Towards an automated acquisition and parametrization of debris‐flow prone torrent channel properties based on photogrammetric‐derived uncrewed aerial vehicle data

Debris flows are a hazard in mountainous regions. Cost‐effective, long‐term studies of debris‐flow torrents, however, are rare, leading to uncertainties in hazard assessment and hazard prevention. Here, we address the question of whether cost‐effective remote sensing techniques can be applied for assessment of mountain torrents and possibly further gather accurate, long‐term information on the evolution of the catchment. Torrents prone to debris flows are often devoid of vegetation in the near channel area and hence can be well captured with photogrammetrically derived methods using uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) surveys. The possibility of automatically extracting specific torrent parameters from high‐resolution terrain models, such as cross‐section area or gradient, is investigated. The presented methodology yields continuous and automatically derived geometrical parameters such as torrent bed width, inclination and cross‐section area, which is a major advantage compared with point‐based, often dangerous field surveys. Their cross‐validation with field measurements shows strong agreement. Those parameters are accurate along sharply incised sections with strong limitations along sections with steep adjacent slopes and/or dense vegetation. The information along the torrent allows fast identification of key sections and weak spots which can be precisely evaluated in the field. The study highlights that proper classification of real ground points poses the key challenge. We show that photogrammetric routines to derive a high‐resolution digital terrain model (DTM) are limited in the case of dense vegetation coverage. In such cases, LiDAR surveys have clear advantages even though they are also limited by very dense vegetation. We find that UAV data can be used for an objective method of estimating debris‐flow torrent geometric properties. And the introduced approaches therefore build a stepping stone towards a more comprehensive, reproducible and objective assessment of torrent processes and predispositions. However, ground‐referencing fieldwork remains essential, and further research on remote sensing supported hazard assessment of debris‐flow‐prone torrents is indispensable.

[1]  D. Farinotti,et al.  Brief communication: An autonomous UAV for catchment-wide monitoring of a debris flow torrent , 2022, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.

[2]  T. Battin,et al.  Centimeter-scale mapping of phototrophic biofilms in glacial forefields using visible band ratios and UAV imagery , 2022, International Journal of Remote Sensing.

[3]  W. Nijland,et al.  Flow and Bed Conditions Jointly Control Debris‐Flow Erosion and Bulking , 2022, Geophysical Research Letters.

[4]  W. Nijland,et al.  Improving UAV-SfM time-series accuracy by co-alignment and contributions of ground control or RTK positioning , 2022, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[5]  Guillaume Ducard,et al.  Review of designs and flight control techniques of hybrid and convertible VTOL UAVs , 2021 .

[6]  J. Clague,et al.  Exploring new methods to analyse spatial impact distributions on debris‐flow fans using data from south‐western British Columbia , 2021, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

[7]  M. Jakob Debris-Flow Hazard Assessments: A Practitioner's View , 2021, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience.

[8]  S. D. de Jong,et al.  How memory effects, check dams, and channel geometry control erosion and deposition by debris flows , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[9]  G. M. Díaz,et al.  Customizing unmanned aircraft systems to reduce forest inventory costs: can oblique images substantially improve the 3D reconstruction of the canopy? , 2020 .

[10]  Joel B. Smith,et al.  Debris-flow monitoring and warning: Review and examples , 2019, Earth-Science Reviews.

[11]  He Zhang,et al.  Evaluating the potential of post-processing kinematic (PPK) georeferencing for UAV-based structure- from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry and surface change detection , 2019, Earth Surface Dynamics.

[12]  S. Keesstra,et al.  Comparing Filtering Techniques for Removing Vegetation from UAV-Based Photogrammetric Point Clouds , 2019, Drones.

[13]  Damià Vericat,et al.  Monitoring topographic changes through 4D-structure-from-motion photogrammetry: application to a debris-flow channel , 2018, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[14]  A. Densmore,et al.  Effects of debris‐flow magnitude–frequency distribution on avulsions and fan development , 2018, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

[15]  Fabio Remondino,et al.  Review article: the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs) for natural hazards monitoring and management , 2017 .

[16]  Dieter Rickenmann,et al.  Debris-flow hazard assessment and methods applied in engineering practice , 2016 .

[17]  Wuming Zhang,et al.  An Easy-to-Use Airborne LiDAR Data Filtering Method Based on Cloth Simulation , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[18]  M. Adams,et al.  HIGH-RESOLUTION DEBRIS FLOW VOLUME MAPPING WITH UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TECHNIQUES , 2016 .

[19]  Andreas Stoffel,et al.  Mapping snow depth in alpine terrain with unmanned aerial systems (UASs): potential and limitations , 2016 .

[20]  J. Kirchner,et al.  Self‐adjustment of stream bed roughness and flow velocity in a steep mountain channel , 2015 .

[21]  Dimitri Lague,et al.  Analyzing High Resolution Topography for Advancing the Understanding of Mass and Energy Transfer Through Landscapes: A Review , 2015 .

[22]  M. Stoffel,et al.  Debris-flow activity in five adjacent gullies in a limestone mountain range , 2015 .

[23]  M. Westoby,et al.  ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications , 2012 .

[24]  Brian W. McArdell,et al.  Sediment transfer patterns at the Illgraben catchment, Switzerland: Implications for the time scales of debris flow activities , 2011 .

[25]  Richard M. Iverson,et al.  Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sediment , 2011 .

[26]  D. Milan Terrestrial Laser Scanning of grain roughness in a gravel-bed river , 2009 .

[27]  C. Gisonni Book Reviews , 2008 .

[28]  M. Jakob,et al.  Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phenomena , 2005 .

[29]  J. N. Hutchinson,et al.  A review of the classification of landslides of the flow type , 2001 .

[30]  R. Iverson,et al.  U. S. Geological Survey , 1967, Radiocarbon.

[31]  J J Koenderink,et al.  Affine structure from motion. , 1991, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[32]  Mark A. Melton,et al.  The Geomorphic and Paleoclimatic Significance of Alluvial Deposits in Southern Arizona , 1965, The Journal of Geology.

[33]  P. Tarolli,et al.  Using UAV and LiDAR data for gully geomorphic changes monitoring , 2020 .

[34]  B. W. McArdella,et al.  An overview of a decade of applied debris-flow runout modeling in Switzerland: challenges and recommendations , 2019 .

[35]  D. Rickenmann Methoden zur quantitativen Beurteilung von Gerinneprozessen in Wildbächen , 2014 .

[36]  Geert Verhoeven,et al.  Taking computer vision aloft – archaeological three‐dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with photoscan , 2011 .

[37]  E. Frick,et al.  Sedex - eine praxistaugliche Methodik zur Beurteilung der Feststofflieferung in Wildbächen. SEDEX - A practical tool to estimate sediment deliveries in mountain torrents , 2008 .

[38]  Dieter Rickenmann,et al.  Empirical Relationships for Debris Flows , 1999 .