Advertisement

Integrated approach for determining spatio-temporal variations in the hydrodynamic factors as a contributing parameter in landslide susceptibility assessments

  • Mustafa Can CanogluEmail author
  • Hüsnü Aksoy
  • Murat Ercanoglu
Original Paper

Abstract

Although general approaches to the effect of water on the mechanisms causing landslides have been adopted, the work presented in this paper was carried out to quantify the landslide susceptibility variation in space and time, integrating the soil moisture distribution and routing (SMDR) model and landslide susceptibility concept. The approach proposed in the present study reflects the temporal effects of the saturation degree index (SDI) on landslide susceptibility as a new index to understand the effect of soil saturation. The topographic wetness index (TWI) is a conventional parameter that represents the relative wetness on landsliding. The new proposed landslide susceptibility approach is used in the study area to understand the effect of soil saturation and the emergence of the Derebaşı landslide in the study area. The comparative results of landslide susceptibility maps obtained from the new approach utilizing the proposed SDI and conventional TWI are remarkable. Accordingly, a new substantial method is proposed using the attainable monthly mean meteorological data to generate monthly landslide susceptibility maps. The results obtained for the Derebaşı landslide using the proposed method are validated with the other landslide that has occurred in the same watershed. The results revealed that the approach proposed in this study was compatible with the landslide mechanism in the study area and may help to express the water effect in landslide susceptibility analyses.

Keywords

Landslide susceptibility Saturation degree Frequency ratio analysis Soil moisture distribution and routing Karabük-Yenice 

References

  1. Alkevli T (2009) Investigation of the usage of Aster satellite data on landslide inventory mapping: Yenice-Gökçebey (Western Black Sea Region). MSc thesis, Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM International (2010) ASTM standard D5084. Standard test methods for measurement of hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous materials using a flexible wall permeameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.  https://doi.org/10.1520/D5084-10
  3. Atalay İ (1997) Türkiye Coğrafyası. Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, İzmirGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayalew L (1999) The effect of seasonal rainfall on landslides in the highlands of Ethiopia. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boll J, Brooks ES, Campbell CR, Stockle CO, Young SK, Hammel JE, McDaniel PA (1998) Progress toward development of a GIS based water quality management tool for small rural watersheds: modification and application of a distributed model. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Orlando, FL, July 1998. ASAE paper 982230Google Scholar
  6. Bresler E, Russo D, Miller RD (1978) Rapid estimate of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calcaterra D, Parise M, Palma B, Pelella L (2000) The influence of meteoric events in triggering shallow landslides in pyroclastic deposits of Campania, Italy. In: Bromhead E, Dixon N, Ibsen ML (eds) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Landslides, Cardiff, Wales, June 2000, Balkema, vol 1, pp 209–214Google Scholar
  8. Canoglu MC (2015) An investigation on the surface water effect in landslide susceptibility mapping: an example from Yenice (Karabük) basin. PhD thesis, Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  9. Canoglu MC (2017) Deterministic landslide susceptibility assessment with the use of a new index (factor of safety index) under dynamic soil saturation: an example from Demirciköy watershed (Sinop/Turkey). Carpathian J Earth Environ Sci 12:423–436Google Scholar
  10. Chung CJF, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 65:1388–1399Google Scholar
  11. Çölkesen İ, Şahin EK, Kavzoglu T (2016) Susceptibility mapping of shallow landslides using kernel-based Gaussian process, support vector machines and logistic regression. J Afr Earth Sci 118:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demir B, Ercan S (1999) Yenice ilçesindeki heyelanlar üzerine bazı gözlemler. Türkiye 3. Ulusal Heyelan Sempozyumu Özleri Kitabı, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, pp 16–17Google Scholar
  13. Deveciler E (1986) Alaplı-Bartın-Cide (B.Karadeniz) jeoloji raporu, MTA yayınları, Derleme no: 7938, 58 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Ercanoglu M (2003) Bulanık mantik ve istatistiksel yontemlerle heyelan duyarlılık haritalarının uretilmesi: Bati Karadeniz Bolgesi (Kumluca Guneyi-Yenice Kuzeyi). PhD thesis, Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  15. Ercanoglu M (2005) Landslide susceptibility assessment of SE Bartın (West Black Sea region, Turkey) by artificial neural networks. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C (2002) Assessment of landslide susceptibility for a landslide-prone area (north of Yenice, NW Turkey) by fuzzy approach. Environ Geol 41:720–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C (2004) Use of fuzzy relations to produce landslide susceptibility map of a landslide prone area (West Black Sea Region, Turkey). Eng Geol 75:229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ercanoglu M, Gokceoglu C, Van Asch ThWJ (2004) Landslide susceptibility zoning north of Yenice (NW Turkey) by multivariate statistical techniques. Nat Hazards 32:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. General Directorate of Natural Disaster (1998) The geological investigation report of Cebeciler landslide. Disaster Investigation and Damage Assessment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  20. General Directorate of Natural Disaster (2000) The geological investigation report of Derebaşı landslide. Disaster Investigation and Damage Assessment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  21. Gérard-Marchant P, Hively WD, Steenhuis TS (2006) Distributed hydrological modelling of total dissolved phosphorus transport in an agricultural landscape, part I: distributed runoff generation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giannecchini R, Galanti Y, D’Amato Avanzi G (2012) Critical rainfall thresholds for triggering shallow landslides in the Serchio River Valley (Tuscany, Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:829–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorsevski PV, Gessler PE, Boll J, Elliot WJ, Foltz RB (2006) Spatially and temporally distributed modeling of landslide susceptibility. Geomorphology 80:178–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Cardinali M, Galli M, Ardizzone F (2005) Probabilistic landslide hazard assessment at the basin scale. Geomorphology 72:272–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ko FWY, Lo FLC (2016) Rainfall-based landslide susceptibility analysis for natural terrain in Hong Kong—a direct stock-taking approach. Eng Geol 215:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Köppen W (1936) Das geographische System der Klimate, Handbuch der Klimatologie, Bd. 1, Teil CGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuo WL, Steenhuis TS, McCulloch CE, Mohler CL, Weinstein DA, DeGloria SD, Swaney DP (1999) Effect of grid size on runoff and soil moisture for a variable-source-area hydrology model. Water Resour Res 35:3419–3428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuthari S (2007) Establishing precipitation thresholds for landslide initiation along with slope characterisation using GIS-based modelling. MSc thesis, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS), Dehradun, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee S, Talib JA (2005) Probabilistic landslide susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environ Geol 47:982–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mead S, Magill C, Hilton J (2016) Rain-triggered lahar susceptibility using a shallow landslide and surface erosion model. Geomorphology 273:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Mapping Agency (1999) 1/25000 scaled topographic maps, sheets F28-c1 and F28-b4, Zonguldak, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  33. Pack RT, Tarboton DG, Goodwin CN (1998) The SINMAP approach to terrain stability mapping. In: Moore D, Hungr O (eds) Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vancouver, Canada, September 1998, pp 1157–1165Google Scholar
  34. Pelletier JD, Malamud BD, Blodgett T, Turcotte DL (1997) Scale-invariance of soil moisture variability and its implications for the frequency-size distribution of landslides. Eng Geol 48:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rawls WJ, Brakensiek DL (1983) A procedure to predict Green and Ampt infiltration parameters. Adv Infilt 12:102–112Google Scholar
  36. Rawls WJ, Brakensiek DL (1985) Prediction of soil water properties for hydrologic modeling. In: Proceedings of a symposium on Watershed Management in the Eighties, Denver, Colorado, April/May 1985, pp 293–299Google Scholar
  37. Ray RL, Jacobs JM, de Alba P (2010a) Impacts of unsaturated zone soil moisture and groundwater table on slope instability. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:1448–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ray RL, Jacobs JM, Cosh MH (2010b) Landslide susceptibility mapping using downscaled AMSR-E soil moisture: a case study from Cleveland Corral, California, US. Remote Sens Environ 114:2624–2636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ray RL, Jacobs JM, Ballestero TP (2011) Regional landslide susceptibility: spatiotemporal variations under dynamic soil moisture conditions. Nat Hazards 59:1317–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soil and Water Laboratory (2003) SMDR: the soil moisture distribution and routing model, documentation, version 2.0. Biological and Environmental Engineering Dept., Cornell University, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Steenhuis TS, Van Der Molen WH (1986) The Thornthwaite-Mather procedure as a simple engineering method to predict recharge. Journal of Hydrology 84 (3-4):221-229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Süzen ML, Kaya BŞ (2012) Evaluation of environmental parameters in logistic regression models for landslide susceptibility mapping. Int J Digit Earth 5:338–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Temiz N (2000) Batı Karadeniz bölgesi (Bartın, Karabük, Zonguldak yörelerinde) kütle hareketlerinin ve bunları denetleyen jeolojik ve morfolojik özelliklerinin CBS ve Uzaktan Algılama yöntemi ile araştırılması. MSc thesis, Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  46. Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1955) The water balance. Technical Report Publication: 8. Drexel Institute of Technology, Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsangaratos P, Ilia I (2016) Comparison of a logistic regression and Naïve Bayes classifier in landslide susceptibility assessments: the influence of models complexity and training dataset size. CATENA 145:164–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Asch ThWJ, Buma J, Van Beek LPH (1999) A view on some hydrological triggering systems in landslides. Geomorphology 30:25–32Google Scholar
  49. Van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng Geol 102:112–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Environmental Engineering DepartmentSinop UniversitySinopTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering DepartmentAtılım UniversityİncekTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Engineering, Geological Engineering DepartmentHacettepe UniversityBeytepeTurkey

Personalised recommendations