Comparative analysis of SHALSTAB and SINMAP for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Cunha River basin, southern Brazil
- 826 Downloads
The Shallow Landsliding Stability Model (SHALSTAB) and Stability Index Mapping (SINMAP) models have been applied to various landslide management and research studies. Both models combine a hydrological model with an infinite slope stability model for predicting landslide occurrence. The objectives of the present study were to apply these two models to the Cunha River basin, Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil, where many landslides occurred in November 2008, and perform a comparative analysis of their results.
Materials and methods
Soil samples were collected to determine the input parameters. The models were calibrated with a landslide scar inventory, and rainfall data were obtained from three rain gauges. A comparison of their results obtained from the models was undertaken with the success and error index.
Results and discussion
Based on the maps of stability and instability areas for the study basin, the models performed well. Since the initial equations of both models are not particularly different, their results are similar. Locations with steep slopes, as well as areas with concave relief that tend to have larger contribution areas and moisture, have lower stability indexes. SHALSTAB classified only ~13 % of the total area of the Cunha River basin as unstable, while SINMAP classified ~30 % as unstable.
The analysis of maps based on the results of the two models shows that if SHALSTAB is correctly calibrated, based on hydrological parameters, its results could be more accurate than SINMAP in the prediction of landslide areas. Although SINMAP showed better calibration of the landslide scars, its classification over the basin results in an overestimation of stability areas. The conclusion is that SHALSTAB is more suitable than SINMAP for the prediction of landslides in the Cunha River basin, Brazil.
KeywordsLandslides SHALSTAB SINMAP Slope stability
- Andriola P, Chirico GB, De Falco M, Crescenzo G, Santo A (2009) A comparison between physically-based models and a semiquantitative methodology for assessing susceptibility to flowslides triggering in pyroclastic deposits of southern Italy. Geogr Fis Dinam Quat 32:213–226Google Scholar
- Dietrich WE, Montgomery DR (1998) SHALSTAB: a digital terrain model for mapping shallow landslide potential. NCASI (National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement), Technical Report, 29 pGoogle Scholar
- Dietrich WE, Bellugi D, Real de Asua R (2001) Validation of the shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. In: Wigmosta MS, Burges SJ (ed) Land use and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Water Sci Appl, AGU, Washington DC, vol 2 pp 195–227Google Scholar
- EMBRAPA Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos (2009) Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. EMBRAPA-SPI, Rio de Janeiro, 412 pGoogle Scholar
- IBGE Gerencia de Recursos Naturais e Estudos Ambientais (2003) Reconhecimento de Solos (mapa). Folha Blumenau. Escala 1:100000Google Scholar
- Kobiyama M, Goerl RF, Correa GP, Michel GP (2010) Debris flow occurrences in Rio dos Cedros, Southern Brazil: meteorological and geomorphic aspects. In: Wrachien D, Brebbia CA (eds) Monitoring, simulation. Prevention and remediation of dense debris flows III. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Michel GP, Goerl RF, Kobiyama M, Higashi RAR (2011) Estimativa da quantidade de chuva necessária para deflagrar escorregamentos. In: Anais do XIX Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos. Maceió: ABRH, 2011. CD-rom. 20 pGoogle Scholar
- Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1994) A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour. Res. 30:1153–1170Google Scholar
- Mota AA, Kobiyama M (2011) Avaliação da dinâmica da água na zona vadosa em solos de diferentes usos com o modelo Hydrus-1D. In: XIX Brazilian Symposium of Water Resoureces, Maceió, ABRH, Procedings, 16 pGoogle Scholar
- Pack RT, Tarboton DG, Goodwin CN (1998) Terrain stability mapping with SINMAP, technical description and users guide for version 1.00. Report Number 4114–0, Terratech Consulting Ltd., Salmon Arm, Canada, 68 pGoogle Scholar
- Safaei M, Omar H, Huat BK, Yousof ZBM, Ghiasi V (2011) Deterministic rainfall induced landslide approaches, advantage and limitation. Electron J Geotech Eng 16:1619–1650Google Scholar
- Selby M (1993) Hillslope materials and processes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 289 pGoogle Scholar
- Steijn H (1996) Debris-flow magnitude-frequency relationship of mountainous regions of Central and Northwest Europe. Geomorphology 15:256–273Google Scholar
- Wilcock PR, Schmidt JC, Wolman MG, Dietrich WE, Dominick D, Doyle MW, Grant GE, Iverson RM, Montgomery DR, Pierson TC, Schilling SP, Wilson RC (2003) When models meet managers: examples from geomorphology. In: Wilcock PR, Iverson RM (eds) Prediction in geomorphology, Geophys Monogr Ser, vol 135. AGU, Washington, pp 27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar