Technical Note
Landslides
DOI 10.1007/s10346-019-01137-3 A. Segalini I A. Carri I C. Grignaffini I G. Capparelli
Received: 20 February 2018
Accepted: 15 January 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany Formulation of landslide risk scenarios using under-
part of Springer Nature 2019
ground monitoring data and numerical
models: conceptual approach, analysis, and evolution
of a case study in Southern Italy
Abstract Understanding the mechanism of a landslide and its
evolution is of fundamental importance in the risk management
process. This work introduces an articulated approach to the
problem, applying it to a specific case in the south of Italy where
a gravitational movement insists on a section of an important
highway. In recent years, the site has been investigated from a
geomorphological and a lithological point of view, and a compre-
hensive geomechanical characterization has been carried out by
means of on-site and laboratory tests. The area has been instru-
mented with a monitoring system composed of automatic incli-
nometers, piezometers, a rainfall station, and time domain
reflectometry (TDR) cables. These sensors have monitored the
deformation processes and their correlation with groundwater
fluctuation. A 2D finite differences model (FDM) of the slope has
been created, calibrated, and validated through back analysis,
carried out using the monitoring data available. A secondary creep
phenomenon, barely influenced by the water level rise due to
occasional rainfall, has been identified and modeled using the
Burgers viscoelastic constitutive model. Variations in the piezo-
metric level were introduced and their effect accounted for the
numerical model refinement. Once the improvements had been
completed together with the reproduction of past events, a predic-
tive analysis was carried out in order to forecast the most probable
slope behavior relative to the incoming year. At the end of this
phase, the infrastructure supervisor should have information
about possible deformations to be compared with the near real-
time monitoring outcomes and design assumptions. This proce-
dure allows real-time monitoring of the compatibility of slope
deformations with highway safety.
Keywords Landslide . Monitoring . Numerical modeling . Real
time . EWS . Creep
Introduction
Some of the most important infrastructures in Southern Italy
necessarily cross the Apennine mountain range due to the mor-
phology of these regions. This territory features diffused instability
phenomena, such as slow rotational or translational landslides,
rockfall, and debris flows. The A16 highway, which connects Cam-
pania and Apulia regions, is one of such structures and plays a key
role in connecting the gulf of Naples, the port of Salerno, and the
Adriatic Sea. The highway crosses landslides where a series of
studies and site tests have been carried out in recent years
(Versace et al. 2014), mostly with the objective of evaluating new
instrumentation (Artese et al. 2015), or methods for safety and
prevention purposes (Intrieri et al. 2017). This paper focuses on an
area identified between km 97 + 450 and the Candela exit, near the
regional border. Preliminary studies (Carri et al. 2017) revealed a
progressive deformation, partially related to variation in water
level and rainfall, which could reach the highway and become
potentially dangerous for people, also involving some houses and
the road itself. The site has been investigated since January 2015
through a series of on-site and laboratory tests in order to identify
its geomorphology, lithology, geomechanical characteristics, and
geotechnical parameters. A complex monitoring system has been
installed, including automatic inclinometers (In Place and MUMS
inclinometers), piezometers, TDR systems, tensiometers, and a
meteorological station. The information collected allowed for the
preliminary setup of a 2D FDM numerical model, based on Mohr-
Coulomb and Hoek-Brown constitutive models. After a period of
calibration and validation, the results of the numerical model and
the first year of observations were in good agreement (Carri et al.
2017). However, the second year of monitoring highlighted a dif-
ferent behavior, with constant creep-like deformations, partially
influenced by seasonal rainfall and water level variation. The
purpose of this work is to refine the original 2D numerical model,
enabling it to appropriately represent the phenomenon observed.
In particular, the main improvement lies in the introduction of the
Burgers creep model, with the addition of the time variable. The
application of the viscoelastic behavior concerns the sliding sur-
face area and has been calibrated through a back-analysis proce-
dure based on the monitoring data recorded in recent years. By
using the calibrated model, it has been possible to carry out an
analysis for the upcoming years, in order to forecast the landslide’s
most likely future behavior. The results allow verification of the
structure’s compatibility with real-time monitoring of the land-
slide’s evolution. This study highlights how monitoring data are of
key importance when dealing with elements at risk (Arbanas et al.
2014). It also evidences that any numerical model requires a
continuous validation (self-learning ability) in order to accurately
reproduce the physical behavior observed. With respect to this
issue, Bicocchi et al. (2016) investigated a procedure to upgrade
the HIRESSS (HIgh REsolution Slope Stability Simulator; Rossi
et al. 2013) deterministic model, underlining the importance of in
situ collected data to improve a model’s performances and reli-
ability. Furthermore, the accordance between provisional model
and monitoring data could properly identify precursory signals
that would be particularly useful for civil protection procedures.
Methods and equipment
Area description, surveys, and monitoring
Several authors (Crostella and Vezzani 1964; Scandone 1967;
Ippolito et al. 1973; Dazzaro and Rapisardi 1984; Ciarcia and
Vitale 2013) have studied the area in the past 50 years. Carri et al.
(2017) presented a comprehensive description of the geological
Landslides
 Technical Note
and geomorphological features of the region, resulting from a
careful bibliographic research based on geological and topological
maps, aerial photographs, and numerous scientific papers and
publications.
In addition, surveys were carried out to define geotechnical param-
eters, water table level, and its variation related to rainfall and weather
conditions. For this purpose, a monitoring system was designed and
progressively installed in the area adjacent to the highway. The infor-
mation obtained from geotechnical, hydrogeological, and meteorolog-
ical investigations are fundamental for the study of landslide dynamics
and the definition of triggering.
The site was equipped with five IPIs (In Place Inclinometer) (S1,
S2, and S3 in Fig. 1, installed in January, February, and June 2015,
respectively) and two MUMS (Modular Underground Monitoring
System) inclinometers (CI1 and CI2 in Fig. 1, installed at the end of
March 2015). The instrumentation, summarized in Table 1, is
fundamental to detect the depth and magnitude of displacements
along vertical boreholes. IPIs are equipped with 2D MEMS (Micro
Electro-Mechanical System) sensors able to detect the inclination
of the borehole at a specified depth and monitor its variation in
time (Segalini and Carini 2013). Each MUMS installed in the area is
equipped with 3D MEMS sensors (25 for CI1 and 26 for CI2), 2D
electrolytic cells (5 for CI1 and 4 for CI2), and a piezometer, all
along the same vertical. A UMTS router with GPRS connection
sends the data collected to the processing server, where automated
software converts the raw electrical data into physical units, stores
them in a MySQL database, and makes the results available on a
graphic web platform with security-controlled access.
Geotechnical model
A preliminary geotechnical model of the slope, constituted by four
main layers, was established by using the data achieved with
investigations, as in Carri et al. (2017).
The mechanical parameters of Layer I, II, and III were derived
from the laboratory tests available (Table 2), while the parameters
Fig. 1 Location of the geotechnical surveys and monitoring instrumentation
Landslides
for Layer IV were estimated by using the large database in litera-
ture, available through RocData® software (Rocscience 2018). The
following chapter analyzes the validation and calibration of the
parameters through a back-analysis process (Krkač et al. 2014).
Numerical model
Once the geotechnical model of the slope was completed, a 2D
numerical model was developed using FLAC® (Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua) software. This software is based on an
explicit finite difference formulation that can evaluate displace-
ments, settlements, stresses, and location of critical failures (FLAC
2018). In particular, literature and previous studies (Segalini et al.
2009) highlighted the importance of FDM models in the analysis of
landslide phenomena, especially when the slopes show slow and
continuous displacements with time, occurring without apprecia-
ble variation of the state of effective stress, and often related to the
presence of plastic clay portions. The model geometry is 267 m
long (in order to avoid border effects) and considers the section of
major declivity that crosses both MUMS inclinometers (DT0007 is
at the progressive of 72 m, while DT0008 is at 103 m). The section
was defined using satellite images, validated and corrected using
cartography (Fig. 2). The model grid contains 22,040 nodes with an
aspect ratio x/y = 2. Constrains for left and right boundaries are
rollers, with only vertical movements allowed. The lower boundary
is fixed, while the upper boundary is free to move. Figure 3 dis-
plays the numerical model geometry and the position of MUMS
automatic inclinometers.
Results and discussion
Manual inclinometers
The preliminary studies of the area also took into consideration
two surveys conducted in March and June 2015 with traditional
inclinometer probes in two different boreholes. Both investiga-
tions identified the major displacement at 17.68 m depth, with a
Table 1 Monitoring instrumentations installed
Station Sensor Station Sensor
Station 4 Weather station S1 1 IPI at 17.5 m depth
UGM 1_3 5 tensiometers at 1.2 m depth; S2 1 IPI at 17 m depth
5 TDR at 1.2 m depth
UGM 1_4 5 tensiometers at 1.2 m depth; S3 3 IPIs at 14, 17 and 20 m depth
5 TDR at 1.2 m depth
CI1 – DT0008 MUMS automatic inclinometer, 23.5 m long PZ1 1 piezometer at 12 m depth
CI2 – DT0007 MUMS automatic inclinometer, 23.5 m long PZ2 1 piezometer at 12 m depth
MUMS control unit Data logger for MUMS DT0007 and DT0008 PZ3 1 piezometer at 15 m depth

movement that is 6.8 mm (Azimuth 162°, southeast direction) and
4.9 mm (Azimuth 132°), respectively. These values could be rele-
vant in the following interpretation of MUMS and IPI data
(installed between April and August 2015).
In-place inclinometers
Results from IPIs are not easy to interpret, because they provide
the displacement at a specific position only, with no informa-
tion about other locations along the vertical direction. As men-
tioned in a previous study (Carri et al. 2017), it is quite difficult
and misleading to consider the results from IPIs in the analysis
for reasons related to the different positions (Fig. 1) of the
instrumentation on the slope (MUMS DT0007 chain and IPI
S3 are 125 m apart, being S3 3 m higher and on the Eastern
portion of the slide), the lack of data along the vertical (S1 and
S2 IPIs could also represent the maximum average direction,
but provide only a single tilt angle for the whole depth), and
several malfunctions over time, which cause a substantial loss of
data. Considering all the issues mentioned, this study will not
take into account the IPIs for the calibration of the numerical
model.
MUMS inclinometers
MUMS inclinometers started recording in 30 June 2015, which is
considered the zero-reference date. DT0007 chain highlights
(Fig. 2) a primary slip surface at a depth of 16.25 m, with a
displacement of about 55 mm at the end of November 2017 (Azi-
muth of 187°). The second major movement is equal to 16.4 mm
and is located at a depth of 17.5 m. The depth of the sliding surface
is about the same highlighted during preliminary surveys with
manual probes. At the depth mentioned a layer composed of soft
clay is present, including marl and sandstone.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between the variation of water
level over time (recorded by the absolute piezometer at 13 m depth
along DT0007 chain) and displacement at the sliding surface
(recorded along the same vertical of the piezometer). A first event,
occurred between 14 October and 5 November 2015, activated the
movement at 16.25 m depth, resulting in about 7 mm shift in
3 weeks of observations (displacement rate of 0.3 mm/day, with a
maximum of 1 mm/day). A second event took place during
March 2016 with about 7 mm displacement at the same depth,
during 1 month of observations (displacement rate of 0.2 mm/day,
with a maximum of 1 mm/day). A third event occurred in two
steps between 18 September and 22 October 2016, and between 04
November and 30 November 2016 (displacement rate 0.2 mm/day,
with a maximum of 1 mm/day, and 0.3 mm/day, with a maximum
of 1.2 mm/day, respectively).
In particular, the trend and duration of the movement
suggests the presence of creep behavior, marginally influenced
by seasonal oscillation of the water level. This hypothesis needs

Table 2 Mechanical parameters and failure criteria

Layer I clayey silt Layer II soft clay Layer III marly clay Layer IV marl flysch
Failure criterion Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Modified Hoek-Brown
Elastic modulus [MPa] 1.857 4.725 2.350 12,000.000
Poisson’s ratio [−] 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.30
3
Unit weight [kN/m ] 20.19 20.85 21.00 26.00
Friction angle [°] 28.00 33.60 33.60 –
Cohesion [kPa] 9.30 9.30 9.30 –
mb [−] – – – 2.005
s [−] – – – 0.007
a [−] – – – 0.504
σci [MPa] – – – 2.413
σt [MPa] – – – 0.100

Landslides
 Technical Note
Fig. 2 Site section A-A
to be verified with a numerical model. Figure 4 shows local
and cumulative displacements of DT0008 MUMS chain. In this
particular case, the situation is slightly different, since move-
ments are concentrated on an area between 17.25 and 13 m
depth (Fig. 5), with a major sliding surface at 16.25 m below
ground level (24.7 mm displacement at the end of March 2017,
Azimuth 115°). This instrumentation has been inactive since 20
March 2017 due to unknown causes that damaged the chain
irreversibly (Fig. 6).
Fig. 3 Numerical model domain, including MUMS inclinometers position along the section A-A
Landslides
Hydrogeological and meteorological investigations
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the water level recorded
by the piezometer of the DT0007 chain (located at 13 m depth) and
rainfall. In particular, from July 2015 to July 2016, the rainfall was
recorded by the meteorological station installed on site. Starting
from 14 July 2016, data have had to be retrieved from literature.
Notably, from July 2016 to January 2017, the nearest data available
were from the meteorological station in Greci, 18 km from the site,
while data from Flumeri station (6 km from the area) have been
Fig. 4 Differential a Local and b Cumulative displacements along the vertical, recorded by DT0007 MUMS inclinometer at the end of November 2017, starting from the
zero reference date of 30 June 2015

Fig. 5 Water level registered by piezometer located at 13 m depth and local displacement at a depth of 16.25 m, recorded by MUMS DT0007 for the period of monitoring

Landslides
 Technical Note
Fig. 6 Differential a Local and b Cumulative displacements along the vertical, recorded by DT0008 MUMS inclinometer at the end of March 2017, starting from the zero
reference date of 30 June 2015
available since 2 January 2017. It is quite difficult to establish a
valid and repeatable correlation between these two physical enti-
ties. This could be related to malfunctioning of the pluviometer
installed on site or lack of direct evidence, which could suggest
that there is not a relationship between rainfall and water level in
the area.
Numerical model
First year of monitoring
The numerical model described in the previous paragraph was
calibrated by using the data related to the first 3 months of
monitoring. In particular, different simulations regarded the var-
iation in the water table, initially located at 17 m depth below
ground level and then gradually raised up to 11 m depth.
Figure 8a shows the comparison between the displacements pro-
vided by the model and those recorded by DT0007 inclinometer,
for a water level located at 17, 15, 13, and 11 m below ground level.
The highest level is the one recorded by the instrumentation at the
end of October 2015. The same results were obtained for DT0008
inclinometer. However, due to the unexpected malfunctioning of
this particular tool, in following evaluations, the authors chose to
focus attention on DT0007 chain, giving also the good match
between available results. The data appeared to be in good agree-
ment, and the sliding surface was correctly identified. Moreover,
the computed displacements were comparable with the ones ob-
tained from the MUMS chain. Starting from November 2015, the
landslide showed a different behavior, with relevant displacements
occurring without appreciable variations in the water level
(Fig. 8b). The results do not agree with the hypothesis of an
elastoplastic constitutive model. Furthermore, the displacement
rate (previously discussed) remained constant over long periods,
being only slightly influenced by the variations in pore pressure.
Landslides
Such displacement could be ascribed to secondary creep behavior
of the material surrounding the sliding surface. This assumption
needs to be verified with a numerical model. The hypotheses of the
preliminary model were not confirmed, and new time-dependent
behavior of the material surrounding the sliding surface had to be
assumed.
After the first year of monitoring, it became clear that the
assumption of elastoplastic behavior of the material surrounding
the sliding surface was not correct, thus the hypothesis of a
secondary creep was introduced. After having properly defined
the position of the sliding surface, the Burgers constitutive model
could be assigned to the corresponding layer (Layer III). The
model combines Kelvin and Maxwell models acting in series
(FLAC Version 8.0 Creep Material Models 2016).
The Kelvin model combines a linear spring and a dashpot in
parallel, while the Maxwell model combines the same elements in
series. It was then necessary to define four parameters (KKs, CKs,
KMs, CMs) corresponding to stiffness K of the linear spring and
viscosity C of the dashpot for the Kelvin (Ks) and Maxwell (Ms)
models (Table 3).
Laboratory tests which could last up to several months are
generally required to determine these parameters. Data derived
from similar case histories where the materials and dynamics
involved are similar (Segalini 2001), were first introduced into this
study, due to the lack of adequate laboratory tests. This assump-
tion brings uncertainty into the model. Creep parameters are
influenced by temperature and other site factors. As a conse-
quence, they require calibration and validation through back anal-
ysis. In particular, expected values should have an order of
magnitude of 107÷108 Pa for parameter C and 1010÷1014 for param-
eter K, which has higher variability (Lin et al. 2017; Segalini 2001).
The new 2D time-dependent FDM model considers the zero-
record of MUMS inclinometers as its own starting time (t = 0) and
Fig. 7 Rainfall and water level recorded during the period of monitoring. After the first year of monitoring, data have had to be retrieved from the stations in Greci and
Flumeri
then simulates all the main variations of the water levels measured
for both verticals. The piezometers, which are located at a depth of
13 m, did not read the pore pressure during most of the surveyed
time, meaning that the water table was at a higher depth at that
location. Due to the low permeability of the materials and the
fluctuation in pore pressure recorded by the sensors when they
were submersed in the water table, it was deemed appropriate to
consider the starting position of the water table at 14 m below
ground level. This hypothesis is also confirmed by the little rapid
increase observed in pore pressure, which reached 11.5 m depth in
1 day only. Table 4 shows the mechanical parameters included in
the model, while Fig. 9 reports the comparison between displace-
ments provided by the 2D time-dependent FDM model and in-
strumental data of DT0007 MUMS chain at the end of the first year
of monitoring.
Second year of monitoring
After the first year of monitoring (Fig. 9a), the model started to
underestimate the amount of displacements (Fig. 9b), probably
due to the acceleration observed in the creep ratio after 13
November 2016. If the terrain is considered at a microscopic level,
micro-cracks could reduce the friction resistance along the sliding
surface (Colleselli and Colosimo 1977). Literature reports consti-
tutive models (Singh and Mitchell 1968; Vyalov 1986) describing
the progressive damage of the soil related to deformation phe-
nomena. A reduction of Burgers model parameters was intro-
duced, based on the hypothesis of a degradation of the
mechanical resistance due to the aforementioned progressive
damage. Table 4 shows the values adopted for KKs, CKs, KMs, and
CMs starting from t = 365 days (end of the first year of monitoring)
after the calibration with monitoring data (Fig. 9c).
Forecasting analysis
After the reproduction of the observed phenomena, a first-attempt
forecasting numerical simulation was carried out for the following
year (2018). The position of the water level was based on the
average observations of past events, with the water level below
the depth of the piezometer (respectively 13.6 and 13 m depth). Two
different hypotheses were considered for the mechanical parame-
ters of Layer III. The first one (Fig. 8a) considered the values
Landslides
 Technical Note

Fig. 8 a Displacements recorded by DT0007 MUMS inclinometer and provided by the 2D FDM model at the end of October 2015. b Displacements recorded at the end of
the first year of monitoring (July 2016) and provided by the 2D FDM model

obtained by the back analysis of the second year of monitoring,
with no degradation of material. The second one (Fig. 8b) reduced
stiffness and viscosity (Table 5) with the same trend recorded
between the first and the second year of monitoring.
The first simulation applied at DT0007 (Fig. 10a) showed a
constant deformation that reached 8.7 cm in November 2018, while
the second simulation (Fig. 10b) highlighted a displacement of
11.4 cm for the same period. The same analysis applied at
DT0008 inclinometer forecasted 8.7 and 11.4 cm, respectively. On
1 January 2018, DT0007 MUMS was interrupted at a depth of
16.75 m, probably due to displacements that regarded the sliding
surface at 17 m depth. The upper part of the tool worked for other

Table 3 Mechanical parameters and failure criteria – model used

Layer I clayey silt Layer II soft clay Layer III marl clay Layer IV marl flysch
Model Elastoplastic Elastoplastic Burgers Elastoplastic
Failure criterion Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb – Modified Hoek-Brown
Elastic modulus [MPa] 1.857 4.725 – 12,000.000
Poisson’s ratio [−] 0.30 0.33 – 0.30
Unit weight [kN/m3] 20.19 20.85 – 26.00
Friction angle [°] 28.00 33.60 – –
Cohesion [kPa] 9.30 9.30 – –
mb [−] – – – 2.005
s [−] – – – 0.007
a [−] – – – 0.504
σci [MPa] – – – 2.413
σt [MPa] – – – 0.100
KKs [MPa] – – 16.20 –
CKs [PI] – – 4.00 e 11
–
KMs [MPa] – – 84.60 –
CMs [PI] – – 1.50 e 14
–

Landslides
Table 4 Mechanical parameters for Layer III Burgers model adopted for the second Table 5 Reduced stiffness and viscosity for the second simulation for year 2018
year of modeling KKs [MPa] CKs [PI] KMs [MPa] CMs [PI]
KKs [MPa] CKs [PI] KMs [MPa] CMs [PI] 10
5.26 12.99 e 27.49 48.73 e12
11 13
9.23 2.28 e 48.22 8.55 e

showed significant variations with respect to the simulation hy-

6 months, starting from 16.25 m of depth. For this reason, the
cumulative displacements recorded are probably underestimated.
On June 5th, 2018 the MUMS inclinometer resulted permanently
compromised and monitoring came to an end due to excessive
deformations. The comparison between the inclinometer readings
at February and May 2018 endorses the first model hypothesis,
with a 9% and 17% difference at the top, respectively (Fig. 10a).
This could be related to the lack of instrumental information
under the depth of 16.75 m and the position of the water table that
pothesis, in particular at March 2018.
Conclusions
The paper describes the study carried out on an active landslide
which interests an important highway and some houses in the
south of Italy. In particular, the research focuses on understand-
ing the landslide’s mechanism, which is of primary importance in
the risk management process and could vary along time, as
discussed in the previous paragraphs. Starting from the large
database of site monitoring data and laboratory tests, it has been

Fig. 9 Comparison between displacement provided by 2D time-dependent FDM model and monitoring data after a first year, b second year, and c second year evaluated
with reduced Burgers model parameters

Landslides
 Technical Note
Fig. 10 Forecasting analysis for year 2018 a with no degradation of mechanical resistance and b reducing stiffness and viscosity with the same trend recorded between
the first and the second year of monitoring
possible to model the phenomenon. In particular, a preliminary
2D FDM elastoplastic model, calibrated with the data from the
first 3 months, reproduced the situation for the first 6 months of
monitoring. Starting from November 2015, the landslide has
displayed different behavior, with more relevant displacements
probably related to secondary creep, slightly influenced by the
water table. The hypotheses of the preliminary model were not
confirmed for the second year of monitoring and it was necessary
to establish a new time-dependent criterion. The new 2D time-
dependent FDM model considered elastoplastic behavior togeth-
er with secondary creep to represent the sliding surface. The
calibration procedure validated the first year of monitoring;
while, for the second year, an acceleration in displacement rates
was observed. This increase could be justified considering a
progressive degradation of the geotechnical parameters (i.e., stiff-
ness and viscosity), which were adequately reduced in the model.
The accordance between the second year of monitoring and the
model results allowed the evaluation of a preliminary forecasting
analysis for 2018. The knowledge achieved must be verified and
could be of relevant importance to predict the compatibility of the
slope deformations with the highway structures and practicabil-
ity. Finally, this study underlines the importance of a properly
designed and timed monitoring system, coupled with appropriate
and proactive numerical modeling to understand and safely man-
age landslide hazard. Further, evolution of this conceptual ap-
proach should involve the objective and automated recognition of
variations in landslide dynamics, and the related autonomous
correction of the numerical model input parameters. This would
allow a near real-time and continuous update of the landslide
hazard assessment forecast, and the self-learning redefinition of
the thresholds used to trigger the activation of each different
management alert level.
Landslides
Funding information
This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Education,
University and Research (MIUR), PON Project No. 01_01503
BIntegrated Systems for Hydrogeological Risk Monitoring, Early
Warning and Mitigation Along the Main Lifelines^, CUP:
B31H11000370005.
References
Arbanas Z, Sassa K, Nagai O, Jagodnik V, Prodan M V, Jovančević S D, Peranić J, Ljutić K
(2014) A landslide monitoring and early warning system using integration of GPS, TPS
and conventional geotechnical monitoring methods. Landslide science for a safer.
Geoenvironment. 2. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05050-8_98
Artese G, Perrelli M, Artese S, Meduri S, Brogno N (2015) POIS, a low cost tilt and position sensor:
design and first tests. Sensors 15:10806–10824. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150510806
Bicocchi G, D’Ambrosio M, Rossi G, Rosi A, Tacconi-Stefanelli C, Segoni S, Nocentini M,
Vannocci P, Tofani V, Casagli N, Catani F (2016) Geotechnical in situ measures to
improve landslides forecasting models: a case study in Tuscany (Central Italy). In:
Aversa et al. (Eds) Landslides and Engineered Slopes. Experience, Theory and Practice
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Landslides (Napoli, Italy, 12-19
June 2016) pp.419–424
Carri A, Grignaffini C, Segalini A, Capparelli G, Versace P, Spolverino G (2017) Study of an
active landslide on A16 Highway (Italy): modeling, monitoring and triggering alarm.
M. Mikoš et al. (eds.) Advancing Culture of Living with Landslides. Doi https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-53487-9_28
Ciarcia S, Vitale S (2013) Sedimentology, stratigraphy and tectonics of evolving wedge-
top depozone: Ariano Basin, southern Apennines, Italy. Sediment Geol 290:27–46
Colleselli F, Colosimo P (1977) Comportamento di argille plio-pleistoceniche in una
falesia del litorale adriatico. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 5:5–21
Crostella A, Vezzani L (1964) La geologia dell’Appennino Foggiano. Boll Soc Geol Ital
83:121–141
Dazzaro L, Rapisardi L (1984) Nuovi dati stratigrafici, tettonici e paleogeografici della
parte settentrionale dell’Appennino Dauno. Boll Soc Geol Ital 103(01):51–58
FLAC Version 8.0 Creep Material Models (2016)
FLAC. FLAC® Version 8.0. URL: http://www.itascacg.com/software/flac [Last http://
www.itascacg.com/software/flac accessed: 11 January 2018]
Intrieri E, Bardi F, Fanti R, Gigli G, Fidolini F, Casagli N, Costanzo S, Raffo A, Di Massa G,
Capparelli G, Versace P (2017) Big data managing in a landslide early warning system:
experience from a ground-based interferometric radar application. Natural Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 17:1713–1723. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1713-2017
Ippolito F, Ortolani F, Russo M (1973) Struttura marginale dell’Appennino Campano:
reinterpretazione di dati di antiche ricerche di idrocarburi. Mem Soc Geol Ital 12:227–
250
Krkač M, Arbanas S M, Arbanas Ž, Bernat S, Špehar K, Watanabe N, Nagai O, Sassa K,
Marui H, Furuya G, Wang C, Rubinić J, Matsunami K (2014) Review of monitoring
parameters of the kostanjek landslide (Zagreb, Croatia). In: Sassa K, Canuti P, Yin Y
(Eds) Landslide Science for a Safer Geoenvironment. Springer, Cham. pp. 637–643
Lin SS, Lo CM, Lin YC (2017) Investigating the deformation and failure characteristics of
argillite consequent slope using discrete element method and Burgers model. Environ
Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6401-7
Rocscience. All RocData Resources URL: https://www.rocscience.com/software/rocdata
[Last accessed: 5th January 2018]
Rossi G, Catani F, Leoni L, Segoni S, Tofani V (2013) HIRESSS: a physically based slope
stability simulator for HPC applications. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:151–166
Scandone P (1967) Studi di geologia lucana: la serie calcarea-silico-marnosa e i suoi
rapporti con l’Appennino calcareo. Boll Soc Nat Napoli 76(2):301–469
Segalini A. (2001) Numerical monitoring of time dependant - slow moving – landslides
in colluvium. Flac and Numerical Modelling in Geomechanics. Proceedings of the II
International FLAC Symposium. Lyon, France. Balkema, NL. pp. 171–178
Segalini A, Carini C (2013) Underground landslide displacement monitoring: a new mmes
based device. In: Margottini C, Canuti P, Sassa K (Eds) Landslide Science and Practice.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31445-2_11
Segalini A, Giani GP, Ferrero AM (2009) Geomechanical studies on slow slope move-
ments in Parma Apennine. Eng Geol 109(1–2):31–44
Singh A, Mitchell JK (1968) General stress-strain-time function for soils. J Soil Mech
Found Div 94(1):21–46
Versace P, Artese G, Autiero M, Avolio M V, Bardi F, Borgia A, Cancelliere A, Capparelli G,
Capuozzo M, Caruso A, Casagli N, Cavallaro L, Cianciosi O, Conforti M, Conte E,
Costanzo A, Costanzo S, De Marinis M, Di Gregorio S, Di Massa G, De Luca D L, De
Santis D, Donato A, Fanti R, Fidolini F, Formetta G, Foti E, Intrieri E, La Sala G, Luci A,
Maletta D, Mannara G, Moreno D, Morrone L, Mungari T, Muto F, Paoletti F, Peres D J,
Raffo A, Rago V, Rigon R, Spadafora F, Spataro W, Troncone A, Trunfio G A, Vena M,
Viggiani G (2014) An integrated system for landslide monitoring, early warning and
risk mitigation along lifelines. PON01_01503, Cosenza 25th–28th of November 2014
Vyalov SS (1986) Rheological fundamentals of soil mechanics. Elsevier, Amsterdam
A. Segalini ()) : A. Carri : C. Grignaffini
DIA – Department of Engineering and Architecture,
University of Parma,
Parco Area delle Scienze 181/a, 43124, Parma, Italy
Email: andrea.segalini@unipr.it
G. Capparelli
DIMES,
University of Calabria,
Via P. Bucci, Edificio 42C, Piano 5 Arcavacata, 87036, Rende, CS, Italy
Landslides