourGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edier Aristizábal
    • 1
  • Jaime Ignacio Vélez
    • 2
  • Hernán Eduardo Martínez
    • 3
  • Michel Jaboyedoff
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental DepartmentISAGEN S.A. E.S.P.MedellínColombia
  2. 2.Geoscience SchoolNational University of ColombiaMedellínColombia
  3. 3.Civil Engineering DepartmentBrasilia UniversityBrasiliaBrazil
  4. 4.Centre de recherché sur l’Environment TerrestreUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations