Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GIS-Based Landslide Susceptibility Map Verification by Its Geotechnical and Geological Characteristics
GIS-Based Landslide Susceptibility Map Verification by Its Geotechnical and Geological Characteristics
Herianto, P.,* Kunsuwan, B., Mairaing, W., Chalermpornchai, T. and Srisook, W.,
Division of Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at
Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Thailand, E-mail: putra.h@ku.th
*Corresponding author
Abstract
The famous 2006 Laplae rainfall-triggered landslide has caused hundreds of million Baht lost. The objective
of this paper is to evaluate and to compare present geotechnical and geological conditions between the
landslide area and landslide-free area to verify a landslide susceptibility map. Detailed field surveys acquired
14 samples: undisturbed, disturbed soils as well as rocks. Sensitivity and back-analysis were also performed.
35.44% of landslides occurred in meta-shale - greywacke-interbedding Formation, and another 64.56%
happened in meta-greywacke - basaltic andesite Formation. The dominant slope of the landslide is in 30 0-400
slope, with aspects toward South direction, and in a range of <1,000 meters from geological structures.
Landslide area is distinguished from the non-landslide area by its various grades of materials, lower quartz
content, higher clay content, finer composition of parental rocks and soils, higher average ratio of smectite
versus quartz, lower compressive strength, lower shear strength, lower angle of internal friction, lower
cohesion value, more poorly graded, higher soil moisture, higher liquid limit and plasticity index, and factor
of safety is generally less than 1. The result of the sensitivity analysis indicated that in a failure condition, the
cohesion and angle of internal friction angle values are equal to 2.51 kPa and 13.70 0, respectively. However,
the results of laboratory tests showed that the cohesion and angle of internal friction values are equal to 8.59
kPa and 14.20. These results verified the landslide susceptibility map that the high landslide susceptibility
area has the engineering characteristics of the landslide-prone area, while the low susceptible one has the
characteristics of the non-landslide area
1. Introduction
A landslide is the movement of a mass of rock, related to fundamental factors, such as soil and
debris, or earth down a slope under the influence of rocks properties, geological structures, and
gravity (Guzzetti, 2005). Landslide hazard is one of topography, and the second group consists of
the main natural disasters that need attention in external factors such as anthropogenic and rainfall
Thailand. In 2006, two main landslide events caused intensity. Kim and Song (2015) explained that
a massive loss of both lives and properties in landslides might occur when the external factors, as
Uttaradit and Nan Provinces. When the Uttaradit a trigger, overlap with the inherent factors. For
Province landslide happened on 22-23 May 2006, example, heavy rainfall may trigger landslides on an
the damaged cost was 308,615,331 Baht or roughly unstable clayey soil slope. Heavy rainfall, in this
equal to 10 million US$ (30 Baht = 1 US$)(Usamah case, works as the external factor, while the unstable
and Arambepola, 2013). The condition of this slope is the fundamental factor. The mentioned
catastrophic translational landslides are shown in happened landslide in Uttaradit was mainly
Figure 1. Laplae District is the most north-west influenced by the rainfall and the physical properties
district in Uttaradit Province (as shown in the Figure of soil (Protong et al., 2018). The maximum rainfall
2), where it was also swept away by the 2006 intensity in May 2006 when the landslide occurred
landslide. The lithology that composed of this study was 330.0 mm/day, and the limit for maximum
area is Greywacke, Shale, Claystone, and mixture of rainfall intensity before the villagers need to
shale and volcanic ashes (Khositanont et al., 2016 ). evacuate is 150.0 mm/day (Mairaing et al., 2016).
Many previous studies (Fell et al., 2008, 1994, Similarly, like the previously mentioned case, the
Hwang et al., 2009 and Kim and Song, 2015) rainfall works as the external factor and the physical
mentioned that the influencing factors on landslides properties of soil work as the inherent factor.
could be divided into two groups. The first group is Several studies showed that particular physical
properties, such as grading, unit weight, liquid limit,
International Journal of Geoinformatics, Volume 16, No. 4, October - December 2020
Online ISSN 2673-0014/ © Geoinformatics International
and plasticity indexes, are noted as factors affecting methodology in Figure 4. This study not only
slope stability as well (Fonseca et al., 2017, Kim evaluates and compares the geotechnical properties
and Song, 2015 and Mugagga et al., 2012). The and geology of landslide locations but also works as
physical properties of soil depend on the weathered an engineering verification of a landslide status in
grade and geology (Hurchinson, 1988, Lumb, 1975, the GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping of
Matsushi et al., 2006, Wakatsuki et al., 2005 and the area (Herianto, 2020) between the past location
Yalcin, 2007). The characteristics of the weathered of landslides and landslide-free (or commonly called
soil are derived from the characteristics of its as non-landslide) location. Moreover, in order to
parental rocks. compare and to evaluate these parameters on
Living in the landslide-prone area means that the landslides, the properties of the soils that cover
local people live in a high-risk area, especially when slopes are measured, and the geological conditions
heavy downpours last for more than 24 hours like are investigated.
what happened in 2006. As this natural disaster Three study areas are selected to consider and to
frequently occurs in Laplae District, the validate different statuses of their historical
geotechnical and geological conditions are the landslide in 2006 based on scars data and previous
fundamental parameters that are scientifically and researcher landslide susceptibility map (as shown in
socially important. Several researchers did their Figure 3). All of three chosen area (as shown in
research about the Laplae Landslide (Moazzam et Figure 2 and 3) have different type of landslide
al., 2007, Phattaraporn et al., 2017, Protong et al., status (based on the scar data and the previous
2018, Tanang et al., 2010 and Usamah and researcher’s landslide susceptibility map), which are
Arambepola, 2013) but none have ever done about a landslide area (very high susceptibility), a non-
using geological and geotechnical characteristics in landslide area, and a non-landslide area close to the
order to verify the landslide susceptibility mapping landslide area (low susceptibility). A detailed
of the area. geotechnical and geological survey is performed as
Herianto (2020) mentioned that they used the well as soil and rocks sampling in each study area. A
frequency ratio method in order to make the series of laboratory soil tests are then conducted to
landslide susceptibility map, which has a range measure the soil properties. Based on these results,
accuracy of the map from 49 to 89%. However, this the relationships between landslide occurrence and
accuracy verification was done by using area under soil properties are investigated and evaluated, and
curve and receiver operating characteristics curve, a the landslide susceptibility map will be well verified
statistical approach. Commonly, engineers prefer to after the field verification is done. Hutchison (2014)
validate further by using field and laboratory agrees that Laplae is roughly located in the Sukhotai
measurements to know whether the map that has Zone, where it is bounded with Nan-Uttaradit Suture
been created is accurate enough based on physical on the East part which extends on the North-South
field data. Herianto (2020) divided the landslide
direction, Chiang Mai Suture on the West part
susceptibility map of Laplae area into five main
which also extends from North to South, Mae Ping
landslide susceptibility index (LSI), as shown in
Fault on the South part which azimuth is trending
Figure 3. The lower value of the LSI, meaning the
from North- West to South-East and Ailao Shan-Red
lower probably a landslide will occur, while the
higher the value of the LSI, meaning the higher River Shear on the North part which also extends
probably a landslide will occur. Those five classes from North-West to South-East.
were subjectively renamed as very low Khositanont et al., (2016) divided Laplae area
susceptibility, low susceptibility, medium into three different formations, geologically. There
susceptibility, high susceptibility, and very high are Lower Lap-Lae Formation (Pll1), Upper Lap-Lae
susceptibility. Formation (Pll2), and Alluvial Deposits (Qa). The
However, the susceptibility maps formed was Lower Lap-Lae Formation consists of meta-
verified using only existing landslide location (scar sandstone, greywacke, shale, and basaltic andesite
data) by a statistical approach. In order to better sills. This Formation is called as Pll1. The Upper
understand and to verify the status of the landslide
Lap-Lae Formation, on the other hand, consists of
susceptibility map in the field, direct field and
laboratory approaches will be done accordingly. The meta-shale or mudstone, greywacke sandstone, and
direct validation not only is important for increasing mudstone. This Formation is called as Pll2.
the susceptibility map precision, but its data can also Geologically, those two Formations have been
be used for future landslide susceptibility modeling continuously weathered and eroded, which then
as input data, as shown in the flowchart of become the source of the Quaternary deposits/soils.
Accuracy
Assessment
Previous research
No Yes
Part of research
Verified Landslide
Susceptibility Map
Figure 14: Shale thin section in the BD site under the normal-light microscope
Figure 15: Siltstone thin section in the HTS site under the normal-light microscope
International Journal of Geoinformatics, Volume 16, No. 4, October - December 2020
Online ISSN 2673-0014/ © Geoinformatics International
3.2 Petrography (Casini et al., 2011, Iannacchione and Vallejo, 2000,
Petrography analysis has been done by using a Islam et al., 2011, Mostefa et al., 2013 and Stark et
normal and cross-polarized microscope to show the al., 2014). Specifically, soils from BD site are
mineral characteristics of soils’ parental rocks in greyish-brown gravelly sand, classified as well-
each site with point counting or modal composition graded sand with little fines material (SW), while
method. The analysis is only focusing on the HTS soils are reddish-brown silty sand, classified as
mineral quartz, smectite, and illite as these three poorly graded sand with little fines material (SP)
minerals are the most common minerals found in the groups. The soils from SHTS are yellowish-brown
parental rocks’ thin sections, while other minerals
gravelly sand, classified as well-graded sand with
such as Plagioclase, Lithic Fragment, Muscovite and
little fines material (SW) groups.
Biotite are quantitatively counted, but it has a less
significant presence.
The average ratio of smectite vs. average of the 3.3 Soil Moisture and Atterberg Limits
other two minerals: quartz and illite, in each site, Soil moisture and Atterberg limits, as shown in
were also calculated. It shows that the average ratio Table 1, were measured and calculated for the
of smectite with an average of quartz in HTS is behavior of soils in response to water content, and
37.10, while on the other sites, it falls below 1.3. the following implications for landslide occurrence.
Moreover, the average ratio of smectite with an Even though the soils are coarse-grained material,
average of illite in HTS is 5.62, while on the other the Atterberg limits are calculated in order to
sites, it only reaches 0.32, as shown in Table 1. It analyze the behavior of the matrix-grained parts of
means that smectite is the dominant minerals found the soil. The HTS soil has the highest soil moisture
to be the key mineral in the soil behavior in the value. The liquid limit of HTS is above the
landslide area, while illite is the dominant minerals threshold of 50% (ASTM, 2017a). It means that the
in the non-landslide area. These results satisfy with HTS clay has high swelling potential of the clay
other researchers’ result that smectite is found to be materials. The PI of HTS site also shows the highest
the key minerals in the landslide area (Ohlmacher, expansion potential of the clay materials among
2001, Putra et al., 2019, Tamura and Hasegawa, other sites as well, it is considered as high plasticity
2015 and Zhao et al., 2007). clays. This means that the nature of the soils might
The results show that the highest mineral be one of the inherent factors. The plasticity chart,
composition percentage in each site is different. which including PI that highlights the range of water
Smectite is found to be the most abundant mineral contents where the soil exhibits plastic properties, is
in HTS site, as shown in Figure 15, while in BD and shown in Figure 18. The plasticity chart shows that
SHTS, as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 16, Illite is
the most dominant mineral, as shown in Table 1.The even though all the soils of the non-landslide area is
result was also verified by the Department of critically near the 50% boundary of low and high
Mineral Resources of Kingdom of Thailand which plasticity, the only soil that contains high plasticity
its laboratory analysis results show that the rocks clay is located at HTS site. This confirms that the
found in BD, HTS, and SHTS sites are classified, high plasticity of soils represents the characteristics
respectively, as shale, siltstone, and sandstone. of the landslide area as in accordance with others’
results (Bizimana and Sönmez, 2015, Kitutu et al.,
3.2 Soil Particle Distribution 2009 and Soralump, 2008). The nature of highly
Particle distribution curves are shown in Figure 17. plastic soil of HTS site is displayed by their plotting
above the boundary A-line and their PI is exceeded
Soils from the respective sites were generally
coarse-grained, with less than 50% of the material the B-line threshold of 50%.
passing the 0.075 mm sieve. D60, D30 and D10 of the
3.4 Shear Strength, Fs and Sensitivity Analysis
BD, HTS, and SHTS sites, respectively, are 5.50 The angle of internal friction and cohesion were
mm, 2.00 mm, 0.40 mm; 2.00 mm, 0.80 mm, 0.40 computed by plotting shear strength versus normal
mm; and 5.00 mm, 1.50 mm, 0.50 mm. Soils from stress curves, which were then used to calculate the
the HTS site are finer and more poorly graded than Factor of Safety for each site. BD, HTS, and SHTS
those from the other two sites. The finer soil means sites’ curves are shown, respectively, in Figure
that the angle of internal friction and the peak 19(a,b,c). The number of points of scars vs. slope in
friction angle is lower, which leads to a weaker the research area is shown in Figure 20. The
strength of soil which characterized the landslide landslides dominantly occurred in 300-400 slope,
area, as confirmed with other researchers’ results with a mean of 33.80.
Figure 18: Casagrande plasticity chart of the site location (Modified from Holtz and Kovacs (1981))
As expected by the Fs calculation of infinite slope slope angle of the area. When the slope angle of
with various degree of slope, the slopes at BD and SHTS reaches 38, the Fs value falls below 1. It
SHTS sites where the Fs > 1, tends to be more shows that even at the angle of 32 and 34, the slope
stable, while the slopes at the HTS site where the at SHTS is still stable, but it becomes unstable when
value of Fs is lower than the critical factor of 1, are it reaches an angle of 38 or more. The HTS landslide
unstable. However, this only applies at the slope occurred on naturally unstable, inherently expansive
angle of 32. The factor of safety also depends on the soils, harvested slopes.
Number of
points of scars
Slope (degree)
It needs to be noted that even slopes where Fs > 1 is parameter varies, and other input parameters are
conditionally stable, the external and internal factors kept constant in their mean values. The analysis
may change its stability when it applies their assesses of which input parameter may be more
influence on landslides such as rainfall intensity critical to the assessment of the slope stability, and
rises, and the shrink-swell capacity of the clays vice versa, which parameter has less effect on the
triggered. These results also agree with other instability. The cohesion and friction angle of the
researchers’ results, which show that translational failure surface was back analyzed by performing a
failure mechanisms generally occurred at slopes sensitivity analysis. The effects of slope, cohesion,
with angles between 80 to 320 (Schilter, 2019), and angle of internal friction to the factor of safety
between 300 to 450 (Huang et al., 2016), more than are presented in the form of sensitivity graphs in
250 (Zêzere, 2002). Sensitivity analysis assists Figure 21, Figure 22, and Figure 23 in which the
researchers to evaluate the impact of an individual vertical axis represents the factor of safety and the
unknown variable, with the assumption that all other horizontal axis represents the slope or cohesion or
slope parameters are known. In this analysis, one angle of internal friction.
International Journal of Geoinformatics, Volume 16, No. 4, October - December 2020
Online ISSN 2673-0014/ © Geoinformatics International
Cohesion vs Angle of Internal Friction
FS 0.98-1.02
60 Friction= -4.7836 Cohesion + 59.041
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15
Cohesion (kPa)
Figure 24: The relationship between cohesion and friction angle of the rock mass for an approximate
factor of safety of 1, the dotted line is the line of factor of safety = 1
The value of cohesion and angle of internal friction materials, higher quartz content, lower clay content,
by using the back analysis is compared with the more grainy composition of parental rocks and soils,
value of cohesion and angle of internal friction lower average ratio of smectite vs. quartz, higher
obtained from the laboratory.The slope, cohesion, compressive strength, higher shear strength, higher
and the angle of internal friction obtained in the angle of internal friction, higher cohesion value,
laboratory of the HTS site, where a landslide did more well-graded, lower soil moisture, lower liquid
occur in 2006, is 300, 8.59 kPa and 14.20, limit and plasticity index, and factor of safety is
respectively. On the other hand, from the back- generally more than 1. The factor of safety of SHTS
analysis result, it is indicated that at the edge of area, however, falls below 1 once the slope angle
failure, i.e., a factor of safety of 1, the slope, reaches 380. The result of the sensitivity analysis
cohesion, and friction angle values were 29.630, indicated that in a failure condition, the cohesion
2.51 kPa and 13.700., respectively. The relationship and angle of internal friction angle values are equal
of cohesion and angle of internal friction from the to 2.51 kPa and 13.700, respectively. However, the
back analysis is shown in Figure 24. results of laboratory tests showed that in a failure
condition, the cohesion and angle of internal friction
4. Conclusions values are equal to 8.59 kPa and 14.20. In a nutshell,
The GIS-based landslide susceptibility map is now the hypothesis that geological and geotechnical
field, and laboratory-verified that the high landslide properties as the inherent factors are related to the
susceptibility area has the engineering landslide occurrence at the site where the slope
characteristics of the landslide-prone area, while the failure occurred, is now generally accepted.
low susceptible one has the characteristics of the
non-landslide area. High susceptibility landslide Acknowledgments
area is characterized by the intermixture of materials This research was funded by Kasetsart University
of deep and shallow materials, lower quartz content, Postgraduate Scholarship Program for ASEAN
higher clay content (especially smectite group clay), Students 2017, Kasetsart University Scholarships
finer composition of parental rocks and soils, higher for ASEAN for Commemoration of the 60th
average ratio of smectite vs. quartz, lower Birthday Anniversary of Professor Dr. Her Royal
compressive strength, lower shear strength, lower Highness Princess Chulabhorn Mahidol, grant
angle of internal friction, lower cohesion value, number 1/2560. This research was also supported by
more poorly graded, higher soil moisture, higher the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
liquid limit and plasticity index, with the slope angle Engineering at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart
between 300 to 400 and factor of safety is generally University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Thailand.
less than 1. Vice versa, low susceptibility landslide This research was also supported by a grant from
area is characterized by more homogenous the Faculty of Engineering at Kamphaeng Saen,