Geological and Geophysical Tests to Model a Small Landslide in the Langhe Hills

  • Sabrina BonettoEmail author
  • Cesare Comina
  • Andrea Giuliani
  • Giuseppe Mandrone


In April 2009, North-West Italy was interested by heavy rainfalls that triggered several landslides, especially of shallow type, and caused relevant rise of water level in many rivers, in some cases even beyond the alert level. Particularly in the hills near Alba (NW Italy), many landslides occurred, most of them belonging to the debris flow or soil slip types. In this area, a small but interesting landslide involved a local road and a high quality, recently planted, vineyard. The present study shows the use of different disciplinary approaches focused to understand the behaviour of this landslide: in particular, besides geological and geomorphologic studies, detailed topographic and geophysical surveys together with an in situ geotechnical/geomechanic characterization were applied. The combined interpretation of the different techniques and of field observations allowed to define a geological and technical model of the landslide, both in surface than in depth, that clarified the triggering mechanism of the landslide and allowed to perform a back analysis on both strength and pore pressure parameters.


Heavy rainfall Heterogeneous rock masses Geophysical tests Landslide Langhe NW-Italy 



We are glad to two students in Geology at Turin Faculty of Science (Miss Antonietti and Potì) that helped in collecting row data and to Dr. Sara Castagna who helped in a preliminary edition of the paper. Many thanks also to Giorgio Carbotta and Luigi Perotti for technical support in the field measurements. We are indebted with Politecnico di Torino for the permission of using geophysical instrumentations.


  1. Aleotti P (2004) A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow failures. Eng Geol 73:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogoslovsky VA, Ogilvy AA (1977) Geophysical methods for the investigation of landslides. Geophysics 42:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottino G, Mandrone G, Torta D, Vigna B (2000) Recent morphological evolution and slope instability in a hilly area of piedmont (North Italy). In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering. geology, hydrogeology and natural disasters, Katmandù, Nepal. J Nepal Geol Soc, vol 22, pp 67–76Google Scholar
  4. Bruno F, Marillier F (2000) Test of high-resolution seismic reflection and other geophysical techniques on the Boup landslide in the Swiss Alps. Surv Geophys 21:333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campus S, Forlati F, Scavia C (2000) Preliminary study for landslides hazard assessments: GIS technique and multivariate statistical approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on landslide, Cardiff, 26–30 June, vol 1, pp 215–220Google Scholar
  6. Chelli A, Mandrone G, Truffelli G (2006) Field investigations and monitoring as tools for modelling the Rossena castle landslide (northern Apennines – Italy). Landslides 3:252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosta G (1998) Regionalization of rainfall thresholds: an aid to landslide hazard evaluation. Environ Geol 35:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, Special report no. 247, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 36–75Google Scholar
  9. Gelati R, Falletti P (1996) The piedmont tertiary Basin. Giorn Geol 58:11–18Google Scholar
  10. Godio A, Bottino G (2001) Electrical and electromagnetic investigation for landslide characterisation. Phys Chem Earth 26:705–710Google Scholar
  11. Hack R (2000) Geophysics for slope stability. Surv Geophys 21:423–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 34(8):1165–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jongmans D, Hemroulle P, Demanet D, Renardy F, Vanbrabant Y (2000) Application of 2-D electrical and seismic tomography techniques for investigating landslides. Eur J Environ Eng Geophys 5:75–89Google Scholar
  14. Loke MH, Barker RD (1996) Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophys Prospect 44:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mandrone G (2004) Il ruolo dell’acqua nell’innesco di frane planari negli ammassi rocciosi eterogeneo delle Langhe (Italia nord-occidentale). GEAM 112:83–92Google Scholar
  16. Mandrone G (2006) Engineering geological mapping of heterogeneous rock masses in the North Apennines: an example from the Parma Valley (Italy). Bull Eng Geol Env 65:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses such as Flysch. Bull Eng Geol Environ 60:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mauritsch HJ, Seiberl W, Arndt R, Römer A, Schneiderbauer K, Sendlhofer GP (2000) Geophysical investigations of large landslides in the Carnic region of southern Austria. Eng Geol 56:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCann DM, Forster A (1990) Reconnaissance geophysical methods in landslide investigations. Eng Geol 29:59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sambuelli L, Deidda GP (1999) Swyphonetm: a new seismic sensor with increased response to SH-waves. In: Proceedings of the 5th meeting of environmental and engineering geophysical society, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  21. Suzuki K, Higashi S (2001) Groundwater flow after heavy rain in landslide–slope area from 2-D inversion of resistivity monitoring data. Geophysics 66:733–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina Bonetto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cesare Comina
    • 1
  • Andrea Giuliani
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Mandrone
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze della TerraUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations