Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247 – 265

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow failures

Pietro Aleotti *
Aquater S.p.A., Via Tolstoj, 86 20098, San Giuliano Milanese, Italy

Abstract

It is widely recognised that soil slips and debris flows are triggered by short intense storms. Owing its geologic,
geomorphologic and climatic settings, the Piedmont Region (NW Italy) is highly prone to the occurrence of this kind of
landslides. In the last two centuries, in fact, a total of 105 severe meteoric events which triggered shallow failures occurred and,
of these, 18 events took place from 1990 to 2002. A fair number of rainfall thresholds have been proposed in the literature,
defined both on empirical or on physical bases. Empirical thresholds are defined collecting rainfall data for landslide meteoric
events and for events without landslides, while physical thresholds are based on numerical models that consider the relation
between rainfall, pore pressure and slope stability. The main objective of this paper is the identification of the empirical
triggering thresholds for the Piedmont Region. Four meteoric events were selected and analysed (November 4 – 5, 1994; July
7 – 8, 1996; April 27 – 30, 2000; October 13 – 16, 2000) because they supply a wide range of variation for both rainfall
parameters (duration, intensity, cumulative rainfalls) and the number of induced landslides. In the intensity – duration plot, the
critical limit is described by the equation: I = 19D
0.50 (where I = rainfall intensity expressed in mm/h and D = rainfall duration
expressed in hours). Such a limit is traced to envelop 90% of the points on the graph. In the NI – D diagram the triggering
thresholds are given by the equations NI = 0.76D
0.33 and NI = 4.62D
0.79 (where NI = normalised intensity with respect to the
annual precipitation, MAP, expressed in %, [(mm/h)/PMA]  100). In the article the different meaning of these thresholds is
discussed. Finally, the diagram NI – NCR is proposed; the triggering threshold is given by the expression:
NI =
0.09ln[NCR] + 0.54 (where NCR is the normalised cumulative critical rainfall, [mm/PMA]  100). The application of
the triggering thresholds as a fundamental element in a warning system dedicated to the safeguarding of population in landslide-
prone areas is discussed. In detail an operating procedure which is presently being verified and tested in the studied area is
described.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Shallow failures; Soil slips; Debris flows; Rainfall; Triggering thresholds; Warning system; Piedmont Region (Italy)

1. Introduction posing elements, and above all, as triggering factors

The factors affecting slope stability are various, and
virtually most are closely interconnected. Among
these, meteoric events (or rather, the effects induced
by these) are of primary importance, both as predis-
* Tel.: +39-2-52052600; fax: +39-2-52052586.
E-mail address: pietro.aleotti@aquater.eni.it (P. Aleotti).
(Wieczorek, 1996).
The influence of rainfall on landslides differs sub-
stantially depending upon landslide dimensions, kine-
matics, material involved, etc. Shallow failures are
usually triggered by short intense storms (Campbell,
1975; Lumb, 1975; Brand et al., 1984; Cancelli and
Nova, 1985; Cannon and Ellen, 1985; Wieczorek,
1987; Guzzetti et al., 1992; Polloni et al., 1992; Morgan

0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.01.007
248 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265

et al., 1997; Crosta, 1998; Corominas and Moya, 1999;
Flentje et al., 2000; Paronuzzi et al., 2002) while most
deep-seated landslides are affected by long-term vari-
ation of annual rainfall which has to last several years
(Bonnard and Noverraz, 2001). For landslides such as
rockfalls, no precise correlation with rainfall can be
surmised, as they appear more sensitive towards other
factors such as chemical –mechanical weathering of the
rockmass and temperature fluctuation across the freez-
ing point (Sandersen et al., 1996): only late spring and
summer rockfalls can be related with rainfall. For
example, a large fall occurred, after some days of
intense precipitation, in the Brembana Valley (Italian
Central Alps) at the beginning of May 2002, killing
three persons.
Based on the above considerations, it derives that
there are no critical rainfall conditions for every type
of landslide.
This paper discusses soil slips and soil slip-debris
flows in the Piedmont Region, North West Italy (Fig.
1): due to its physical setting (geology, lithology,
climatic conditions) this region is highly prone to this
type of slope instability (Anselmo, 1980; Govi et al.,
1985; Aleotti et al., 1996; Bandis et al., 1996; Polloni
et al., 1996; Sutera Sardo et al., 1996; Aleotti et al.,
1998; Regione Piemonte, 1998; Aleotti and Polloni,
2000; Aleotti et al., 2002). The triggering thresholds
determined for this type of failures are then applied
within a warning system.
2. Landslide-triggering rainfall thresholds
Generally speaking, the term ‘‘threshold’’ defines
the minimum or maximum (critical) level of some
quantity needed for a process to take place (Reich-

Fig. 1. Location of the studied area (Piedmont Region, NW Italy). Patterns indicate the distribution of areas affected by events of shallow
landsliding (November 1994, July 1996, April 2000, June 2000, October 2000). Regional layout.
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
enbach et al., 1998). Since the objective of this study is
to define a rainfall threshold with practical applications
in warning systems, thresholds of interest are the
minimum ones, i.e. thresholds that define the lowest
level above which one or more than one landslide can
be triggered.
An analytical dissertation of the concept of rainfall
threshold was recently presented by Iiritano et al.
(1998) who introduced the so-called mobilisation
function, Y(t), that indirectly describes all the factors
that contribute to trigger a landslide and that is
dependent, at every time t, on the amount of water
infiltrated in the soil before the time t (Eq. (1)):
Y ðtÞ ¼ f ½IðuÞ with
l < uVt ð1Þ
where I(u) is infiltration intensity at time u.
By defining P[Lt] as the probability of occurrence
of a landslide at time t, and assuming Y1 as the
mobilisation coefficient over which the probability
of landslide occurrence is different from zero, and
Y2 as the mobilisation coefficient over which the
probability of landslide occurrence is certain, the
following alternative hypothesis can be derived:
P½Lt  ¼ 0 if Y ðtÞ < Y1 ð2aÞ
P½Lt  ¼ g½Y ðtÞ if Y1 VY ðtÞVY2 ð2bÞ
P½Lt  ¼ 1 if Y ðtÞ > Y2 ð2cÞ
where g[ Y(t)] is a generic function defined in the
interval [ Y1;Y2] having co-domain [0,1]. Eq. (2a)
indicates impossible mobilisation due to rainfall (i.e.
unconditionally stable), vice versa Eq. (2c) indicates
certain mobilisation (i.e. unconditionally unstable).
Assuming Y1 = Y2 = YTH, a ‘‘threshold’’ scheme is
introduced, free from any probabilistic connection, in
which the event Lt can be considered alternatively as
impossible (Eq. (3a)) or certain (Eq. (3b)):
P½Lt  ¼ 0 if Y ðtÞVYTH ð3aÞ
P½Lt  ¼ 1 if Y ðtÞ > YTH ð3bÞ
Two types of landslide-triggering rainfall thresh-
olds can be established:
(i) Empirical thresholds, based on historic analysis of
relationship rainfall/landslide occurrence (i.e.
249
statistical) (Campbell, 1975; Caine, 1980; Crozier
and Glade, 1999);
(ii) Physical thresholds, based on numeric models that
take into account the relationship between rainfall,
pore pressure and slope stability by coupling
hydrologic and stability models (Montgomery and
Dietrich, 1994; Wilson and Wieczorek, 1995;
Crosta, 1998; Terlien, 1998).
Physical thresholds are not widely developed and,
generally, they require detailed knowledge of the
boundary conditions, which are seldom available
outside specially equipped test fields (rain gauges,
piezometers, tensiometers). Recent attempts at a re-
gional scale have been proposed by using distributed
models (Borga et al., 1998; Aleotti et al., 2003; Crosta
et al., 2003).
On the contrary, there are a fair number of empirical
thresholds and different graphs have been used to
represent them, depending upon combinations of the
most commonly used rainfall parameters: antecedent
rainfall, duration, intensity, cumulative rainfall. In the
first suggested elaboration, the triggering thresholds
are simply defined either by the critical cumulative
rainfall (Campbell, 1975) or by the rainfall intensity
(Brand et al., 1984). The most commonly used thresh-
olds are those defining the intensity– duration (Caine,
1980), although some conceptual differences among
the various authors exist. Firstly, the dimensions of the
study area vary from a few square kilometres (Wiec-
zorek, 1987), to large regions (i.e. Austrian Alps,
Moser and Hohensinn, 1983). Then, the relationship
suggested by Cannon and Ellen (1985) attempts to
predict the occurrence of ‘‘abundant landslides’’, while
that proposed by Wieczorek (1987) only ‘‘one or more
than one landslide’’. The ‘‘intensity – duration’’ ap-
proach can be further refined by normalising the
intensity value with the mean annual rainfall (MAP),
thus emphasising the regionalization of the thresholds,
since the calculation takes into account the climatic
regimes of the study area (Cannon and Ellen, 1985;
Jibson, 1989; Wieczorek et al., 2000).
Another frequently used graph correlates the total
amount of rainfall until landslide occurrence (critical
cumulative rainfall) with the maximum recorded inten-
sity. A similar representation was proposed by Govi et
al. (1985) in which, however, the critical rainfall value
is compared to mean annual precipitation.
250 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
Antecedent rainfall conditions can be used to
identify thresholds associated to critical daily rainfall.
In the so-called Antecedent Daily Rainfall Model
(Glade et al., 2000), the antecedent rainfall (10 days)
is connected with critical one after being reduced by
a decay factor that defines the rate of soil moisture
decrease within a specific period. The Antecedent
Soil Water Status Model (Glade, 2000b) calculates
the interaction between antecedent rainfall, soil mois-
ture and potential evapotranspiration, and gives as a
result the probability of landslide occurrence for a
given combination of daily rainfall magnitude and
soil moisture, expressed as the soil water status
index.
3. Rainfall events in the piedmont region
The Piedmont Region is frequently affected by
severe meteoric events. From 1800 to 1990, a total
of 87 episodes occurred, which triggered landslides.
Events are mainly concentrated in autumn (53%) that
is the most rainy season in this region (Luino et al.,
1994).
In addition, numerous events took place recently in
this region, the most significant being: 3rd – 5th Oc-
tober 1992, 22nd –24th September 1993, 18th May
1994, 26th June 1994, 23rd September 1994, 4th – 5th
November 1994, 7th –8th July 1996, 8th –9th Octo-
ber 1996, 28th – 29th June 1997, 28th August 1997,
4th – 5th September 1998, 23rd October 1999, 27th –
30th April 2000, 14th –16th June 2000, 30th Septem-
ber 2000, 13th –16th October 2000, 2nd – 5th May
2002, 4th –6th June 2002.
In this study the following events are analysed
(Fig. 1): (i) November 1994 in Langhe Cuneesi area;
(ii) July 1996 in Cusio-Verbano area (Mt. Mottarone);
(iii) April 2000 in western Piedmont; (iv) June 2000
in south-western Piedmont; (v) October 2000 in
western and northern Piedmont.
The choice was dictated by the need to examine
events for which a greater amount of data was
available (including landslide type, location and time
Fig. 2. Cumulative rainfalls versus time (15 days antecedent and critical rainfalls) recorded at various rain gauges in the areas affected by the
selected meteoric events: (a) November 1994; (b) July 1996; (c) April 2000; (d) June 2000; (e) October 2000 (Orco Valley, Sesia Valley, Stura
Valley, Ossola Valley). Small square in the left-hand side shows an example of ‘‘time lag’’ in the beginning of critical rainfall in different rain
gauges during the November 1994 meteoric event.
of the landslides occurrence), and also by the need to
examine events that can supply the widest possible
range of variation for significant parameters such as
duration, intensity, critical rainfalls (mean and maxi-
mum) and number of induced landslides. Fig. 2
summarises for each events the cumulative rainfall
trend. The pluviometric characteristics of critical rain-
falls measured during the events have a rather large
spectrum, both in terms of duration (between 7 and
112 h) and (mean) critical intensity (between a min-
imum of 2 mm/h and a maximum of over 26 mm/h).
The number of triggered landslides differs substan-
tially from one situation to another as well as the
density.
The November 4– 5, 1994 event affected a very
large territory (7500 km2) and was probably the most
catastrophic of the 20th Century in Piedmont, both in
terms of damage (80 casualties and approximately
1  109 US$ of damage) and of number of landslides
(more than 10,000, many as new failures). The event
aroused great interest in the Italian scientific commu-
nity and resulted in a large number of publications
(Aleotti et al., 1996; Bandis et al., 1996; Clarizia et al.,
1996; Forlati et al., 1995; Polloni et al., 1996; Sutera
Sardo et al., 1996). The present study focuses on the
Langhe Cuneesi area where soil slips were most
abundant (approximately 3000 with density higher
than 100 landslides/km2 in the upper portion of
secondary basins).
The centre of the July 7 – 8, 1996 flood was a small
area (70 km2) near Mt. Mottarone. The storm trig-
gered around 30 soil slips and debris flows in four
watersheds: debris torrents spread out on the alluvial
fans, causing one victim and severe damage (Chiarle
and Luino, 1996).
The April 27 – 30, 2000 meteorologic event in-
volved the mountain and foothill areas of the western
hydrographic basins, from the Po to the Dora rivers. It
originated 100 soil slips, some of which evolved to
debris flows. In some areas the soil slips started as
translational slides. Man activities represented an
indirect contributory cause of failure in almost 30%
of the recorded cases: they are due, particularly, to
P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265 251
252 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
road cuts/embankment on hill slopes, inadequate
drainage of surface water and overloading.
The June 14 –16, 2000 event took place in western
and south-western Piedmont, and affected mainly the
area between the Susa Valley (Dora River), to the
north, and Pesio Valley, to the south. More than 100
landslides (102) were inventoried. The vast majority
of failures (95) were soil slips and occurred primarily
in the Maira and Stura di Demonte valleys (almost
40% of total landslides), causing interruptions and
damages to roads (82%) and buildings (10%)
(Regione Piemonte, 2000).
The October 13 –16, 2000 meteoric event struck
approximately 25% of the entire Piedmont Region.
Almost 500 landslides were triggered, especially in
the northern (Ossola Valley, Sesia Valley, Lanzo and
Orco valleys) and western parts (Pellice Valley) of the
region. Over 62% of the landslides consisted in soil
slips, and 19% were rotational slides. Falls (5%) and
other types of landslides were less frequent (Aleotti et
al., 2002). Most of the material involved by the
landslides consisted of incoherent deposits, and to a
lesser extent, of debris and loose soil. Almost every-
where, the most consistent damage caused by slope
failures were along primary and secondary roads
(70%) and, secondly, in buildings (16%).
4. Rainfall thresholds
4.1. Input data
In a recent publication, Crosta and Frattini (2001)
emphasised the importance of having accurate data-
bases containing all the information needed to study
rainfall events. Equally important is the type of
information used in a study, which must be carefully
defined in order to enable comparison between data
produced by researchers operating in very different
geographic contexts.
In this study we used hourly rainfall data for
critical precipitation, and daily rainfall measurements
for the previous days. Conventionally, critical precip-
itation indicates the amount of rainfall from the time
(‘‘zero point’’) in which a sharp increase in rainfall
intensity is observed and the triggering of the (first)
landslide (Fig. 3). This increase results in a significant
break in the slope of the rainfall cumulative curve.
Fig. 3. Definition of rainfall parameters.
Duration of the critical rainfall event, always ex-
pressed in hours in the processing, is the time that
elapses from the beginning of critical precipitation to
activation of the landslides. In this paper rainfall data
are normalised with respect to the mean annual
precipitation (MAP). The ratio between the critical
precipitation of the event and the mean annual pre-
cipitation of the site is defined as Normalised Critical
Rainfall (NCR). In literature this ratio is also called
Normalised Storm Rainfall (NSR) (Guidicini and
Iwasa, 1977).
The Piedmont Region is monitored by a great
number of rain gauges. Selection of the rain gauge
that will be associated to a slide is extremely impor-
tant, as the pelt-point responsible for superficial slides
can be both small and rapid. This may involve a
significant difference in data registered by two close
gauges for the same rainfall episode. The difference
does not concern normalised critical precipitation
values only (see Fig. 2), but also how rainfalls
develop, i.e. the beginning of critical rainfall. For
example, if the beginning of critical precipitation is
not carefully identified, it could lead to misleading
quantification of critical rainfall values and mean
intensities and hence, incorrect calculation of critical
thresholds. It has been observed that during a meteoric
event within a fairly small area, the inset of critical
rainfall can vary substantially from one gauge to
another (even 12 and 15 h in the June 2000 and
October 2000 floods, respectively).
Fig. 4 shows the importance of the location of rain
gauges, which should be as close as possible to the
landslide. This graph was obtained by measuring the
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
Fig. 4. Correlation between the mutual distance of rain gauges and maximum difference in normalised hourly rainfall.
mutual distance between the gauges in a given area
and by calculating, for each pair of gauges, the
maximum difference measured in hourly precipitation
(normalised) during an event of intense rainfall. We
can reasonably conclude that, even with a significant
scatter (r2 = 0.2), a direct relation exists between the
maximum difference in rainfall values and the dis-
tance between rain gauges. Such a relation is greater
for distances lower than 10– 15 km and decreases for
larger distances.
Additional research is needed to determine the
importance of selecting a reference gauge for a given
landslide. The significance of rainfall data referred to
a certain surficial slides does not depend entirely on
distance, but also on other factors such as elevation
and aspect of the measuring gauge, and generally, on
its position (also in relation to the prevailing wind
direction in the area).
A significant example is the difference between the
values recorded by the rain gauges in Macugnaga
Passo Moro and Macugnaga Pecetto during the Oc-
tober 2000 flooding event in Ossola Valley (Fig. 5).
Although the distance between the two gauges is only
1.5 km, from 12 to 16 October 2000 the rain gauge in
Macugnaga Pecetto measured 576 mm of rainfall
(maximum hourly intensity 16.2 mm/h) as opposed
to the 158 mm measured by the gauge in Macugnaga
253
Passo Moro (maximum hourly intensity 7.6 mm/h). In
this case the difference can be attributed both to the
elevation and to the position of the rain gauges: the
one in Macugnaga Passo Moro is located at 3000 m
above the sea level and near a crest of the watershed
and the one in Macugnaga Pecetto is situated at 1500
m a.s.l. on a large slope that might act as a barrier
against cloud fronts.
4.2. Relationship between antecedent and critical
rainfall
It has been recognised in the literature that anteced-
ent rainfall can be a predisposing factor in the activation
of soil slips (Wieczorek, 1987). The influence of
antecedent rainfall is difficult to quantify as it depends
on several factors, including the heterogeneity of soils
(strength and permeability properties) and the regional
climate. In tropical areas, for example, antecedent
rainfall is not an important factor (Brand, 1992) as well
as in slopes covered with coarse colluvium having large
interparticle voids, debris flows can occur without
significant antecedent rainfall (Corominas and Moya,
1999). Similar response can be observed even in
pervious soils due to the presence of preferential
groundwater passageways (macropores, animal bur-
rows, root channels) (Corominas, 2000). On the con-
254 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265

Fig. 5. Difference in rainfall values measured by rain gauges in Macugnaga Pecetto and Macugnaga Passo Moro during the October 2000
meteoric event: bars correspond to the hourly rainfalls (left Y-axis, mm/h) recorded in Macugnaga Pecetto rain gauge (white bars) and
Macugnaga Passo Moro rain gauge (black bars), lines indicate the relevant cumulative rainfalls (right Y-axis, mm).

trary, in low-permeability soils antecedent rainfall can 4.3. Empirical thresholds

be an important factor because it reduces soil suction
and increases the pore-water pressures in soils. How-
ever, the time interval established as significant by the
various authors differs considerably: 5 days (Wiec-
zorek et al., 2000), 10 days (Crozier, 1999; Glade et
al., 2000), 15 days (Govi et al., 1985).
The time intervals taken into consideration for the
events examined in this paper were 7, 10 and 15 days.
However, results show that not significant correlation
exist between antecedent and critical rainfall: the
scattering of the population sample, in fact, is very
high and the relevant correlation coefficients are
r2 = 0.17, r2 = 0.16 and r2 = 0.32 for the 7-, 10- and
15-day intervals, respectively. Curves in Fig. 6 envel-
op 90% of the plotted rainfall events for 7- and 10-day
intervals. Equations are expressed as follows:
NCR ¼ 12:45e
0:15NAR
NCR ¼ 11:50e
0:08NAR
where NCR = normalised critical rainfall (%) and
NAR = normalised antecedent rainfall (%).
A preliminary assessment consisted in calculating
the rain path measured at various rain gauges during
the events, and plotting it on intensity – duration
graph. The rain paths were calculated by establishing
the initial hour of a given critical rainfall in a selected
gauge, and determining the mean intensity at fixed
intervals (1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 h from start) until the first
landslide was triggered. Thus, the final point repre-
sents the mean intensity calculated over the entire
period of critical rainfall.
The rain path indicates that in the majority of cases
(48%) failure occurs when the 50-year return period
of rainfall is exceeded (Fig. 7). This limit is more
significant in the case of exceptional rainfall events, as
in the floods of November 1994 (64%) and October
2000 (53%). Instead, for less intense rainfall episodes
ð4Þ (April 2000), the RT10 limit becomes the triggering
threshold (71%).
Based on the above considerations we can con-
ð5Þ clude that the curves calculated in the rain gauges for
rainfalls with different return periods (RT10, RT50)
may represent a first type of triggering thresholds,
which despite the approximation could represent ef-
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265 255

Fig. 6. Relation between normalised antecedent rainfalls (NAR) and normalised critical rainfalls (NCR) for 7- and 10-day intervals. Lines
envelop 90% of the plotted data for 7- and 10-day intervals.

fective limits for critical rainfall events of varying
magnitude. The RT10 threshold could be representa-
tive of rainfall events that cause a modest number of
failures (low magnitude, such as the April 2000
event), while the RT50 threshold could indicate events
capable of triggering numerous landslides (as the
November 1994 event). Notwithstanding the use of
these thresholds in a warning system is not advisable.
In the intensity –duration graph, we identified a
critical limit for fairly wide range of durations (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Position of failures with respect to the statistical curves RT10 and RT50.
256 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265

Fig. 8. Triggering threshold in graph I – D for shallow landslides in the Piedmont Region. Curve [90] encompasses 90% of the available data and
represents the triggering threshold; the other limits [75, 50, 50, 25, 10] envelop different percentage of points in the graph.

The equation of this threshold (curve [90]) assumes on
the following exponential law (Eq. (6)):
I ¼ 19D
0:50
where I=(mean) rainfall intensity calculated in mm/
h and D = duration of critical rainfall event expressed
in hours.
This curve is calculated to include 90% of the
points on the graph; the 90% limit was established
arbitrarily and is dictated by the need to both limit the
maximum number of cases possible, and also, to
eliminate sporadic and therefore unrepresentative
cases. The other curves of the graph were calculated
for inclusions 75%, 50%, 25% and 10%, respectively,
and take on the following intercept values: 23.5, 34.0,
52.3 and 64.9. In graph I– D the critical threshold was
represented as a line rather than a curve since the
intense and short events (shorter than 10 h) are not
adequately represented in the set of available data.
When the new threshold is compared with those
available in literature (Fig. 9), it appears very similar
to the one proposed for Italian Central Alps (Ceriani et
al., 1994). The difference is a slightly lower exponent
(
0.50 against
0.55). It is interesting to note that it
is also very close to the classical Caine threshold
(1980): this similarity is even more surprising consid-
ering that the threshold suggested by Caine has been
ð6Þ calculated as a valid limit for the entire World.
By normalising the intensity value, it is possible to
represent the three rainfall parameters simultaneously
(intensity, duration and mean annual rainfall) (Can-
non, 1988) (Fig. 10). The points indicate the maxi-
mum intensities registered for the duration considered
(1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 h), besides the normalised intensity
relative to the moment in which the landslide was
triggered.
Fig. 10 shows two different thresholds in graph
NI – D (Eqs. (7) and (8)), which refer to two different
methods of data interpolation.
NI ¼ 0:76D
0:33 ðcurve AÞ ð7Þ
NI ¼ 4:62D
0:79 ðcurve BÞ ð8Þ
where NI = normalised critical intensity (%) and
D = duration of critical event (h).
Curve A encompasses all the available data in
figure, considering critical rainfall in its whole (Can-
non and Ellen, 1985). Curve B considers only nor-
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265 257

Fig. 9. Comparison of the triggering threshold in graph I – D with those reported in the literature. The thresholds proposed by Caine (1980) and
Crosta and Frattini (2001) are prepared by using all the data available at the date for the world; the thresholds by Cancelli and Nova (1985),
Ceriani et al. (1994) and Clarizia et al. (1996) are referred to wide areas with different soil, morphologic and rainfall characteristics. Threshold
proposed by Bolley and Oliaro (1999) is calculated for the upper Susa Valley (Dora river, see Fig. 1) within the studied area of this paper.

Fig. 10. Triggering thresholds in graph NI – D for the Piedmont Region. Curve A encompasses all the available data, while curve B considers
only normalised intensity relative to the moment in which the landslide was triggered.
258 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
Fig. 11. Definition of critical triggering thresholds in NI – NCR graph. Curve [100] envelops all the available data; curve [90] encompasses 90%
of the points in the graph.
malised intensities relative to the moment in which the
landslide was triggered, thus enveloping the less
dispersed part of the cluster of points. A comparison
with the thresholds available in literature for different
territorial contexts shows a certain similarity with the
curves proposed by Ceriani et al. (1994) and Wilson et
al. (1992).
The curve identified as critical threshold in the
diagram NCR – NI (RBMCJ, 1985) is given by Eq. (9):
NI ¼
0:09lnðNCRÞ þ 0:54
where NI = normalised intensity (%) and NCR = nor-
malised critical rainfall (%) (Fig. 11). Curve (9) corre-
sponds to the lower limit of 90% of the points on the
graph.
5. Applying thresholds to warning systems
An interesting use of empirically based thresholds
is in warning systems. Indeed, thresholds are an
important element of these systems, which must be
composed of several basic components related to
rainfall forecasts, real-time rainfall monitoring and
rainfall –landslide thresholds. One of the first warning
systems was developed by the USGS in the San
Francisco Bay area (Keefer et al., 1987; Wilson and
Wieczorek, 1995). It was based on the quantitative
precipitation rainfall forecast (QPRF) provided by the
National Weather Service (each forecast gave pre-
dicted rainfall for the upcoming 6 h), on a network
of more than 40 real-time continuous rainfall gauges,
and on the rainfall threshold for initiation of landslid-
ing (Cannon and Ellen, 1985). When actual real-time
ð9Þ readings in conjunction with predicted values
approached the threshold, a warning message was
issued. Similar systems were also developed and
described in Hong Kong (Brand et al., 1984), Italy
(Sirangelo and Braca, 2001), Japan (Onodera et al.,
1974), New Zealand (Crozier, 1999), South Africa
(Gardland and Olivier, 1993) and Virginia (Wieczorek
and Guzzetti, 1999). In Hong Kong, the Geotechnical
Engineering Office (GEO) has recently implemented a
new entirely automated computer system (Landslip
Warning System) that is the world first in landslide
forecasting and is now in everyday use (Premchitt,
1997). The Landslip Warning System is based on
short-term rainfall forecast and it is composed of 86
rain gauges. In addition to data from rain gauges,
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265 259

radar and satellite images are used to monitor the
movement and development of rain-bearing clouds.
The Landslip Warning is generally issued if the 24-
h rainfall is expected to exceed 175 mm, or the 60-min
rainfall is expected to exceed 70 mm over a substan-
tial part of the urban area: in such a situation, local
radio and television stations are requested to broadcast
the warning to the public at regular intervals.
A warning threshold could be introduced upstream
to the actual triggering threshold (RBMCJ, 1985), i.e.
a limit which, if exceeded, activates emergency pro-
cedures in areas susceptible to landslides triggered by
rainfall. Any of the above-stated graphs that indicate
triggering thresholds can be used to identify warning
thresholds. When identifying warning thresholds, it is
important to take into account both the trend of
triggering thresholds and the logistical problems that
could occur during emergency evacuation procedures.
For example, warning thresholds can be defined as
curves that are ‘‘parallel’’ to the triggering thresholds
(curve A in Fig. 12), or as curves that, once the critical
time Dtc has been established (i.e. the minimum time
required to evacuate the population at risk), it remains
constant regardless of the rain path of a given critical
rainfall, Dtc1 = Dtc2 (curve B in Fig. 12).
Fig. 13 describes an operating procedure which is
presently being verified and tested in the study area.
The procedure is activated after the quantitative pre-
cipitation rainfall forecast. Based on forecast, a pre-
liminary assessment is made of the probability that the
warning and critical thresholds will be exceeded. The
forecasting phase has improved considerably in recent
years, thanks to the development of specific techni-
ques such as the Doppler Radar (Smith et al., 1996),
which enables the accurate quantification of forecast-
ed rainfall.
In a situation of ‘‘ordinary attention’’, in which it is
assumed that the critical limits will not be exceeded,
the forecasting procedure is repeated. Vice versa, if
the forecast predicts rainfall exceeding the warning

Fig. 12. Criteria used to plot warning curves based on the triggering threshold. Warning curve is defined as a limit that, if exceeded, activates an
emergency procedure. Necessarily it has to be traced upstream the triggering threshold.
260 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265

Fig. 13. Operating procedure based on thresholds.

and triggering thresholds, i.e. indicating a potentially
critical situation, the alert phase is activated and, in
landslide-prone areas, a risk assessment procedure is
initiated in real time (for the Piedmont Region a
landslide susceptibility map is available, Aleotti et
al., 2000). This implies the acquisition of rainfall data
recorded by the involved rain gauges; data on ante-
cedent rainfall for periods of 10 days prior to the
event; ‘‘historic’’ information on the rain gauges
(rainfall return times, mean annual rainfall, etc.). At
this stage, the rainfall data has to be analysed in order
to identify the beginning of critical rainfall on the
time-cumulative rainfall curve, i.e. the rainfall that
may potentially trigger soil slips. Once the point of
origin of the rain paths (‘‘zero point’’) has been
identified, the precipitation trend can be traced on
specific graphs in relation to the warning threshold
that has been adopted. The alarm phase is activated
once the warning thresholds are exceeded, and the
emergency procedure is implemented.
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265 261

The warning system as defined in its general
structure could be based, at least in the medium-term
preliminary assessment (days), on the relationship
between antecedent rainfall and critical rainfall. A
possible scheme is described in Fig. 14. With refer-
ence to normalised antecedent rainfall for periods of 7
and 10 days, respectively, it has been calculated that
the curves that constitute the lower limits of 90% of
data are represented by Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively.
Starting, for example, from the cumulative rainfall in
n days preceding a given time t (Xn with n = 7 or 10),
it is possible to define the volume of critical rainfall,
Yn, which suggests the triggering of surficial slides by
saturation. If the weather forecast states that value Yn
will be reached in the upcoming hours, the warning
procedure is activated. In order to identify a critical
duration of the Yn we used Eqs. (8) and (9) to obtain
Eq. (10):
ln½NCR ¼ 8:35ln½D
10:465 ð10Þ
which expresses the relationship between normalised
critical rainfall (NCR) and duration (D) of the event
(Fig. 15). This curve can be used as triggering
threshold in Fig. 14.
The use of both 7 and 10 days critical triggering
together is the optimal solution. In general, two
different situations can occur: (i) rainfall antecedent
to time t is mainly concentrated in the last 7 days. In
this case Y10>Y7 and it would be more prudential to
use Y7 as critical rainfall value; (ii) rainfall is partic-
ularly abundant between the 8th and 10th day ante-

Fig. 14. Scheme based on antecedent rainfall in a warning system.

262 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
Fig. 15. Relationship between duration (D) and normalised critical rainfall (NCR).
cedent to time t. In this case, Y10 < Y7, and the warning
procedure must be set on the critical rainfall volume
indicated by Y10.
6. Concluding remarks
The empirical thresholds described in this paper are
a fundamental element of the implemented real-time
warning systems. However, when using them, we
must take into account several major restrictions. A
basic limitation that can be defined as conceptual
(Reichenbach et al., 1998) is that thresholds inevitably
represent a simplification of the relationship between
rainfall and landslide occurrence. Rainfall is not the
direct cause of failures which, in fact, are caused by
the build-up of high porewater pressure in the slope, a
phenomenon that is also related to hydraulic, physical
and mechanical properties of terrain and to other
environmental factors like slope, vegetation cover,
climatic characteristics of the area. A second aspect
is tied to the type and the quality of data used to
identify triggering thresholds. In this paper we high-
lighted the importance of accurately determining the
beginning of critical rainfall and the hour of landslide
triggering, as well as the need to refer each failure to a
relatively close rain gauge. Equally important is the
compilation of a detailed database immediately after a
critical event (Reichenbach et al., 1998; Crosta and
Frattini, 2001). It is necessary to: (i) identify the
event; (ii) indicate date and duration of the event;
(iii) define the area involved; (iv) identify associated
rain gauges. In addition, the following information
must be acquired for each rain gauge: (a) geographic
coordinates; (b) daily antecedent rainfall for a period
of at least 15 days; (c) hourly rainfall over the whole
event; and (d) statistical curves for each rain gauge
and for given return periods.
Throughout this study we could not identify a
significant correlation between antecedent rainfall
and critical rainfall. Nevertheless, further studies are
needed to investigate the influence of antecedent
rainfall with the increase of the antecedent days value
(Glade, 2000a).
As regards the triggering thresholds, new curves
have been proposed for the graphs used in the
literature. Comparison with other thresholds pointed
out the similarity with those proposed by Ceriani et al.
(1994) for the Italian Central Alps. The thresholds
could be implemented and further refined by intro-
ducing other case studies in the analysis. The combi-
nation of approaches presented herein with other
hydrological – geotechnical approaches should be
implemented at smaller, more detailed scales, and
for specific rainfall events. An effort in this direction,
by applying the Montgomery and Dietrich model
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
(1994), was made in north-western Piedmont in rela-
tion to the flooding event which occurred in Vigezzo
Valley (Ossola Valley) on 7– 8 August 1978 (Campus
et al., 2001).
Research has to be directed to establish the uncer-
tainties associated to the critical thresholds (Chowd-
hury and Flentje, 2002; Flentje and Chowdhury, 2001,
2002).
The most appropriate use of critical thresholds is in
real-time warning systems. A general outline of this
procedure has been defined. A test application of this
procedure has been scheduled for a real event (in back
analysis) to enable its calibration and refinement.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Thomas Glade and Fausto Guzzetti
for having provided a very helpful review of the
manuscript. Sincere thanks to Robin Chowdhury,
Giovanni Crosta, Phil Flentje, Mario Lagorio and
Giovanni Polloni, for discussion and valuable com-
ments during the preparation of the earlier version of
the paper. Thanks are owed to Jordi Corominas and to
an anonymous referee who greatly improved the
paper. The Piedmont Region Authority (Direzione
Servizi Tecnici di Prevenzione, Settore Meteoidrog-
rafico e Reti di Monitoraggio) is kindly acknowledged
for having provided the rainfall data reported in this
work. The study has been partly funded by the
INTERREG IIC Project carried out for the Piedmont
Region.
References
Aleotti, P., Polloni, G., 2000. Fractal structure of spatial distribution
of soil slips. Proc. of the IX International Conference Interprae-
vent 2000, vol. 1. VHB, Villach, pp. 183 – 189.
Aleotti, P., Baldelli, P., Polloni, G., 1996. Landsliding and flooding
event triggered by heavy rains in the Tanaro basin (Italy). Proc.
of the VIII International Congress Interpraevent 1996, Gar-
misch-PartenKirchen, vol. 1, pp. 435 – 446.
Aleotti, P., Baldelli, P., Polloni, G., 1998. Soil slips, rock-block
slides and stream hydraulic processes caused by heavy rains:
their interaction and relevant hazard. Proc. of the Second Con-
ference On Environmental Management ICEM2, Wollongong,
vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 553 – 564.
Aleotti, P., Baldelli, P., Govi, M., Polloni, G., Villani, B., 2000.
Landslide hazard assessment in the Po River Basin (Italy). Proc.
263
of the VIII International Symposium on Landslides, Cardiff, vol.
1. Telford, London, pp. 13 – 18.
Aleotti, P., Baldelli, P., Bellardone, G., Quaranta, N., Tresso, F.,
Troisi, C., Zani, A., 2002. L’evento meteorico del 13 – 16 otto-
bre 2000 nel Piemonte Settentrionale: analisi delle precipitazioni
e dei processi di versante indotti. Geologia Tecnica e Ambien-
tale 1, 15 – 25.
Aleotti, P., Canuti, P., Falorni, G., Fanti, R., Grimaldi, G., Guida,
D., Lombardi, G., Pappalardo, G., Polloni, G., 2003. Assess-
ment of potential debris flow inundation areas on a small allu-
vial fan in southern Italy. Proc. of the International Conference
on Fast Movements – prediction and prevention, Sorrento, May
11 – 13, 2003. In Print.
Anselmo, V., 1980. Three case studies of storm and debris flows in
north western Italy (Piemonte). Proc. of the V International Sym-
posium Interpraevent 1980, Osterr, Wasserwirtsch, Klagenfurt,
pp. 239 – 251.
Bandis, S.C., Del Monaco, G., Margottini, C., Serafini, S., Troc-
ciola, A., Dutto, F., Mortara, G., 1996. Landslide phenomena
during the extreme meteorological event of 4 – 6 November
1994 in the Piedmont Region N Italy. Proc. of the VII Int.
Symposium on Landslides, Trondheim, vol. 2, pp. 623 – 628.
Bolley, S., Oliaro, P., 1999. Analisi dei debris flows in alcuni bacini
campione dell’Alta Val Susa. GEAM 1999, 69 – 74 (Marzo).
Bonnard, Ch., Noverraz, F., 2001. Influence of climate change
on large landslides: assessment of long term movements and
trends. Proc. of the International Conference on Landslides:
causes impact and countermeasures, Gluckauf, Essen, Davos,
pp. 121 – 138.
Borga, M., Dalla Fontana, G., De Ros, Marchi, L., 1998. Shallow
landslide hazard assessment using a physically based model and
digital elevation data. Environmental Geology 35, 81 – 88.
Brand, E.W., 1992. Slope instability in tropical areas. Proc. of the
VI International Symposium on Landslides, Christchurch, vol.
3. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 2031 – 2051.
Brand, E.W., Premchitt, J., Phillipson, H.B., 1984. Relationship
between rainfall and landslides in Hong Kong. Proc. of the
IV International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto, vol. 1,
pp. 377 – 384.
Caine, N., 1980. The rainfall intensity duration control of shallow
landslides and debris flows. Geogr. Ann. 62 (1 – 2), 23 – 27.
Campbell, R.H., 1975. Debris flow originating from soil slip during
rainstorm in southern California. Q. Enginerring Geologist 7,
339 – 349.
Campus, S., Forlati, F., Sarri, H., Scavia, C., 2001. Surficial land-
slide hazard assessment based on multidisciplinary studies.
Proc. of the 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
Hong Kong.
Cancelli, A., Nova, R., 1985. Landslides in soil debris cover trig-
gered by rainstorm in Valtellina (Central Alps, Italy). Proc. of
the IV International Conference on Landslides, Tokyo, vol. 1.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 267 – 272.
Cannon, S.H., 1988. Regional rainfall-threshold conditions for
abundant debris-flow activity. In: Ellen, S.D., Wieczorek, G.F.
(Eds.), Landslides, Floods and Marine Effects of the Storm of
3 – 5 January, 1982 in the San Francisco Bay Region, California,
pp. 35 – 42. USGS Prof. Paper 1434.
264 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
Cannon, S.H., Ellen, S.D., 1985. Rainfall conditions for abundant
debris avalanches, San Francisco Bay region, California. Cali-
fornia Geology 38 (12), 267 – 272.
Ceriani, M., Lauzi, S., Padovan, N., 1994. Rainfall thresholds trig-
gering debris flows in the alpine area of Lombardia Region
Central Alps – Italy. I Convegno internazionale per la protezione
e lo sviluppo dell’ambiente montano ‘‘Man and Mountain’’94’’,
pp. 123 – 139.
Chiarle, M., Luino, F., 1996. Colate detritiche torrentizie sul Monte
Mottarone innescate dal nubifragio dell’8 luglio 1996 (Lago
d’Orta, Piemonte). Atti del Convegno Internazionale ‘‘La pre-
venzione delle catastofi idrogeologiche: il contributo della
ricerca scientifica’’, Alba (Italy), vol. 2, pp. 231 – 245.
Chowdhury, R.N., Flentje, P., 2002. Uncertainties in rainfall-in-
duced landslide hazard. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geol-
ogy and Hydrogeology 35 (Part 1), 61 – 71.
Clarizia, M., Gullà, G., Sorbino, G., 1996. Sui meccanismi di
innesco dei soil slip. Atti del Convegno Internazionale ‘‘La
prevenzione delle catastofi idrogeologiche: il contributo della
ricerca scientifica’’. Alba (Italy), vol. 1, pp. 585 – 597.
Corominas, J., 2000. Landslide an climate. Proc of the VIII Inter-
national Symposium on Landslides, Cardiff. Keynote Paper
Published in Electronic Form.
Corominas, J., Moya, J., 1999. Reconstructing recent landslide ac-
tivity in relation to rainfall in the Llobregat river basin, Eastern
Pyrenees, Spain. Geomorphology 30, 79 – 93.
Crosta, G., 1998. Regionalization of rainfall thresholds: an aid to
landslide hazard evaluation. Environmental Geology 35 (2 – 3),
131 – 145.
Crosta, G., Frattini, P., 2001. Rainfall thresholds for triggering soil
slips and debris flow. Proc. Of EGS 2nd Plinius Conference
2000, Mediterranean Storms, Siena, pp. 463 – 488.
Crosta, G.B., Dal Negro, P., Frattini, P., 2003. Distributed model-
ling of shallow landsliding in volcanoclastic soils. Engineering
Geology (this volume).
Crozier, M.J., 1999. Prediction of rainfall triggered landslides: a test
of the antecedent water status model. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 24, 825 – 833.
Crozier, M.J., Glade, T., 1999. Frequency and magnitude of land-
sliding: fundamental research issues. Zeitschrift für Geomorpho-
logie N.F. 15, 141 – 155.
Flentje, P., Chowdhury, R., 2001. Aspects of Risk Management for
Rainfall-Triggered Landsliding. Proc. Symposium on Engineer-
ing and Development in Hazardous Terrain, New Zealand Geo-
technical, pp. 143 – 150.
Flentje, P., Chowdhury, R.N., 2002. Landsliding in an Urban Area
‘‘Photographic Feature’’. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Ge-
ology and Hydrogeology 35 (Part 1), 5 – 9.
Flentje, P., Chowdhury, R.N., Tobin, P., 2000. Management of land-
slides triggered by a major storm event in Wollongong, Aus-
tralia. Proc. of the II International Conference on Debris-Flow
Hazards Mitigation, Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment,
Taipei, pp. 479 – 487.
Forlati, F., Lancellotta, R., Osella, A., Scavia, C., Veniale, F., 1995.
The role of swelling marls in planar slides in the Langhe Re-
gion. Proc. VII International Symposium on Landslides, Trond-
heim, vol. 2. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 721 – 725.
Gardland, G.G., Olivier, M.J., 1993. Predicting landslides from
rainfall in a humid, subtropical region. Geomorphology 8,
165 – 173.
Glade, T., 2000a. Modelling landslide triggering rainfall thresholds
at a range of complexities. Proc of the VIII International
Symposium on Landslides, Cardiff, vol. 2. Telford, London,
pp. 633 – 640.
Glade, T., 2000b. Modelling landslide-triggering rainfalls in differ-
ent regions of New Zealand—the soil water status model. Zeits-
chrift für Geomorphologie N.E. 122, 63 – 84.
Glade, T., Crozier, M., Smith, P., 2000. Applying probability deter-
mination to refine landslide-triggering rainfall thresholds using
empirical ‘‘antecedent daily rainfall model’’. Pure and Applied
Geophysics 157, 1059 – 1079.
Govi, M., Mortara, G., Sorzana, P., 1985. Eventi idrologici e frane.
Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia 20 (2), 395 – 401.
Guidicini, G., Iwasa, O.Y., 1977. Tentative correlation between
rainfall and landslides in a humid tropical environment. Bulletin
of the International Association of Engineering Geology 16,
13 – 20.
Guzzetti, F., Crosta, G., Marchetti, M., Reichenbach, P., 1992. De-
bris flows triggered by the July, 17 – 19, 1987 storm in the
Valtellina Area (Northern Italy). Proc. of the VII International
Congress Interpraevent 1992, Bern, vol. 2, pp. 193 – 204.
Iiritano, G., Versace, P., Sirangelo, B., 1998. Real time estimation of
hazard for landslides triggered by rainfall. Environmental Geol-
ogy 35 (2 – 3), 175 – 183.
Jibson, R.W., 1989. Debris Flow in Southern Porto Rico. In:
Schultz, Jibson (Eds.), Landslide processes of the Eastern Unit-
ed States and Puerto Rico. Geological Society of America Spe-
cial Paper, vol. 236, pp. 29 – 55.
Keefer, D.K., Wilson, R.C., Mark, R.K., Brabb, E.E., Brown, W.M.,
Ellen, S.D., Harp, E.L., Wieczorek, G.F., Alger, C.S., Zatkin,
R.S., 1987. Real time landslide warning system during heavy
rainfall. Science 238, 921 – 925.
Luino, F., Ramasco, M., Susella, G., 1994. Atlante dei Centri abitati
instabili piemontesi. Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dalle Cat-
astrofi Idrogeologiche, programma speciale: Studio Centri Abi-
tati Instabili, pubblicazione 964. 245 pp.
Lumb, P., 1975. Slope failure in Hong Kong. Quarterly Journal
Engineeering Geologist 8, 31 – 65.
Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., 1994. A physically-based model
for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water
Resources Research 30, 1153 – 1171.
Morgan, B.A., Wieczorek, G.F., Campbell, R.H., Gori, P.L., 1997.
Debris flow hazards in areas affected by the June 27, 1995 storm
in Madison County, Virginia. USGS Open File Report, 97 – 438.
Moser, M., Hohensinn, F., 1983. Geotechnical aspect of soil slips in
Alpine regions. Engineering Geolologist 19, 185 – 211.
Onodera, T., Yoshinaka, R., Kazama, H., 1974. Slope failures
caused by heavy rainfall in Japan. Proc. of the II International
Congress International Association of Engineering Geology,
Sao Paulo, Brasil, vol. 11, pp. 1 – 10.
Paronuzzi, P., Del Fabbro, M., Maddaleni, P., 2002. Frane super-
ficiali tipo slide debris flow causate dal nubifragio del 21/22
giugno 1996 nella Val Chiarsò (Alpi Carniche, Friuli). Memorie
della Societa Geologica Italiana 57, 443 – 452.
 P. Aleotti / Engineering Geology 73 (2004) 247–265
Polloni, G., Ceriani, M., Lauzi, S., Padovan, N., Crosta, G.,
1992. Rainfall and soil slipping events in Valtellina. Proc.
of the VI International Symposium on Landslides. Christchurch
1, 183 – 188.
Polloni, G., Aleotti, P., Baldelli, P., Nosetto, A., Casavecchia, K.,
1996. Heavy rain triggered landslides in the Alba area during
November 1994 flooding event in the Piemonte Region (Italy).
Proc. VII International Symposium on Landslides, Trondheim,
vol. 3, pp. 1955 – 1960.
Premchitt, J., 1997. Warning system based on 24-hour rainfall in
Hong Kong. Manual for zonation on areas susceptible to rain-
induced slope failure. Asian Technical Committee on Geotech-
nology for Natural Hazards in International Society of Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 72 – 81.
RBMCJ, 1985. Study on the Disaster Prevention System to Mitigate
Sediment Disasters Caused by Heavy Rains, Overall Debris
Countermeasures, River Bureau, Ministry of Construction of
Japan.
Regione Piemonte-Direzione Servizi Tecnici di Prevenzione, 1998.
Eventi alluvionali in Piemonte: 2 – 6 novembre 1994, 8 luglio
1996, 7 – 10 ottobre 1996. Torino 1998. 415 pp.
Regione Piemonte – Direzione Servizi Tecnici di Prevenzione,
2000. Eventi alluvionali in Piemonte: 10 – 14 giugno 2000. Tor-
ino 2000. 120 pp.
Reichenbach, P., Cardinali, M., De Vita, P., Guzzetti, F., 1998.
Regional hydrological thresholds for landslides and floods in
the Tiber River Basin (central Italy). Environmental Geology
35 (2 – 3), 146 – 159.
Sandersen, F., Bakkeoi, S., Hestnes, E., Lied, K., 1996. The influ-
ence of meteorological factors on the initiation of debris flows,
rockfalls, rockslides and rockmass stability. Proc. of the VII
International Symposium on Landslides, Trondheim, vol. 1. Bal-
kema, Rotterdam, pp. 97 – 114.
Sirangelo, B., Braca, G., 2001. L’individuazione delle condizioni di
pericolo di innesco delle colate rapide di fango. Applicazione
del modello FlaIR al caso di Sarno. Atti del Convegno: ‘‘Il
dissesto idrogeologico: inventario e prospettive’’, Roma.
Smith, J.A., Baeck, M.L., Steiner, M., 1996. Catastrophic rainfall
265
from upslope thunderstorm in the Central Appalachians: the
Rapidan storm of June 27, 1995. Water Resources Research
32 (10), 3099 – 3113.
Sutera Sardo, P., Beretta, G.P., De Luca, D.A., Masciocco, L., 1996.
Frane superficiali innescatesi nei dintorni di Ceva (CN) in con-
seguenza dell’evento meteorologico del Novembre 1994. Atti
del Convegno Internazionale ‘‘La prevenzione delle catastofi
idrogeologiche: il contributo della ricerca scientifica’’, Alba
(Italy), vol. 1, pp. 575 – 583.
Terlien, M.T.J., 1998. The determination of statistical and determin-
istic hydrological landslide-triggering thresholds. Environmen-
tal Geology 35 (2 – 3), 125 – 130.
Wieczorek, G.F., 1987. Effect of rainfall intensity and duration
on debris flows in central Santa Cruz Mountains, Califor-
nia. In: Costa, Wieczorek (Eds.), Debris Flows/Avalanches:
Processes, Recognition and Mitigation. Reviews in Engi-
neering Geology, vol. 7. Geological Society of America,
pp. 23 – 104.
Wieczorek, G.F., 1996. Landslide triggering mechanisms. In: Turner,
Shuster (Eds.), Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Trans-
portation Research Board-National Research Council, Special
Report, vol. 247, pp. 76 – 90.
Wieczorek, G.F., Guzzetti, F., 1999. A review of rainfall thresholds
for triggering landslides. Proc. of the EGS Plinius Conference,
Maratea, Italy October 1999, pp. 407 – 414.
Wieczorek, G.F., Morgan, B.A., Campbell, R.H., 2000. Debris flow
hazards in the Blue Ridge of Central Virginia. Environmetal and
Engineering Geoscience VI (1), 3 – 23.
Wilson, R.C., Wieczorek, G.F., 1995. Rainfall thresholds for the
initiation of debris flow at La Honda, California. Environmental
and Engineering Geoscience 1 (1), 11 – 27.
Wilson, R.C., Mark, R.K., Barbato, G.E., 1992. Operation of real-
time warning system for debris flows in the San Francisco Bay
area, California. In: Shen, H.W., Wen, F. (Eds.), Hydraulic En-
gineering ’93. Proceedings of the 1993 Conference, Hydraulics
Division, 1993, vol. 2. American Society of Civil Engineers,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 1908 – 1913.