PSI - Issue 62

Salvatore Misiano et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 576–584 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

582

7

Through the classes contained in Fig 5e it is possible to link each of these to a certain soil unit. Every soil unit has different properties, previously discussed. The above-mentioned soil units, and their relative associated properties, are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Soil Units properties. Soil Unit c' [kPa] φ [ °]

kt [1/h]

A [kPa]

n [-]

Litho class

SU1 SU2 SU3 SU4 SU5

20

21 17 22 30 25

0.01 0.02 0.02

80 80 80 40 80

0.477 0.426 0.435 0.395 0.482

TRV

0

ENNa, ENNb, NNL, a1

22

GPQ3, e2

0 0

0.035

a

0.02

GER

3.2. SLIP prediction and Evolution Model Based on the data shown in section 3.1, X-SLIP algorithm started to analyze instability from 14:00 of 02-02-2014 to 00:00 of 03-02-2014. Although warning signs are noticeable starting from 18:00 (the soil was already quite saturated), the peak of instability points is detected at 23:00. The susceptibility map referred to 23:00 is shown in Fig. 6a. It can be observed that the triggering point is inside the unstable area, which of course it is larger, due to the model simplifications and due to the fact that the waterproof of urbanized area is not considered yet.

a

b

Fig. 6. (a) Susceptibility map at 23:00 of 02-02-2014; (b) Fs history of landslide mass centroid (triggering position).

A preferential path is also evaluated, starting from the centroid of the landslide body mass. Results shown in Fig. 7 are referred to the point-by-point approach, discussed in section 2.2. The deposit point is slightly ahead of the actual deposit point, documented by satellite images and articles, but seeing it from a precautionary point of view, it does not represent a problem.