Advertisement

Landslides

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Quantification of the uncertainty in the modelling of unstable slopes displaying marked soil heterogeneity

  • G. BossiEmail author
  • L. Borgatti
  • G. Gottardi
  • G. Marcato
Original Paper

Abstract

This study presents the application of the Boolean Stochastic Generation (BoSG) approach to the case study of the Mortisa landslide, an active earth slide flow in the Dolomites (Italy). The approach relies on the stochastic generation of different soil profiles for which the interfingering of distinct layers within a prevailing matrix is randomized. With this technique, it is possible to quantify the error associated with the simplification of stratigraphic profiles in geotechnical models. This is particularly valuable in slope stability assessment because little data are usually available in comparison with the typically complex geometry of large and deep landslides. A detailed geomorphological analysis of the study area informs an interpretation of the sequence of processes which generated the stratigraphy of the Mortisa slope. It appears to be composed of interfingered layers of silty clay and gravel that originated from subsequent earth slide and debris flow events occurring since the Late Glacial. In order to reproduce the behavior of the Mortisa slope via numerical modelling and to design effective mitigation works, it is crucial to account for the influence of the gravel lenses deposited by ancient debris flow events on the dynamics of the whole landslide. A total of 1200 possible soil configurations of the central and most active section of the Mortisa landslide have been generated. The method has been used to estimate (i) the possible errors that might occur when the presence of the gravel layers is not accounted for and (ii) the variability deriving from the position of the layers. Moreover, through the analysis of the whole ensemble of configurations, it is possible to identify the areas within the slope where the presence (or absence) of gravel layers appears to have the greatest influence on the dynamics of the landslide. This information is useful to plan future investigations and to evaluate the most effective structural mitigation measures.

Keywords

Stochastic generation BoSG Geological reference model Numerical modelling Uncertainty Field investigation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the PhD dissertation of Giulia Bossi: Statistical analysis of the error associated with the simplification of the stratigraphy in geotechnical models (2015); Dottorato in Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale e dei Materiali, ALMA MATER STUDIORUM, Università di Bologna.”

Supplementary material

10346_2019_1256_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 13 kb)
10346_2019_1256_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 14 kb)
10346_2019_1256_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (315 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 315 kb)
10346_2019_1256_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (58 kb)
ESM 4 (PDF 58 kb)

References

  1. Allen JRL (1965) A review of the origin and characteristics of recent alluvial sediments. Sedimentology 5:89–191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1965.tb01561.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeli M-G, Pasuto A, Silvano S (1999) Towards the definition of slope instability behaviour in the Alverà mudslide (Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy). Geomorphology 30:201–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00055-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baecher G (1987) Error analysis for geotechnical engineering. NEXUS Associates, Wayland, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Baecher GB, Christian JT (2005) Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballantyne CK (2002) Paraglacial geomorphology. Quat Sci Rev 21:1935–2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(02)00005-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beer M, Ferson S, Kreinovich V (2013a) Imprecise probabilities in engineering analyses. Mech Syst Signal Process 37:4–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2013.01.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beer M, Zhang Y, Quek ST, Phoon KK (2013b) Reliability analysis with scarce information: comparing alternative approaches in a geotechnical engineering context. Struct Saf 41:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berrisford MS, Matthews JA (1997) Phases of enhanced rapid mass movement and climatic variation during the Holocene: a synthesis. Paläoklimaforschung-Palaeoclimate Research 19:409–440Google Scholar
  9. Bishop AW, Green GE, Garga VK, Andresen A, Brown JD (1971) A new ring shear apparatus and its application to the measurement of residual strength. Géotechnique 21:273–328.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1971.21.4.273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgatti L, Soldati M (2010a) Landslides and climatic change. In: Geomorphological Hazards and Disaster Prevention. pp 87–96Google Scholar
  11. Borgatti L, Soldati M (2010b) Landslides as a geomorphological proxy for climate change: a record from the Dolomites (northern Italy). Geomorphology 120:56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgatti L, Ravazzi C, Donegana M, Corsini A, Marchetti M, Soldati M (2007) A lacustrine record of early Holocene watershed events and vegetation history, Corvara in Badia, Dolomites (Italy). J Quat Sci 22:173–189.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bosellini A (1996) Geologia delle Dolomiti, Athesia, BolzanoGoogle Scholar
  14. Bossi G, Borgatti L, Gottardi G, Marcato G (2016a) The Boolean Stochastic Generation method - BoSG: a tool for the analysis of the error associated with the simplification of the stratigraphy in geotechnical models. Eng Geol 203:99–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bossi G, Mantovani M, Frigerio S, Schenato L, Marcato G, Pasuto A (2016b) A monitoring network to map and assess landslide activity in a highly anthropized area. Geosciences 6:40.  https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences6030040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bossi G, Bersan S, Cola S, Schenato L, de Polo F, Menegazzo C, Boaga J, Cassiani G, Donini F, Simonini P (2019) Multidisciplinary analysis and modelling of a river embankment affected by piping. In: Bonelli S, Jommi C, Sterpi D (eds) Internal erosion in earthdams, dikes and levees. Springer, Cham, pp 234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breysse D, Niandou H, Elachachi S, Houy L (2005) A generic approach to soil–structure interaction considering the effects of soil heterogeneity. Géotechnique 55:143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.2.143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Breysse D, La Borderie C, Elachachi SM, Niandou H (2007) Spatial variations in soil properties and their influence on structural reliability. Civ Eng Environ Syst 24:73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10286600601156673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brunsden D (1999) Some geomorphological considerations for the future development of landslide models. Geomorphology 30:13–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00041-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cai J, Yan E, Yeh TJ, Zha Y (2016) Effects of heterogeneity distribution on hillslope stability during rainfalls. Water Sci Eng 9:134–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WSE.2016.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Christian JT (2004) Geotechnical engineering reliability: how well do we know what we are doing? J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:985–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:10(985) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Costa JE (1984) Physical geomorphology of debris flows. In: Developments and applications of geomorphology. Springer, pp 268–317Google Scholar
  23. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: A.K. Turner RL Schuster (ed) Landslides: investigation and mitigation - special report 247, Transporta. National Academy Press, Washington, DC,Google Scholar
  24. de Rienzo F, Oreste P, Pelizza S (2008) Subsurface geological-geotechnical modelling to sustain underground civil planning. Eng Geol 96:187–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGGEO.2007.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deutsch CV, Tran TT (2002) FLUVSIM: a program for object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional systems. Comput Geosci 28:525–535.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00075-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deutsch CV, Wang L (1996) Hierarchical object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial reservoirs. Math Geol 28:857–880.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02066005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dubrule O (1989) A review of stochastic models for petroleum reservoirs. In: Geostatistics. Springer, pp 493–506Google Scholar
  28. Elkateb T, Chalaturnyk R, Robertson PK (2003) An overview of soil heterogeneity: quantification and implications on geotechnical field problems. Can Geotech J 40:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fenton GA, Griffiths DV (2002) Probabilistic foundation settlement on spatially random soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:381–390.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:5(381) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fenton GA, Vanmarcke EH (1990) Simulation of random fields via local average subdivision. J Eng Mech 116:1733–1749.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1990)116:8(1733) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glastonbury J, Fell R (2008) Geotechnical characteristics of large slow, very slow, and extremely slow landslides. Can Geotech J 45:984–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goovaerts P (2001) Geostatistical modelling of uncertainty in soil science. Geoderma 103:3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00067-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guthrie RH, Evans SG (2007) Work, persistence, and formative events: the geomorphic impact of landslides. Geomorphology 88:266–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2006.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen L, Eilertsen R, Solberg I-L, Rokoengen K (2007) Stratigraphic evaluation of a Holocene clay-slide in Northern Norway. Landslides 4:233–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-006-0078-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heuvelink GB, Webster R (2001) Modelling soil variation: past, present, and future. Geoderma 100:269–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00025-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hicks MA, Li Y (2018) Influence of length effect on embankment slope reliability in 3D. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 42:891–915.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Itasca Consulting Group (2008) FLAC 6.0 - user manual. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  38. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296.  https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jeon YS, Yang HS (2004) Development of a back analysis algorithm using flac. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:441–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.12.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lupini JF, Skinner AE, Vaughan PR (1981) The drained residual strength of cohesive soils. Géotechnique 31:181–213.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1981.31.2.181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nadim F (2015) Accounting for uncertainty and variability in geotechnical characterization of offshore sites. Geotech Saf Risk V 23Google Scholar
  42. Nadim F, Einstein H, Roberds W (2005) Probabilistic stability analysis for individual slopes in soil and rock. In: Proceedings of international conference on landslide risk management. pp 63–98Google Scholar
  43. Panizza M, Pasuto A, Silvano S, Soldati M (1996) Temporal occurrence and activity of landslides in the area of Cortina d’Ampezzo (Dolomites, Italy). Geomorphology 15:311–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(95)00077-I CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pasculli A, Calista M, Sciarra N (2018) Variability of local stress states resulting from the application of Monte Carlo and finite difference methods to the stability study of a selected slope. Eng Geol 245:370–389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGGEO.2018.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pasuto A, Soldati M (1991) Some cases of deep-seated gravitational deformations in the area of Cortina d’Ampezzo (Dolomites). Implications in environmental assessment. In: Panizza M, Soldati M, Coltellacci M (eds) Implications in environmental risk assessment European Experimental Course on Applied Geomorphology,. Istituto di Geologia – Università degli Studi, Modena, p (2) 91–104Google Scholar
  46. Pasuto A, Soldati M (1999) The use of landslide units in geomorphological mapping: an example in the Italian Dolomites. Geomorphology 30:53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00044-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peck RB (1969) Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics. Géotechnique 19:171–187.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1969.19.2.171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH (2011) Evaluation of geotechnical property variability. Can Geotech J 36:625–639.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reid ME, Iverson RM (1992) Gravity-driven groundwater flow and slope failure potential: 2. Effects of slope morphology, material properties, and hydraulic heterogeneity. Water Resour Res 28:939–950.  https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR02695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reid E, Thomas MF (2006) A chronostratigraphy of mid and late-Holocene slope evolution: Creagan a’ Chaorainn, Northern Highlands, Scotland. The Holocene 16:429–444.  https://doi.org/10.1191/0959683606hl939rp CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soldati M, Corsini A, Pasuto A (2004) Landslides and climate change in the Italian Dolomites since the Late Glacial. Catena 55:141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tacher L, Bonnard C, Laloui L, Parriaux A (2005) Modelling the behaviour of a large landslide with respect to hydrogeological and geomechanical parameter heterogeneity. Landslides 2:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-004-0038-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. The MathWorks Inc (2013) MATLAB and statistics toolbox release 2013b,Google Scholar
  54. Toyota H, Sugimoto M, Nakamura K, Sakai N (2009) Ring shear tests to evaluate strength parameters in various remoulded soils. Géotechnique 59:649–659.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.029.3671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Husen D (1997) LGM and late-glacial fluctuations in the Eastern Alps. Quat Int 38–39:109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6182(96)00017-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vick SG (2002) Degrees of belief: subjective probability and engineering judgment. ASCE PressGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang X, Wang H, Liang RY (2018) A method for slope stability analysis considering subsurface stratigraphic uncertainty. Landslides 15:925–936.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0925-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitman RV (2000) Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yang H-Q, Zhang L, Li D-Q (2018) Efficient method for probabilistic estimation of spatially varied hydraulic properties in a soil slope based on field responses: a Bayesian approach. Comput Geotech 102:262–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPGEO.2017.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang J, Tang WH, Zhang LM (2010) Efficient probabilistic back-analysis of slope stability model parameters. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:99–109.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhu S, Hack R, Turner K, Hale M (2003) How far will uncertainty of the subsurface limit the sustainability planning of the subsurface. In: Proc. Sustainable Development & Management of the Subsurface (SDMS) Conference. pp 5–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR-IRPI – National Research Council of ItalyResearch Institute for Geo-Hydrological ProtectionPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering DICAMAlma Mater Studiorum Università di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations