9964
21, NOVEMBER 1, 2019
Effective and Accelerated Forewarning of
Landslides Using Wireless Sensor Networks
and Machine Learning
T. Hemalatha, Maneesha Vinodini Ramesh, Senior Member, IEEE, and Venkat P. Rangan, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract— In this paper, we have reported an effective adop-
tion of machine learning (ML) algorithms for wireless sensor
networks (WSN) deployed for real-time monitoring and early
warning of landslides. The WSN system performs real-time
monitoring of landslide triggering parameters such as rainfall,
soil moisture, pore-water-pressure (PWP), and movements. The
challenges involved in landslide early warning and the data driven
context for overcoming these challenges are being presented.
Linear models were applied on real-time data from the WSN
system and the data from laboratory experiments to discover
the interrelationships existing between rain, soil, and moisture,
PWP and construct the feature-set required for forecasting
slope stability conditions. Two algorithms Current-PWP and 24-
PWP based on the support vector regression (SVR) method is
implemented for efficacious nowcast and 24 h forecast of the slope
stability conditions for early warning notification of landslides.
Comparison of the results from the Current-PWP and 24-PWP
algorithms with the actual sensor measurements recorded by
the WSN system revealed mean absolute error (MAE) values
4.2k and 4.7 kPa, respectively. The results section elaborates 1)
on relevance of the Current-PWP algorithm towards ensuring
the reliability of early warning WSN systems, constrained by
data availability, 2) application of the 24-PWP algorithm to yield
an additional duration of 24 h for landslide preparedness, 3)
the empirical appraisal of the regression model from laboratory
experiments for estimation of soil moisture from PWP, and vice
versa, 4) the efficacy of multi-level decision making for the
preclusion of false warnings, and 5) the timely early warnings
issued from the proffered WSN system.
Index Terms— Wireless sensor networks, machine learning,
forecasting, decision support system.
I. I NTRODUCTION
W SN has a great lifesaving prudential for disasters
such as landslides [1]–[3] and application of ML in
early-warnings of natural or manmade calamities is one of
the most impactful societal applications [4]–[8]. Incidents of
catastrophic landslides have been reported from many regions
of the world including Asia, Europe and the Americas. Among
them the first two emerging global hotspots for landslides are
Manuscript received June 1, 2019; accepted June 26, 2019. Date of
publication July 12, 2019; date of current version October 4, 2019. This work
was partly funded by Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of
India under the project titled “Advancing Integrated Wireless Sensor Networks
for Real-time Monitoring and Detection of Disasters” and partly funded by
Amrita University. The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper
and approving it for publication was Prof. Huang Chen Lee. (Corresponding
author: T. Hemalatha.)
The authors are with the Amrita Center for Wireless Networks and
Applications (AmritaWNA), Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham, Kollam 690525, India (e-mail: hemalathat@am.amrita.edu;
maneesha@amrita.edu; venkat@amrita.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSEN.2019.2928358
1558-1748 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 19, NO.
the southern Himalayan arc and the south-west Indian coast,
both of which are located in India [9]. David Petley’s dataset
[9] on landslide fatality provides deeper insights into the
statistics and the trend of landslides. Petleys dataset has logged
2620 non-seismically triggered landslides over a span of seven
years, ranging from 2004 to 2010. Over the years, a sustained
increasing linear trend of the number of landslide fatalities has
been reported. Despite the advent of modern techniques for
landslide monitoring and early warning, providing sufficient
warnings ahead of time and minimizing loss of lives and
property damage remains a challenge [10].
A. Existing Methods and the Limitations
Landslide is a complex phenomenon affected by diverse
causative parameters including rainfall, seismic activity,
weathering, moisture dynamics, PWP dynamics, seepage and
drainage patterns and movements in the slope etc. Several
methods of remote sensing through satellite imagery for
landslide monitoring are in use today [11]–[13]. The main
advantage of such methods is that, they can be used for
surveillance of large areas, with high spatial resolution [14]
and 3D capabilities [15]. Remote sensing techniques provide
excellent results in vulnerability mapping [7], [16], landslide
risk mapping [7], [17] and, post disaster mapping [18],
but limited for real-time monitoring, entailed by the long
duration consumed by a satellite for revisiting the same
place [19]. Seismic [20], Electromagnetic [21], Ground Pen-
etrating Radar [22], Electrical Resistivity Tomography [23],
constitute few of the noninvasive, geophysical landslide mon-
itoring methods, employed to investigate large volumes of
subsurface regions. However these approaches being indirect,
lead to a number of non-unique solutions, which limit their
usage in reliable warnings [24]. Landslide monitoring methods
centered on geo-technical instruments like extensometers [25],
inclinometers [26], and piezometers [27] afford accurate mea-
surements, but these measurements are confined to smaller
areas where the instrument is installed. Instrument based
methods cannot be used for a large scale deployment and
has its limitation for regional monitoring. These methods
are quite cumbersome and expensive, involving heavy duty,
unwieldy equipment and their effectiveness is limited to at
most detecting the event [5], [28]–[30] and cannot really be
used for early warning.
On the other hand, Early Warning System (EWS), based on
rainfall threshold models from rain gauge are inexpensive and
HEMALATHA et al.: EFFECTIVE AND ACCELERATED FOREWARNING OF LANDSLIDES USING WSN AND MACHINE LEARNING
widely used models for landslide early warning [31], [32].
However, the warnings from these methods are vulnerable
to a large number of false positives and fail to provide a
reliable solution [33] either due to lack of sufficient historical
data or lack of fine grained rainfall data in both spatial and
temporal domain. Rainfall thresholds are highly general which
can provide regional warnings and if they have to be tailored
to be effective for a specific site they require a long number
of years of rainfall measurements and correlating them with
landslide events [32], [33]. Moreover, monitoring one vital
parameter related to landslide will not suffice to address the
need for early warning of landslide with certainty [34].
B. Our Approach
Our goal is to develop highly accurate algorithms that
make use of sensor measurements. We embarked on such
an effort to design a multi sensor WSN based system that
captures multiple parameters such as PWP, soil moisture,
ground vibrations and movements in addition to rainfall for
providing accurate site specific, near site-specific and large-
area early warnings [35], [36]. In order to provide reasonably
dependable, reliable, and adequately advance early warnings
a data driven approach was adopted. We have integrated
SVR, linear and non-linear models on multi parameter data.
We have successfully devised the algorithm to (i) arrive at a
24 hour ahead forecast of the slope stability conditions from
rainfall and PWP sensor measurements (ii) learn from the
historical data and predict the real-time conditions in the slope.
The ML algorithms facilitated predictions of the real-time
conditions of the slope, which rendered the design of a resilient
system, during times of disaster-in-progress, when there is a
limitation to availability of reliable data. Another advantage of
incorporating ML to multi sensor data is that after learning the
slopes conditions for few years the learned knowledge can be
used as a virtual sensor, while the actual sensors can be reused
for re-deployment at other sites. The early warnings, 24 hour
ahead forecast of slope stability conditions and predicting the
real-time sensor data are all validated by comparing it with
the real-time data from the WSN system.
II. OVERVIEW OF WSN BASED L ANDSLIDE M ONITORING
AND E ARLY WARNING S YSTEM
The landslide monitoring and EWS is deployed in two
places (1) Munnar in Western Ghats, and (2) Chandmari in
North Eastern Himalayas. The average annual rainfall in these
regions are higher than 2500 mm. The monitoring terrain
in Munnar is approximately 7 acres of slope in Anthoniar
colony, (10.0892 N, 77.0597 E) with an elevation of 1532 m
above sea level and is located in the landslide prone Western
Ghats mountain region of Kerala in India. Idukki district,
where Munnar is located is a landslide hotspot in the Western
Ghats and every year landslides are very common during mon-
soon season, [37]–[39]. The monitoring terrain in Chandmari
(27.3415 N, 88.6251 E) is approximately 150 acres of slope
with an elevation of 1650 m above sea level and is located
in the landslide prone Sikkim Himalayas mountain region in
India [40], [41].
To characterize the changes materializing in the subsur-
face using these sensors, we have designed and developed a
9965
Fig. 1. Landslide monitoring and early warning system deployment site
− Anthoniar Colony, Munnar, Kerala, India. Location of deep-earth probes
(DEPs) are indicated as L1, L2,.., rain gauge is indicated as RG, and
the location of gateway of the wireless sensor network (WSN) is also
indicated [35].
Deep Earth Probe (DEP), which incorporates these sensors
at different depths under the ground. Deep bore holes were
drilled in selected vulnerable locations (L1, L2,.. L6) as
depicted in Fig. 1. and DEPs accompanied with sensors are
deployed in these locations [2], [35]. More details regarding
the deployment of sensors and DEP’s can be found in [2] and
[35]. Over 150 sensors at Munnar, and more than 200 sen-
sors are deployed at Chandmari. Each DEP is constituted
of multiple piezometer sensors, moisture sensors, tilt meters,
strain gauge, inclinometer and geophone at different depths.
Next, the sensors in the DEP are then interfaced to a Data
AcQuisition (DAQ) board and a sensor mote to form a WSN
system. Rain gauge is deployed at the location RG shown in
the Fig. 1. and it is connected to the WSN system.
These sensors in the WSN system sense the vital parameters
like precipitation rate, soil moisture, PWP, ground vibration,
slope movements respectively from heterogeneous soil layers.
Data from the WSN system are transmitted through hetero-
geneous wireless network to the Data Management Centre
in Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham [2]. Deployment site in
Munnar with the locations of DEP’s (L1, L2, ..L6) rain gauge
(RG) and gateway node is shown in Fig. 1. In the Data
Management Centre, the WSN data from the field is analyzed
in real-time for the following (i) Rainfall Intensity-Duration
thresholds, (ii) Factor of Safety (FoS) of the slope, (iii) Tilt and
vibrations from movement sensors. FoS is a non-dimensional
number that expresses the stability conditions of the slope at
different locations, this value is calculated from slope angle,
soil properties and the PWP levels at that particular location
in the slope [42]. The FoS from Iverson model [42] is given
as
FoS = F f + Fw + Fc = 1 (1)
Here F f ,is a slope factor, Fw is a hydrogeological factor
and Fc is a soil cohesion factor and is given by
tanϕ
Ff =
tanα
−PW P(Z , t) γw tan
Fw =
γs Z si nα cosα
c
Fc = (2)
γs Z si nα cosα
9966 IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 19, NO. 21, NOVEMBER 1, 2019

where ϕ is a soil friction angle, α is the slope angle, c is the

soil cohesion, γs is the depth averaged soil unit weight, γw
is the unit weight of ground water, PW P(Z , t)is the pressure
distribution with respect to depth Z over time t. In the above
equation the dynamically varying term is the pressure head
distribution PW P(Z , t), terms such as c, γs , ϕ are calculated
via soil test in laboratory, and terms α, γw are constants. When
PWP in the soil increases, it results in the decrease of effective
stress and reduction of strength in the soil. FoS equation
describes the failure in slopes which is characterized by the
ratio of downslope gravitational driving force to the resisting
stress mediated by PWP. Theoretically, both the forces balance
when the ratio is equivalent to 1. If the FoS value is greater
than 1; i.e FoS > 1, then the effective stress in the soil is
greater than the downward gravitational force and therefore
slope is stable at that location depth. When there is higher
PWP, the effective stress decreases and the FoS value becomes
lesser than 1; i.e FoS < 1 then the slope is susceptible to
Fig. 2. Temporal variation of moisture (at 1.2m depth deployed in the location
failure at that location depth. In our landslide early warning DEP-6) and PWP sensor (at 14m depth deployed in location DEP-6) with
system, FoS are determined at each of the vulnerable locations respect to rainfall for the years 2011 to 2016.
at different depths using the real-time pore pressure valued
collected from the piezometers deployed in those specific loca-
tion. The real-time system has the capability to continuously III. C HALLENGES OF F OREWARNING
collect these data and analyse the FoS variability in real-time Numerous mathematical models and relationships are devel-
with respect to the dynamically varying pore pressure values. oped between parameters for predicting landslides in real-
These FoS value act as the indictor for the imminent land- time [42]–[44]. However issuing early warnings with higher
slides. Aggregate FoS value from multiple location in the slope accuracy levels ahead of time is a challenging task. For the
will be used to determine the stability condition of the whole purpose of making decisions and providing early warnings
slope. ahead of time, we have adopted a data driven approach
A three level early warning system “EII” constituting of on the WSN data since 2009 and this has provided deep
“Early”, “Intermediate”, “Immediate” levels is designed to insights into the seasonal trends, spatial relationship, tem-
issue notifications of landslide warnings to the relevant govern- poral relationship, and interrelationship between parame-
ment agency and the general public. The multi-level warnings ters [45]. In this section we discuss about the seasonal
are derived as follows. trend, spatial-temporal variability and interrelationships of
• Early: Issued whenever the rainfall rate crosses its thresh- three vital parameters rain, moisture and PWP contributing
old. Site specific rainfall threshold for Munnar are derived to landslides. In this section we also discuss about the
from the historic rainfall data that caused landslide inci- challenges faced in providing early warnings from these
dents in Munnar. parameters.
• Intermediate: This warning is derived from the FoS
as shown in equation 1 computed for the slope from A. Partial knowledge of the Causative Relationship of
the forecasted and measured PWP. As mentioned ear- Parameters Leading to Landslides
lier, FoS of the slope is derived from PWP mea-
The spatial and temporal variation of soil moisture and PWP
surements in the slope and since slopes nearby the
data with respect to the rainfall for the years 2011 to 2016 is
deployment site possesses similar geology and receive
shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen from the graph that there
approximately the same amount of rainfall, the warning
is a seasonal trend associated with moisture and PWP with
based on FoS is applicable to the nearby slopes also.
respect to the rainfall rate. The peak values of PWP do not
Therefore the second level warning is a near site spe-
exactly coincide with the rainfall peaks. To attain a better
cific warning and provides early warning based on the
understanding of the interrelationship between these parame-
forecasted FoS.
ters, linear models were created for various antecedent rainfall
• Immediate: This warning is derived from the movement
conditions with moisture and PWP, which are elaborated in
sensors, when dynamic variability in stress is derived
Algorithm-1 in section V. The results of these models in terms
from the observations collected from these sensors at
of Pearson’s correlation coefficient is shown in Table-I. From
the deployment site. The movements observed are very
the table it can be seen that the correlation values for all
particular to the slope and therefore this is a site-specific
antecedent rainfall conditions with moisture and PWP are less
warning.
and the maximum correlation that can be obtained is 0.69. The
The challenges faced while providing early warnings is dis- correlation values in Table-I, delineate that rainfall measure-
cussed in the next section. ments and antecedent conditions are only partially correlated
HEMALATHA et al.: EFFECTIVE AND ACCELERATED FOREWARNING OF LANDSLIDES USING WSN AND MACHINE LEARNING
TABLE I
A LGORITHM -1: R ESULTS OF L INEAR M ODEL B ETWEEN A NTECEDENT
R AIN Ar FOR t N UMBER OF D AYS VS M OISTURE ( f L − moi ),
A NTECEDENT R AIN Ar FOR t N UMBER
OF DAYS VS PWP ( f L − pwp)
with moisture and PWP, which do not give a comprehensive
view of moisture and PWP dynamics. Furthermore, Fig. 2.
portrays that the moisture and PWP dynamics do not exhibit
the same pattern every year and their variations are also
affected by various geological and hydrological parameters.
From the yearly seasonal pattern variations as shown in Fig. 2.
and from the partially correlating relations in Table-I, it can be
understood that there are some other parameters also which are
contributing to slope instability and it could be due to seepage,
drainage, groundwater levels, weathering of rocks, manmade
slope modifications etc., which cannot be measured directly.
Therefore the knowledge we have from the sensors are partial,
and the sequence of impact of all the parameters leading to a
disaster is unknown. In real-world most thresholds are derived
from this partial knowledge leading to uncertainities in early
warning.
B. Spatial-Temporal Variability of Parameters
The known and the unknown parameters in a slope con-
tributing to landslides vary spatially from one location to
another depending on the hydro geological properties over
time. Fig. 3. shows the spatial and temporal variability of PWP
measurements in the field for the year 2013. PWP observations
from Fig. 3 are summarized below
9967
Fig. 3. Spatial-Temporal variation of PWP sensors at various DEP locations
and depths for the year 2013 (January to December).
• PWP at 14m is at the location DEP-6 (middle region of
the slope) and the PWP value here varies from (0kPa to
45kPa)
• PWP at 8.03m is at the location DEP-5 (middle region of
the slope) and the PWP value here varies from (-90 kPa
to -40kPa)
• PWP at 6.15m is at the location DEP-2 (toe region of the
slope) and the PWP value here varies from (-30 kPa to
-20 kPa)
• PWP at 5.5m is at the location DEP-1(toe region of the
slope), but the PWP value here varies from (25kPa to
55kPa)
• PWP at 8.5m is at the location DEP-1(toe region of the
slope), but the PWP value here varies from (-38kPa to
25kPa)
• PWP at 12.5m is at the location DEP-1(toe region of the
slope), but the PWP value here varies from (-40 kPa to
10 kPa)
From the foregoing notes it can be seen that the spatial
variation of PWP is not uniform, at all DEP locations and
depths. It can also be seen from the Fig. 3. that the PWP values
at different DEP locations and depths on a temporal scale
doesn’t follow the same trend, and the peaks of PWP values
are attained at different times. There is a spatio-temporal
variability of PWP values all over the slope and the there
is a difference in response time (rise of the PWP values)
for the same trigger, rainfall. Hence the current knowledge is
inadequate to estimate the expected variability in a particular
parameter based on the variance in the other known parame-
ters. This spatio-temporal variability has an impact not only
on generating landslides but also on the expected time window
at which the landslide may initiate. In a real-world scenario
both these are unknown.
C. Reducing False Warnings
As discussed earlier, conventional EWSs are based on Rain-
fall threshold models. The shortcomings with these models
ensue from the following (i) model inherently integrated with
9968
uncertainties, as only one of the parameters, contributing
to slope instability has been reckoned with, (ii) enhanced
level of uncertainty due to the the unavailability of rainfall
observations, in the required spatial and temporal scales (iii)
lack of knowledge of landslide events and the accurate time
and duration of such incidents (iv) the lack of prior knowledge
of prospective landslide areas constrains the development of
rainfall models, specific to each site, leading to uncertainty in
the validity of the warnings; since they were primarily devel-
oped for global or regional scale scenarios. For the Munnar
deployment site, rainfall thresholds models such as [31], [46],
[47], were implemented using the historic rainfall data from
2004-2009. The derived rainfall intensity duration thresholds
delivered 25-40 false positive warnings, however the region
has experienced less than ten landslides. If we had initiated
warning dissemination based on the rainfall threshold alone,
then there would have been many false positive warnings
leading to ambiguities in the veracity of the warnings.
D. Reliability of the System During Disasters
During torrential rainfall in monsoon season, the solar irra-
diance in Munnar is lesser than 2 kW h/m 2 /day. Sometimes
due to heavy rainfall of more than 100 mm to 300mm in a day,
the power grid will also be completely shut down for varying
durations of time, which adversely affects and delays the data
transfer. During unscheduled power outages,the reliability of
the WSN system to collect data for monitoring and early
warning is a formidable challenge.
E. Inadequacy of Time for Fore Warnings
In the course of early warnings, inadequacy of time for
decision making, warning dissemination, relocating people and
their valuable assets to safer locations is a substantial practical
difficulty.
F. Cost of Deployment
The instruments and sensors in the WSN system contributes
to the cost of the system and if this system has to be extended
for deployment in large areas, it will add on to the cost.
The challenges mentioned above are prevalent in most of the
landslide monitoring and early warning applications. In next
section, we give an overview of our approach to solve the
above mentioned challenges.
IV. O UR A PPROACH TO S OLUTION
Landslide domain experts have addressed the above men-
tioned challenges from the geological, simulation and labo-
ratory experimental contexts. In this paper, these challenges
have been addressed from a data driven context, which helps
overcome these challenges. The propounded solutions with
respect to the learning, nowcasting and forecasting models as
well as slope stability conditions using the landslide triggering
parameters - rainfall, moisture and PWP are described below.
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 19, NO. 21, NOVEMBER 1, 2019
Fig. 4. Amrita’s large scale landslide laboratory set-up.
A. Learning Algorithms to Capture the Causative
Relationship of Parameters Leading to Landslides
The problem of learning the interrelationship between the
vital parameters over time and to the landslides, is modelled
as a regression problem and we have used SVR to address
the same. SVR is applied on both the historic and real-time
data to (i) approximate the underlying unknowing mapping
of the input data from DEP to the output landslide or no
landslide occurrences and (ii) approximate the underlying rela-
tion existing between different vital parameters, thus approx-
imating the unknown relation in the mapping function. This
learned knowledge of the unknown relation from the mapping
function, helps in predicting landslides with higher accuracy
for the current situations prevailing in the slope. In this
paper we have shown results for mapping the underlying
unknown complex relationship existing between rainfall and
PWP in Algorithm-3, the Current-PWP algorithm. We have
also compared the interrelationship between rainfall and PWP
captured using linear model in Algorithm-1, and the Current
PWP model in Algorithm-3.
B. Deployment Strategies and Laboratory Experiments for
Capturing Spatio-Temporal Variability of Parameters
In order to capture the spatial and temporal variability,
sensors in the field are deployed in different soil layers based
on the bore-hole logs characterizing them. The sensor in
each soil layer is representative of the subsurface in that
particular layer. In addition to that, laboratory experiments of
creating landslides under controlled environmental conditions
are conducted to simulate the variations happening in the vital
parameters leading to landslides in the field. Our research
center is facilitated with a large scale landslide laboratory
setup as shown in Fig. 4. for studying and understanding
landslides by performing experiments. By controlled envi-
ronmental conditions, we mean to replicate a particular soil
layer in the field and conduct experiments by simulating
different rainfall conditions. By conducting an experiment for
creating landslides on a particular soil-layer, we can capture
the temporal variation happening in the field. By conducting
several such experiments and by replicating different soil
layers, we can collect the spatio-temporal variations of the field
HEMALATHA et al.: EFFECTIVE AND ACCELERATED FOREWARNING OF LANDSLIDES USING WSN AND MACHINE LEARNING
without actual deployment in the field. ML techniques are also
applied on this laboratory data to discover the relation between
different vital parameters and understand the spatio-temporal
variability of these parameters. The experimental results for
the spatio-temporal variability of Munnars top soil layer and
deriving the interrelationship between parameters is shown in
the results section.
C. Multi-Level Decision Mechanism for Reducing False
Warnings
A multi-level decision mechanism was adopted to reduce the
number of false alarms. This multi-level decision mechanism
makes decision at various stages from different sensor data.
The current EWS are not tailored for making decisions at
various stages. We have an effective combination of regional
warnings from rainfall threshold, near-site specific warnings
from PWP response and FoS of the slope and site-specific
warnings from movement sensors. During torrential rainfall,
regional warnings helps in disseminating the likelihood for
landslides over a large area. Whereas near-site specific and
site specific warnings provide accurate and reliable warnings
in highly populated areas where the deployment is performed.
The real-time multi-level warnings issued is discussed in
results section.
D. Achieving Reliability Through Learned Knowledge
As mentioned in previous sections, Algorithm-3, “Current
PWP” can be used for real-time nowcasting of PWP val-
ues, from rainfall measurements. The major breakthrough
discerned in the process of application of ML to the accquired
data was that even when the rainfall data and other sensor
data are unavailable, during adverse weather conditions, vital
parameters like moisture, and PWP can be predicted from
rainfall forecast and we were successful in doing so. The rain-
fall forecast data is provided by several agencies like Indian
Meteorological Department (IMD), Skymet, etc. The results
of the real-time prediction of vital parameters from rainfall
forecast information, (while actual rainfall data not available)
during the monsoon period (June-September) in 2018 is shown
in Fig. 7. in the results section.
E. Forecasting methodologies to overcome inadequacy of
time:
In order to forewarn landslides ahead of time, an SVR
algorithm “24-PWP” shown in Algorithm-4 was devised, for
forecasts of PWP data from rainfall measurements, 24 hours
ahead of time. Output data from “24-PWP” algorithm can
be used to calculate 24-FoS as shown in Algorithm-5, and
Fig. 9 which is the forecasted values of FoS 24 hours ahead
of time. These 24-FoS values from 24-PWP algorithm afford
an extra time of 24 hours which is a boon for the researchers,
government agencies and the general public to be prepared for
landslides. Details of the same are shown in results section.
9969
F. Cost Savings via Virtual Sensors and Reuse of Sensors
From a practical perspective, the cost of the deployment
increases with an increase in the number of installed sensors.
Advantages of Current-PWP and 24-PWP models can reduce
the cost of the deployment without compromising on the
reliability of the system with reduced number of sensors. Our
ML models, Current-PWP model and the 24-PWP model we
have created uses rainfall as the input to learn PWP dynamics
and predicts PWP values using rainfall. After learning the
terrain for few years, the learned knowledge can be used as
a virtual sensor to approximately predict the slope stability
conditions from rainfall measurements or rainfall forecast
information. After collecting adequate data and learning the
terrain for few years; relying on the learned knowledge, and
based on the domain expertise, we can decide to retain few
sensors and remove few sensors for reusing in other locations,
which brings down the deployment cost. In other words, after
adequate data has been collected from the sensor at one
location, the actual sensor can be removed from that location
and repeat the process of collecting adequate data for other
locations.
V. M ETHODOLOGY
The investigation reported in this paper utilized data
acquired from a rain gauge, moisture sensor, and piezometer
sensor, for now-casting and forecasting of landslides, with
higher accuracy.
A. Linear Models
Rainfall or lack thereof is the prime contributing parameter
for build-up or decline of moisture and PWP. As far as rainfall
is concerned, the antecedent rainfall has an impact on the
build-up along with the rainfall on the current day of the
landslide event [36]. Furthermore, the amount of antecedent
rainfall conditions, that accounts for moisture and PWP build
up at different soil layers and at different depths is unknown.
Algorithm-1 tries to find any direct linear relations existing
between Antecedent rainfall conditions Art with soil moisture
and PWP at different location-depths. In Art , Ar represents
antecedent rainfall for t number of days, here t varies from
6 to 120 (number of days). We describe linear functions for
pore water pressure versus antecedent rain, f L − pwp, moisture
versus antecedent rain, f L − moi , at various depths of preset
DEP locations. D E Pi Pk represents pore water pressure P at
depth k in the i t h DEP. D E Pi M j represents moisture M at
depth j in the i t h DEP. The output of the linear function
in terms of Pearson’s correlation coefficient is checked for
correlation values greater than 50 %. If such a correlation
exists then that antecedent rainfall condition are returned and
used further in constructing training and testing data sets.
The results of Algorithm 1 for a moisture sensor at 1.2m
depth and PWP at 14m depth deployed at the location DEP-
6 is shown in Table-I. From Table-I it can be seen that, with
the increase in the number of days of antecedent rainfall,
the correlation with both moisture and PWP increases. The
maximum correlation, that can be obtained between Art and
moisture is 0.44, whereas the maximum correlation that can
9970
be obtained between Art and PWP is 0.69. While comparing
the correlation values between moisture and PWP, PWP is cor-
relating more with Art . Since PWP shows higher correlation
with Art , when compared to moisture, Art and PWP were
used, along with soil properties, for creating learning models.
B. Current-PWP- Nowcasting of PWP
From the literature, PWP response due to rainfall is con-
sidered to be more vital because, PWP is one of the main
factors contributing to slope instability. Increase in PWP will
lead to decrease in shear stress [48], which can lead to slip
surface formations. Moreover at the Munnar deployment site,
after moisture level saturation, PWP increases drastically in a
span of two to three days during the monsoon period. It can
be seen from Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. that the PWP remains constant
at the beginning of the monsoon rains in June. The value of
PWP starts increasing after adequate amount of rainfall. When
moisture values have saturated, PWP shows a drastic increase
within a short duration of two to three days of elapsed time.
Therefore, it is highly important to predict the PWP dynamics
from other known parameters to estimate the slope stability
conditions.
Algorithm 1 Antecedent Rain Art Relation With Moisture
amd PWP
Input: Art , D E Pi M j , D E Pi Pk
Output: Art∗ − pwp, Art∗ − moi
for x = 1 to i do
f L− pwp (Art , D E Px Pk ); Pk ∈ {P1 , P2 , , ...Pn }
compute R 2 ( f L− pwp (Art , D E Px Pk ))
f L−moi (Art , D E Px M j ); M j ∈ {M1 , M2 , ...Mq }
compute R 2 ( f L−moi (Art , D E Px M j ))
end for
if R 2 ( f L− pwp ) ≥ 0.5 then
return Art∗ − pwp
end if
if R 2 ( f L−Moi ) ≥ 0.5 then
return Art∗ − moi
end if
As mentioned before in section-III, the results from Table-I
indicates that there is only a partial relation existing between
antecedent rainfall conditions with PWP dynamics. To dis-
cover and model the unknown relation existing between rain-
fall and PWP dynamics, we need to perform an assumption
free learning and therefore, we have used SVR based learning
model in Current-PWP algorithm to discover the underlying
complex relation. In this section we have discussed about the
dataset construction and the Current-PWP algorithm.
1) Dataset Construction: The known parameters to estimate
the PWP dynamics and the resulting landslides are rainfall
conditions and soil properties. Landslides can be caused either
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 19, NO. 21, NOVEMBER 1, 2019
due to antecedent rainfall, short duration high intensity rainfall,
extreme rainfall events or a combination of these. Therefore we
need to consider both antecedent rainfall conditions and short
term rainfall conditions for forecasting landslides. In a study
of extreme rainfall events, investigators in [49], highlighted
the increase in the frequency of 1-5 days of extreme rainfall
maxima due to the anthropogenic warning in south India.
In recent days, many extreme rainfall events have been noticed,
all over south India. Therefore, both long term antecedent rain-
fall condition and short term rainfall need to be accounted for.
The former contributes to PWP build-up leading to landslides,
while the latter can create shallow landslides (if it is of high
intensity).
→
−
Creating rainfall feature set vector fs : Short-term rainfall
Sr varying for t number of days is considered along with the
highly correlating antecedent rainfall condition Art∗ − pwp
from Algorithm-1 for creating the rainfall feature set vector
→
−
fs . Firstly, all unique combinations of short term rainfall,Srt
is created, here t varies from 1 to 5 number of days, which
will result in a total of 5C1 + 5C2 + 5C3 + 5C4 + 5C5 = 31
combinations. The 31 combinations are [Sr1 ], [Sr2 ], [Sr3 ],
[Sr4 ], [Sr5 ], [Sr1 , Sr2 ], [Sr1 , Sr3 ], [Sr1 , Sr4 ], [Sr1 , Sr5 ],
[Sr2 , Sr3 ], [Sr2 , Sr4 ], [Sr2 , Sr5 ], [Sr3 , Sr4 ], [Sr3 , Sr5 ],
[Sr4 , Sr5 ], [Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr3 ], [Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr4 ], [Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr5 ],
[Sr1 , Sr3 , Sr4 ], [Sr1 , Sr3 , Sr5 ], [Sr1 , Sr4 , Sr5 ],
[Sr2 , Sr3 , Sr4 ], [Sr2 , Sr3 , Sr5 ], [Sr2 , Sr4 , Sr5 ],
[Sr3 , Sr4 , Sr5 ], [Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr3 , Sr4 ], [Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr3 , Sr5 ],
[Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr4 , Sr5 ], [Sr1 , Sr3 , Sr4 , Sr5 ], [Sr2 , Sr3 , Sr4 , Sr5 ],
[Sr1 , Sr2 , Sr3 , Sr4 , Sr5 ].
Secondly, we append the highly correlating antecedent
rainfall conditions Art∗ − pwp for PWP in each DEP location-
depth D E Pi Pk with all 31 unique combinations of short term
rainfall Srt .
→
−
Algorithm 2 Creating Rainfall Feature Set Vector fs
Input: Srt , Art∗ − pwp for each D E Pi Pk
→
−
Output: Rainfall feature set vectors fs
1. Compute all combinations of Srt and store in Combset
for r = 1 to (n-1) do
CombSet{} = nCr
end for
−
→
2. Create rainfall feature set vector fs by appending Comb-
Set{} with Art∗ − pwp
for each Pk in D E Pi do
for each Art∗ − pwp do
for i = 1 to length(CombSet) do
→
−
fs [i] = [CombSet{i}, Art∗ − pwp]
end for
end for
end for
→
−
Creating training set vector fTr and testing set fTe : Apart
from rainfall, the other known parameter contributing to PWP
→
−
dynamics is the soil properties. A training set fTr is formed
from the known soil properties and the rainfall feature set
HEMALATHA et al.: EFFECTIVE AND ACCELERATED FOREWARNING OF LANDSLIDES USING WSN AND MACHINE LEARNING 9971

→
−
vector fs as the input and the corresponding PWP as the dataset from fTr∗ with the input variables at time stamp ‘T1’
−
→
output. Historic data is used for creating the fTr . There are and the output variable with time stamp ‘T1 + 24 hours’. The
→
− ultimate aim of training the support vector regression machine
31 training data sets in a single training set fTr corresponding
to the highly correlated antecedent rainfall model Art∗ − pwp in such a way is to forecast pore-water pressure that develops
for every DEP. Selecting the best training data set fTr∗ from the 24 hours later from the current rainfall and antecedent rainfall
−
→ conditions. C-SVR algorithm with radial basis kernel is used
31 data sets in fTr is an iterative process and it is accomplished
during the training phase in Current-PWP algorithm. Current in this section also for forecasting the 24-PWP. The algorithm
PWP model is formed from the best training data set fTr∗ for forecasting PWP values 24 hours ahead is detailed in
selected. The historic dataset since the year 2009 was used Algorithm-4, 24PWP.
→
−
for creating the training set vector fTr .
D. 24-PWP to 24-FoS; 24-FoS to Forewarning
The real-time streaming data from the WSN system is
prepared in the same format as fTr∗ and used for creating the Slope stability analysis is done for the Munnar slope and
testing data fTe . The Current-PWP model is tested using fTe , we have derived the Factor of Safety (FoS) equations for
and the output will be the predicted PWP value for the given various locations of the slope [35], [42]. In the FoS model,
fTe . Current-PWP algorithm is explained below. PWP is the dynamically changing parameter along with other
2) Current-PWP Algorithm: In the Current-PWP algorithm, constant parameters. The 24 predictive PWP can be used to
→
− derive FoS 24 hours ahead of time and is denoted as 24-FoS.
the best data set fTr∗ is selected from the training set vector fTr
for creating the Current-PWP model. The Current-PWP model This 24-FoS conveys about the stability conditions of the
is updated in real-time by accomplishing the learning in real- slope 24 hours ahead, which can be used for forewarning for
time which comprises of the historic data from past to the landslides 24 hours ahead.
recently streamed data. The learned knowledge is then used
to predict the PWP from the new rainfall data streaming in Algorithm 4 24-PWP
real-time. The actual PWP values from the WSN system and Training:
the predicted PWP are compared to assess the accuracy of Input: fTr∗ for each D E Pi Pk
prediction. SVR learning algorithm learns and adapts itself in Output: 24-PWP model for each D E Pi Pk
real-time by continuously adapting its weight as and when the
1. Create training data set from fTr∗ with input values at time
new data streams. C-SVR algorithm with radial basis kernel
stamp ‘T1’ and output values at time stamp ‘T1+24 hours’
is used for modelling the Current PWP.
2. Train the SVR with the training set and fine tune the
parameters
Algorithm 3 Current-PWP 3. Store the SVR model as 24-PWP model
Training:
→
−
Input: fs for each D E Pi Pk ; Testing:
Output: Current PWP model Input: Test data fT e
→
− Output: Forecasted PWP from 24-PWP model
1. Create training set vector fTr
1. Input fT e to the 24-PWP model
→
−
for i = 1 to length fTr do 2. Return Forecasted PWP from the 24-PWP model.
2. Train the SVR model and fine tune the parameters
3. Store the SVR model
end for Algorithm 5 24-PWP to 24-FoS; 24-FoS to Forewarning
4. Compare the accuracy and error for all the SVR models Input: 24-PWP, Soil properties, Constants in FoS equation
5. Select the model with high accuracy and less error as the Output: 24-FoS
Current PWP model
6. Return fTr∗ associated with Current-PWP model Calculate 24-FoS from the FoS equation
if FoS > 1 then
Testing: Slope is Stable
Input: Test data fT e
Output: Predicted PWP from Current PWP model end if
if FoS ≤ 1 then
1. Create testing data fT e in the same format as fTr∗ Slope is Unstable
2. Input fT e to the Current-PWP model end if
3. Return Predicted PWP from the Current-PWP model.
VI. R ESULTS
C. 24-PWP: Forecasting PWP 24 Hours Ahead A. Learning Algorithms to Capture the Causative
Support vector algorithm learns from the historic and real- Relationship of Parameters Leading to Landslides
time data, the data can be used in such a way to forecast future The highest correlation that could be obtained in a linear
PWP values. Forecasting is achieved by, creating a training model for a relation between rainfall and PWP is 0.69. In other
9972
Fig. 5. Results of Current-PWP algorithm for the PWP values from
piezometer sensor at location DEP-1 and depth 5.5m.
words in a lower dimensional space, the relation between
rainfall and PWP can at the most be explained by only 70%.
Whereas while using the Current-PWP algorithm which uses
SVR, the mapping of rainfall to PWP happens in higher
dimension and the mapping function tries to capture from the
data, the underlying unknown relationship. By doing so the
SVR algorithm can better explain the complex relationship
existing between rainfall and PWP. The r-squared correlation
obtained using SVR algorithm is 0.95. Fig. 5. shows the
results of Current-PWP algorithm for the PWP values from
piezometer sensor at location DEP-1 at a depth of 5.5m. It can
be seen from the Fig.5., the period from June to August is the
monsoon month, and this is the period where the deployment
site receives higher amount of rainfall. Due to rainfall, the soil
moisture increases and soil saturation happens. Once the soil
is saturated, the pressure inside the soil pores increases, which
leads to increase in PWP values with respect to the rainfall
rate. Depending upon the rainfall pattern during the months
of June, July, August, the PWP dynamics varies accordingly.
The Current-PWP algorithm captures the generalized trend of
the PWP increase and decrease. There are few data point,
that is not accurately reflected in the Current-PWP values as
compared to the actual values. This is expected because any
ML based algorithms tries to learn a generalized trend and
cannot capture momentary anomalies. The mean absolute error
obtained between the actual PWP and the PWP values from
Current-PWP algoritm is 4.2kPa with 95% accuracy. Current-
PWP algorithm is used at situations when the real-time data
from the field is not available for various reasons. Since we
have the prior knowledge of the error from the Current-PWP
model, we know the uncertainty in the nowcasted results pro-
duced from the Current-PWP model. Therefore it is acceptable
to tolerate an error of 4.2 kPa with 95% accuracy.
B. Laboratory Experiments for Capturing Spatial-Temporal
Variability of Parameters
Laboratory experiments were conducted under controlled
environmental conditions in a large scale test bed as shown
in Fig. 4. to simulate Munnar deployment site. Controlled
environmental conditions include, artificial rain, prepared soil
to replicate the monitoring sites particular soil layer, wind,
slope angle etc. Results of the experiment conducted to
replicate Munnars top soil layer is shown in Fig. 6. in this
paper. Soil in the test bed is prepared to replicate Munnars
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 19, NO. 21, NOVEMBER 1, 2019
Fig. 6. Regression curve to derive PWP from moisture values & moisture
from PWP values.
top layer soil in terms of its properties like soil cohesion,
permittivity, permeability, etc. Multiple moisture sensors and
piezometers are installed in the crown, middle and bottom
regions of the test bed along with other sensors like geophones
and resistivity measuring electrodes. The experimentation was
conducted continuously for 7 hours by providing artificial
rainfall using the rainfall simulator. The moisture, PWP data
is acquired along with other sensor data. This data is used
to arrive at polynomial regression equations. The regression
equation to derive PWP from moisture values is PW P =
−5E − 07x 4 + 0.0001x 3 + 0.2714x + 98.259 (here the symbol
x refers to moisture) and the regression equation to derive
moisture values from PWP values is 21.08y 4 − 8520.8y 3 +
1E + 06y 2 − 9E + 07y + 2E + 09 (here the symbol y
refers to PWP). The polynomial regression graphs are shown
in the Fig. 6. The regression equation shown in this paper
is very specific to the top soil layer in Munnar deployment
site and it cannot be used for other soil layers in Munnar.
The regression equations obtained highly correlates with the
data points with an R-squared value greater than 0.95. These
regression equations can be used to better approximate the
value of PWP if moisture data and vice versa for Munanrs
deployment sites top soil layer. By replicating different soil
layers of Munnar deployment site in laboratory and studying
the variations of vital parameters will help in deriving relations
for the whole deployment site. The regression equations thus
obtained for different soil layers in the deployment site can
HEMALATHA et al.: EFFECTIVE AND ACCELERATED FOREWARNING OF LANDSLIDES USING WSN AND MACHINE LEARNING 9973

be used to approximate the value of a sensing parameter from

another available parameter for different soil layer in the site.

C. Reducing False Warnings

False warnings are reduced with the multi-level warnings in
our early warning system. Multilevel warning system stratifies
warnings into 3 likelihood levels. Earlier in the absence of
such a system, warning are delivered when rainfall crosses
threshold. Rainfall threshold corresponds to the lowest level in
landslide warning. Intermediate and immediate level warning
will be much rarer phenomenon compared to rainfall crossing Fig. 7. Current PWP during the monsoon 2018.
threshold. In 2013, Munnar experienced torrential rainfall in
the last week of July and first week of August. Our system was
operational 24/7 and the rainfall-intensity duration thresholds
were crossed on a daily basis, and for 3-day, 7-day and 15-
day durations. Therefore, we issued a first level warning,
which is a regional warning to the regions surrounding the
deployment site. As forecasted, a landslide did happen in
a nearby area, and many other landslides happened in the
Munnar region, which validated our first level warnings issued.
However at the same time, we didn’t not notice any significant
increase in PWP or the decrease in slope stability conditions,
and moreover we did not notice any movements from our Fig. 8. 24-PWP during the monsoon 2018.
movement sensor in our Munnar deployment site. Therefore
neither second level nor third level warnings were issued to
the inhabitants in the expected landslide runoff areas of our
deployment site. In the same way no landslides happened
in the Munnar deployment site, which validated our systems
capability of providing multi-level warnings.

D. Multilevel Reliability of the System During Adverse

Conditions
In Munnar, during the monsoon in 2018, power was inter-
mittent starting from July-2018 and the power grid was
completely shut from August-14-2018 to August-21-2018 for
a period of 7 days, which adversely affected the data transfer
from the field to the Data Management Center in the Uni-
versity. During adverse scenarios like this, we accomplish the
reliability of the system through two means
1) Reliability Through Intelligent Algorithms: In spite of the
power grid shut-off completely, our system was functioning
until Aug-16-2018 with the minimal solar power available.
This is achieved by coupling intelligent energy efficient algo-
rithms [50] to the nodes in the WSN system [50].The energy
efficient algorithms are context aware and the sensor nodes
are tailored for making local decisions to optimize the data
collection by using minimal energy thereby extending the life
time of the WSN system [50].
2) Reliability Through Machine Learning: Since there was
no power available in the Field Management Center, the data
transfer got affected from August-16-2018 and no data was
available until August-21-2018 in the central data management
centre. During adverse scenarios like this, when the reliability
of the system for early warnings is a challenge, Current-PWP
algorithm is used to nowcast the expected sensor values at
various location-depth from the IMD rainfall forecast data.
Fig. 7. shows the results of Current-PWP algorithm from
Fig. 9. 24-FoS during the monsoon 2018.
IMD’s rainfall forecast information instead of the actual rain-
fall data from the rain gauge in the field, for a piezometer
sensor at location DEP-1 and at a depth 5.5m for the complete
monsoon period from June to September 2018. From Fig. 7.
a break in the actual PWP values can be noticed during the
period of June-21 to June23, August-16 to August-21 and from
August-30 to September-9- 2018. It can be seen from Fig. 5.
that the Current-PWP algorithm using the rainfall forecast
information predicts the actual PWP values more accurately
with a mean absolute error of 4.2 kPa.
E. Inadequacy of Time for Forewarnings
In order to forewarn landslides ahead of time, we devised
a SVR algorithm “24-PWP” Algorithm-4, which is used for
forecasting PWP data 24 hours ahead of time from rainfall
measurements. 24-PWP data can be used to calculate 24-FoS,
which is the forecasted values of FoS derived from equation
1 and 2. This 24-FoS values from 24-PWP algorithm gives
extra time of 24 hours which is a boon for the researchers,
government and public to be prepared for landslides. Fig. 8
depicts the results of 24-PWP algorithm for a piezometer
9974
sensor at location DEP-1 and at a depth of 5.5m, during the
monsoon season in July through, August-2018. Fig. 9. shows
the corresponding FoS values forecasted from the 24-PWP
values for a piezometer sensor at location DEP-1 and at a
depth of 5.5m, during monsoon season in July, August-2018.
It can be seen from Fig. 8. that the 24-PWP algorithm captures
the generalized trend of the PWP dynamics and it doesnt
capture the momentary aberrations, same as that of Current-
PWP algorithm. From Fig. 9, it can be seen that the same
generalized trend of 24-PWP algorithm is reflected in 24-FoS.
24-PWP algorithm forecasts the PWP values 24 hours ahead
of time with a mean absolute error of 4.7kPa with 95%
accuracy. Since this particular study was primarily undertaken
for forecast of landslides, the authors believe that an error
of 4.7 kPa with 95% accuracy are within the acceptable range
of tolerance limits.
VII. D ISCUSSION AND F UTURE WORK
With the steady advancements in sensor technology, com-
munication and computing techniques, it is expected that
disasters can be forecasted with higher accuracy than before.
WSN and now recently IoT have facilitated scalablity, fault tol-
erance, effective power consumption and ubiquitous computa-
tional abilities in sensor devices and facilitate data availability
anywhere. These systems integrated with learning algorithms
and knowledge discovery of the data from these devices can
be of very great use in life saving disaster early warning
applications. In this paper, we proposed an efficient method
for nowcasting the real-time and forecasting the 24-hours
ahead conditions of the slope. The key idea of the proposed
method is to (i) render the system reliable through learning
algorithms at times like disaster when data availability is a
constraint, (ii) using the learned knowledge as a virtual sensor
and reusing the sensor in other locations for monitoring. As a
future work, we would like to implement weightage based
learning approach, giving higher weightage to the real-time
conditions and also implement other learning methods such
as deep learning and comparing those results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their immense gratitude
to Sri. Mata Amritanandamayi Devi (AMMA), Chancellor,
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, who gave us the motivation
and inspiration to pursue this research work. We undertook
this work following our recognition as the “World Center of
Excellence in landslide disaster risk reduction”, conferred to
us by the IPL- “International Programme on Landslides” in
August 2017. The authors would also like to acknowledge
the contributions of Prof. Balaji Hariharan for his valuable
suggestions. We would also like to acknowledge the contribu-
tions of Dr. M.R Kaimal, Dr. P.V. Usha kumari, Dr. Nirmala
Vasudevan, Ms. Divya P, Ms. Geethu TH, and the entire
landslide team in our research center for their support in
various aspects.
R EFERENCES
[1] N. A. A. Aziz and K. A. Aziz, “Managing disaster with wireless sensor
networks,” in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Adv. Commun. Technol. (ICACT),
Feb. 2011, pp. 202–207.
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 19, NO. 21, NOVEMBER 1, 2019
[2] M. V. Ramesh, “Design, development, and deployment of a wireless
sensor network for detection of landslides,” Ad Hoc Netw., vol. 13,
pp. 2–18, Feb. 2014.
[3] P. K. Mishra, S. K. Shukla, S. Dutta, S. K. Chaulya, and G. M. Prasad,
“Detection of landslide using wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Organized, Aug. 2011.
[4] B. T. Pham, B. Pradhan, D. T. Bui, I. Prakash, and M. B. Dholakia,
“A comparative study of different machine learning methods for land-
slide susceptibility assessment: A case study of Uttarakhand area
(India),” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 84, pp. 240–250, Oct. 2016.
[5] A. M. Fanos, B. Pradhan, S. Mansor, Z. M. Yusoff, and
A. F. B. Abdullah, “A hybrid model using machine learning methods
and GIS for potential rockfall source identification from airborne laser
scanning data,” Landslides, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1833–1850, 2018.
[6] X. Z. Li and J. M. Kong, “Application of GA–SVM method with
parameter optimization for landslide development prediction,” Natural
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 14, pp. 525–533, Mar. 2014.
[7] H. R. Pourghasemi, A. G. Jirandeh, B. Pradhan, C. Xu, and
C. Gokceoglu, “Landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector
machine and GIS at the Golestan Province, Iran,” J. Earth Syst. Sci.,
vol. 122, no. 2, pp. 349–369, 2013.
[8] H. Li, Q. Xu, Y. He, and J. Deng, “Prediction of landslide displacement
with an ensemble-based extreme learning machine and copula models,”
Landslides, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2047–2059, 2018.
[9] D. Petley, “Global patterns of loss of life from landslides,” Geology,
vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 927–930, 2012.
[10] M. J. Crozier and T. Glade, “Landslide hazard and risk: Issues, concepts
and approach,” Landslide Hazard Risk, pp. 1–40, 2005.
[11] J. Hervás, J. I. Barredo, P. L. Rosin, A. Pasuto, F. Mantovani, and
S. Silvano, “Monitoring landslides from optical remotely sensed
imagery: The case history of Tessina landslide, Italy,” Geomorphology,
vol. 54, nos. 1–2, pp. 63–75, 2003.
[12] V. Singhroy, “Satellite remote sensing applications for landslide detec-
tion and monitoring,” in Landslides–Disaster Risk Reduction. Springer,
2009, pp. 143–158.
[13] V. Tofani, S. Segoni, A. Agostini, F. Catani, and N. Casagli, “Use of
remote sensing for landslide studies in Europe,” Natural Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 299–309, 2013.
[14] A. Abellán, T. Oppikofer, M. Jaboyedoff, N. J. Rosser, M. Lim, and
M. J. Lato, “Terrestrial laser scanning of rock slope instabilities,” Earth
Surf. Processes Landforms, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 80–97, 2014.
[15] T. Oppikofer, M. Jaboyedoff, L. Blikra, M.-H. Derron, and R. Metzger,
“Characterization and monitoring of the Åknes rockslide using terres-
trial laser scanning,” Natural Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 1003–1019, 2009.
[16] C. J. Van Westen, E. Castellanos, and S. L. Kuriakose, “Spatial
data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment:
An overview,” Eng. Geol., vol. 102, nos. 3–4, pp. 112–131, 2008.
[17] A. Akgun, C. Kincal, and B. Pradhan, “Application of remote sensing
data and GIS for landslide risk assessment as an environmental threat to
Izmir city (west Turkey),” Environ. Monit. Assessment, vol. 184, no. 9,
pp. 5453–5470, 2012.
[18] F. Tsai, J.-H. Hwang, L.-C. Chen, and T.-H. Lin, “Post-disaster assess-
ment of landslides in southern Taiwan after 2009 Typhoon Morakot
using remote sensing and spatial analysis,” Natural Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci., vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 2179–2190, 2010.
[19] M. Pieraccini et al., “Landslide monitoring by ground-based radar
interferometry: A field test in Valdarno (Italy),” Int. J. Remote Sens.,
vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1385–1391, 2003.
[20] M. G. Raines et al., “The application of passive seismic techniques to
the detection of buried hollows,” Tech. Rep., 2015.
[21] L. Pellerin, “Applications of electrical and electromagnetic methods for
environmental and geotechnical investigations,” Surv. Geophys., vol. 23,
nos. 2–3, pp. 101–132, 2002.
[22] J. Busby, R. Cuss, M. Raines, and D. Beamish, “Application of ground
penetrating radar to geological investigations,” Tech. Rep., 2004.
[23] J. E. Chambers et al., “Three-dimensional geophysical anatomy of
an active landslide in lias group mudrocks, Cleveland Basin, UK,”
Geomorphology, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 472–484, 2011.
[24] T. Hermans, D. Caterina, R. Martin, A. Kemna, and F. Nguyen,
“Incorporation of prior information in the regularized inversion of ERT
data with CRTomo,” Tech. Rep., 2012.
[25] G. Mentes, “Borehole wire extensometer for measurement of small
displacements,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Eng. Surveying Univ. Zagreb,
Fac. Geodesy Zagreb, Croatia, 2011, pp. 307–314.
HEMALATHA et al.: EFFECTIVE AND ACCELERATED FOREWARNING OF LANDSLIDES USING WSN AND MACHINE LEARNING
[26] L. Simeoni and L. Mongiovì, “Inclinometer monitoring of the Castelrotto
landslide in Italy,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 133, no. 6,
pp. 653–666, 2007.
[27] A.-B. Huang, J.-T. Lee, Y.-T. Ho, Y.-F. Chiu, and S.-Y. Cheng, “ Stability
monitoring of rainfall-induced deep landslides through pore pressure
profile measurements,” Soils Found., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 737–747, 2012.
[28] F. Bardi et al., “Integration between ground based and satellite SAR data
in landslide mapping: The San Fratello case study,” Geomorphology,
vol. 223, pp. 45–60, Oct. 2014.
[29] P. Savvaidis, “Existing landslide monitoring systems and techniques,”
From Stars Earth Culture, pp. 242–258, 2003.
[30] F. Karsli, A. Yalcin, M. Atasoy, O. Demir, S. Reis, and E. Ayhan,
“Landslide assessment by using digital photogrammetric techniques,” in
Proc. 20th ISPRS Congr. Commission VII Turkey, 2004, pp. 736–739.
[31] N. Caine, “The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow landslides
and debris flows,” Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Phys. Geography, vol. 62,
nos. 1–2, pp. 23–27, 1980.
[32] F. Guzzetti, S. Peruccacci, M. Rossi, and C. P. Stark, “The rain-
fall intensity-duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows:
An update,” Landslides, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2008.
[33] D. Lagomarsino et al., “Quantitative comparison between two different
methodologies to define rainfall thresholds for landslide forecasting,”
Natural Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2413–2423, 2015.
[34] L. Brocca, F. Ponziani, T. Moramarco, F. Melone, N. Berni, and
W. Wagner, “Improving landslide forecasting using ASCAT-derived soil
moisture data: A case study of the Torgiovannetto landslide in central
Italy,” Remote Sens., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1232–1244, 2012.
[35] M. V. Ramesh and N. Vasudevan, “The deployment of deep-earth sensor
probes for landslide detection,” Landslides, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 457–474,
Dec. 2012. doi: 10.1007/s10346-011-0300-x.
[36] T. Hemalatha, M. V. Ramesh, and V. P. Rangan, “Adaptive learning
techniques for landslide forecasting and the validation in a real world
deployment,” in Proc. Workshop World Landslide Forum. Springer, 2017,
pp. 439–447.
[37] S. L. Kuriakose, G. Sankar, and C. Muraleedharan, “History of landslide
susceptibility and a chorology of landslide-prone areas in the Western
Ghats of Kerala, India,” Environ. Geol., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1553–1568,
2009.
[38] S. L. Kuriakose, V. G. Jetten, C. J. Van Westen, G. Sankar, and
L. P. H. Van Beek, “Pore water pressure as a trigger of shallow landslides
in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India: Some preliminary observations
from an experimental catchment,” Phys. Geography, vol. 29, no. 4,
pp. 374–386, 2008.
[39] H. Vijith and G. Madhu, “Estimating potential landslide sites of an
upland sub-watershed in Western Ghat’s of Kerala (India) through
frequency ratio and GIS,” Environ. Geol., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1397–1405,
2008.
[40] R. Bhasin et al., “Landslide hazards and mitigation measures at Gangtok,
Sikkim Himalaya,” Eng. Geol., vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 351–368, 2002.
[41] N. Vasudevan and K. Ramanathan, “Geological factors contributing
to landslides: Case studies of a few landslides in different regions of
India,” in Proc. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 30, no. 1, 2016,
Art. no. 012011.
[42] R. M. Iverson, “Landslide triggering by rain infiltration,” Water Resour.
Res., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1897–1910, Jan. 2000.
[43] R. Greco, A. Guida, E. Damiano, and L. Olivares, “Soil water con-
tent and suction monitoring in model slopes for shallow flowslides
early warning applications,” Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C, vol. 35,
nos. 3–5, pp. 127–136, 2010.
[44] B. Thiebes et al., “Integration of a limit-equilibrium model into
a landslide early warning system,” Landslides, vol. 11, no. 5,
pp. 859–875, 2014.
[45] M. V. Ramesh, D. Pullarkatt, T. H. Geethu, and P. V. Rangan, “Wireless
sensor networks for early warning of landslides: Experiences from a
decade long deployment,” in Proc. Workshop World Landslide Forum.
Springer, 2017, pp. 41–50.
[46] P. Aleotti, “A warning system for rainfall-induced shallow failures,” Eng.
Geol., vol. 73, nos. 3–4, pp. 247–265, 2004.
[47] G. B. Crosta and P. Frattini, “Rainfall thresholds for triggering soil slips
and debris flow,” in Proc. 2nd EGS Plinius Conf. Medit. Storms, Siena,
Italy, A. Mugnai, F. Guzzetti, and G. Roth, Eds. 2001, pp. 463–487.
[48] M. Rinaldi, N. Casagli, S. Dapporto, and A. Gargini, “Monitoring
and modelling of pore water pressure changes and riverbank stability
during flow events,” Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 237–254, 2004.
9975
[49] S. Mukherjee, S. Aadhar, D. Stone, and V. Mishra, “Increase in extreme
precipitation events under anthropogenic warming in India,” Weather
Climate Extremes, vol. 20, pp. 45–53, Jun. 2018.
[50] R. Prabha, M. V. Ramesh, V. P. Rangan, P. V. Ushakumari, and
T. Hemalatha, “Energy efficient data acquisition techniques using context
aware sensing for landslide monitoring systems,” IEEE Sensors J.,
vol. 17, no. 18, pp. 6006–6018, Sep. 2017.
T. Hemalatha received the M.Tech. degree in
remote sensing and wireless sensor networks from
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, where she
is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in data ana-
lytics for wireless sensor network with the Amrita
Center for Wireless Networks and Applications.
She is also a Research Associate with the Amrita
Center for Wireless Networks and Applications,
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, where she
is involved in the research works for forecasting
imminent landslides and the decision support system
work for monitoring and early warning of landslides in parts of Western Ghats
and Himalayas. Her major focus is on arriving at thresholds for different
sensors used in landslide forecasting, efficiently forecasting the possibility for
imminent landslides, and risk analysis for landslides.
Maneesha Vinodini Ramesh received the Ph.D.
degree in computer science and engineering from
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University in 2009.
She currently serves as the Director of the Amrita
Center for Wireless Networks and Applications,
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, where she
is currently a Professor of Computer Science and
Engineering. She is also a Co-Principal Investiga-
tor of the European Commission funded Wireless
Sensor Networks with Self Organization Capabilities
for Critical and Emergency Applications (WINSOC)
Project, and a principal investigator of eight internationally recognized projects
funded by different organizations from all over the world. She has more than
100 papers, including several journals and best paper awards. She was a
recipient of the NABARD Award for Rural Innovation—Second Prize from the
Honorable Finance Minister, Government of India, in 2012, for her research
activities benefited to the rural community. She is an Editor of the Ad Hoc
Networks Elsevier. She has given invited talks at several eminent universities
all over the world.
Venkat P. Rangan founded and directed the Mul-
timedia Laboratory and the Internet and Wireless
Networks (Wi-Fi) Research, University of California
at San Diego, where he served as a Professor of
Computer Science and Engineering for 16 years. He
is currently the Vice Chancellor of Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham University. He has more than 85 pub-
lications in international (mainly the IEEE and the
ACM) journals and conferences, and also holds
22 U.S. Patents. He is a Fellow of the ACM (1998).
He is the youngest to achieve this international
distinction. He was a recipient of the President of the India Gold Medal
in 1984, the NCR Research Innovation Award in 1991, and the NSF National
Young Investigator Award in 1993. In 2000, Internet World featured him
on its cover page and named him as one of the top 25 Stars of Internet
Technologies. In 2012, Silicon India ranked him as one of the 50 Indians
Who Redefined Entrepreneurship in the Last 65 Years of Independence. He is
an internationally recognized pioneer of research in multimedia systems and
Internet E-Commerce. In 1993, he founded the first International Conference
on Multimedia: ACM Multimedia 93, for which he was the Program Chair-
man. This is now the premier world-wide conference on multimedia. He also
founded the first International Journal on Multimedia: ACM/Springer-Verlag
Multimedia Systems, which is now the premier journal on multimedia.