3D Reconstruction of Landslides for the Acquisition of Digital Databases and Monitoring Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Landslides Based on GIS Spatial Analysis and UAV Techniques

Abstract In this study, the main steps that need to be taken to obtain the digital databases necessary for the three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of landslides and the spatiotemporal monitoring based on unmanned aerial vehicle and spatial analysis geographic information system are presented. These include: presentation of work equipment, marking and measurement of the ground control points, flight plan achievement, aerophotographic image processing, obtaining digital databases representing 3D models [digital surface model and digital elevation model (DEM)], and comparative analysis of 3D databases to identify spatiotemporal changes. The databases representing the DEMs obtained as a result of two successive flights (May 2, 2015 and May 8, 2017) were compared using geoinformation software in order to obtain quantitative information on the landslide dynamics. The obtained quantitative data reveal negative differences of a maximum 1.63 m (materialized by material displacements within the landslide body) identified spatially in the area of the main scarp and in the central-western part of the landslide and positive differences (materialized spatially by accumulation of slid material) of 1.32 m spatially identified in the frontal and lateral-eastern side of the landslide as well as a 2.93 m/year displacement which highlights its high dynamics. As a result of the quantitative analysis of the databases, negative and positive differences, as well as their spatial-territorial identification within the landslide body, a sliding displacement was identified in the direction of North-West (NV) and was calculated from 332 degrees in the case of the first measurement to 334 degrees in the case of the second measurement.

[1]  Samuel T. Thiele,et al.  Ground-based and UAV-Based photogrammetry: A multi-scale, high-resolution mapping tool for structural geology and paleoseismology , 2014 .

[2]  T. Susam,et al.  The Role of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) In Monitoring Rapidly Occuring Landslides , 2018 .

[3]  Filiberto Chiabrando,et al.  UAV Deployment Exercise for Mapping Purposes: Evaluation of Emergency Response Applications , 2015, Sensors.

[4]  Mihai Niculiță.  Automatic landslide length and width estimation based on the geometricprocessing of the bounding box and the geomorphometric analysis of DEMs , 2016 .

[5]  Iuliana Armaş.  An analytic multicriteria hierarchical approach to assess landslide vulnerability. Case study: Cornu village, Subcarpathian Prahova Valley/Romania , 2011 .

[6]  W. Z. Savage,et al.  Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land-use planning , 2008 .

[7]  Shoichiro Uchiyama,et al.  Application of UAV-SfM photogrammetry and aerial lidar to a disastrous flood: repeated topographic measurement of a newly formed crevasse splay of the Kinu River, central Japan , 2017 .

[8]  Arko Lucieer,et al.  Time Series Analysis of Landslide Dynamics Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[9]  P. Reichenbach,et al.  Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy , 1999 .

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

[11]  Arko Lucieer,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Georeferenced Point Clouds Produced via Multi-View Stereopsis from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Imagery , 2012, Remote. Sens..

[12]  Jan Nyssen,et al.  Use of LIDAR‐derived images for mapping old landslides under forest , 2007 .

[13]  P. Mazzanti,et al.  Experimental Landslide Monitoring Site of Poggio Baldi Landslide (Santa Sofia, N-Apennine, Italy) , 2017 .

[14]  R. Soeters,et al.  Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? , 2006 .

[15]  Application of landslide hazard scenarios at annual scale in the Niraj River basin (Transylvania Depression, Romania) , 2015, Natural Hazards.

[16]  K. Cook.  An evaluation of the effectiveness of low-cost UAVs and structure from motion for geomorphic change detection , 2017 .

[17]  Konrad Schindler,et al.  High-quality observation of surface imperviousness for urban runoff modelling using UAV imagery , 2015 .

[18]  W. Yoon,et al.  Kinematic analysis for sliding failure of multi-faced rock slopes , 2002 .

[19]  Roşca Sanda,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of the risk induced by dominant geomorphological processes on different land uses, based on GIS spatial analysis models , 2018, Frontiers of Earth Science.

[20]  Mihai Micu,et al.  Landslide hazard assessment in the Curvature Carpathians and Subcarpathians, Romania , 2009 .

[21]  C. Hugenholtz,et al.  Geomorphological mapping with a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS): Feature detection and accuracy assessment of a photogrammetrically-derived digital terrain model , 2013 .

[22]  S. M. Jong,et al.  Mapping landslide displacements using Structure from Motion (SfM) and image correlation of multi-temporal UAV photography , 2014 .

[23]  Robert G. Bryant,et al.  Analysis of Aerial Photography and Other Remotely Sensed Data , 2005 .

[24]  Roşca Sanda,et al.  Comparative assessment of landslide susceptibility. Case study: the Niraj river basin (Transylvania depression, Romania) , 2016 .

[25]  Jan Sladek,et al.  SUITABILITY OF DIGITAL ELEVATION MODELS GENERATED BY UAV PHOTOGRAMMETRY FOR SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT (CASE STUDY OF LANDSLIDE IN SVÄTÝ ANTON, SLOVAKIA) , 2016 .

[26]  Á. Tóth,et al.  Prediction of the Process of a Slowly Moving Loess Landslide by Electrical Resistivity Tomography , 2017 .

[27]  Guido Luzi,et al.  Sentinel-1 Data Analysis for Landslide Detection and Mapping: First Experiences in Italy and Spain , 2017 .