Micro-Hazard Evaluation and validation of landslide in a ... · 1- Geotechnical Engineering Division, ... geological and geomorphic setup (Kishor Kumar et ... is being effectively

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMATICS AND GEOSCIENCES

Volume 2, No 3, 2012

© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article ISSN 0976 – 4380

Submitted on February 2012 published on February 2012 878

Micro-Hazard Evaluation and validation of landslide in a part of North

Western Garhwal Lesser Himalaya, India Kishor Kumar

1, Rahul Devrani

2, Anil Kathait

1, Neha Aggarwal

2

1- Geotechnical Engineering Division, Central Road Research Institute, Mathura Road, New

Delhi, India

2- Department Of Geology, University of Delhi, India

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

A large number of natural factors control the occurrence of landslide phenomenon. However,

anthropogenic activities, added with natural factors contribute handsomely to destabilize the

hill slopes. The Himalaya being unique in its physiographic, tectonic and climatic

characteristics coupled with many natural and man-made factors is inherently prone to

landslides. Present article includes a study of certain parameters (as factors), selected as per

their role in inducing landslides in one of the hazard prone regions of Northwestern Himalaya.

A base map on 1:500 scale was prepared using high precision Total Station and GPS that was

further divided into equal sized grids measuring 45m X 45m. The parameters such as

lithology, structures, slope gradients, landuse and landcover and groundwater condition have

been quantified and statistically analyzed for evaluating the landslide hazard potential of each

of the grid.

Based on the integration of qualitative and quantified weightages given to each factor of each

grid, a micro-hazard zonation map of the area has been developed for guiding the remedial

actions required for preventing the landslides. The results were compared with results of

geomechanical classification .i.e. RMR and SMR; of same site to support modified

methodology .The map has been physically verified and was found to be mostly accurate.

Keywords: Landslide, Zonation, Scale, Hazard, Parameters and Weightage

1. Introduction

Landslide Hazard Zonation (LHZ) is one of the commonly used methodologies for ranking

different parts of an area according to the degree of potential hazard from landslide (Varnes,

1980 & 1984). It has been argued well and accepted that geomorphologic and geological data

apart from the historical data on landslides is an important source parameter for landslide

hazard zonation (Hutchinson, 1995). The landslide hazard zonation (Anbalagan, 1992) is a

method to divide the landscape of into different zones characterizing by its degree of

instability and potential. Many researchers have proposed this method Brabb(1984), Varnes

(1984), Carrara (1983,1988), Gupta and Joshi (1990), Carrara et al(1990,1991), Anbalagan

(1992), Carrara et al(1992), Mehrotra et al(1992),Pachauri and Pant(1992), Gupta et

al(1993),Sarkar et al (1995),Anbalagan and Singh (1996), Panikkar and Subramanyan (1996),

Gupta et al(1999), Uromeihy and Madavifar (1999), Saha et al(2002), Carro et al(2003). The

zonation of most geological hazards and prediction of their risks remain largely unsolved

problems (Carrara et al 1999) but the large scale hazard maps can provide us more details

(Westen et al 1997) which can decipher this problem.

Micro-Hazard Evaluation and validation of landslide in a part of North Western Garhwal Lesser Himalaya,

India

Kishor Kumar, Rahul Devrani, Anil Kathait, Neha Aggarwal

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences

Volume 2 Issue 3, 2012 879

The Kaliasaur Landslide (Figure 1) is taken as case study where the new ratings have been

specified to the parameters, data is been analysed statically where the values is been obtained

from the data itself or is defined to it. As defined works-scale is 1:500, where earlier workers

scale were too small to be fit in a model of site specific; also scale varies with different

factors ( Aleotti and Chowdhry,1998) in our study chosen scale is site specific. Aim of study

is to go into a large scale zonation map, where the weightage of parameters were unfitted as

convolution gets increase with large scale (Sarkar et al, 1995).

2. Study Area

The Kaliasaur Landslide has been a threat since more than five decades on the strategic

Highway of the nation (NH-58) (Figure 1). The history of Kaliasaur landslide dates back to

1920 (Kishor Kumar et. al., 2005), the presence of fault zones, shear zones, extensive mass

are major causative factors of the sliding activity in this region. Also there are many other

significant landslides, both active and dormant, occurring in the Srinagar – Rudraprayag

region (Sinha et al 2002). The landslides along the Rishikesh – Badrinath National Highway

are mostly debris slides, debris flows, rock slides and rock falls (S. Sarkar et al., 2006). The

study area being tectonically active is a sensitive region consisting of complex topographic,

geological and geomorphic setup (Kishor Kumar et. al. 2008a).

Figure 1: Location map of study area (Kaliasaur Landslide)

These conditions coupled with extrinsic factors such as high precipitation and seismic

vibrations, rapid weathering and erosional processes, make the area susceptible to variety of

landslides of different magnitudes such as landslides, rock fall, debris fall, debris slide,

slumps and rockslides etc. (Kishor Kumar et. al. 2008b).These soil creeps could easily be

identified as slowly moving unconsolidated soils and overburden manifested in typical

bending of tree trunk along the movement direction and associated with tension cracks on the

road pavements or a down slope tilting of stone walls.. Since then, the slide has been

experiencing frequent recurrences. Heavy landslides have occurred in 1952, 1963, and 1965


India




and in subsequent years as well. Besides the major events, minor failures kept on taking place

in this zone which houses rocks of very weak condition. During 1970, 1971 and 1972

occurrence, Kaliasaur landslide damaged the highway severely. The traffic was restored by

having new formation cut of length 215 m, 100 m, and 125 m respectively (Kishor Kumar et.

al. 2008c). Again in 1984, due to heavy precipitation, comparatively major slide took place

and damaged road considerably. The crown portion of the slide has extended more than 20 m

since 1984. Two-third landslides initiated by human activities are mostly because of removal

of slope toes at road cuts. The study conducted required selection of known parameters that

had contributed as causes of the slope failure in the area (Kishor Kumar et. al., 1996). The

selected parameters of Landslide Hazard Evaluation Factor (LHEF) rating scheme have been

defined for further analysis described in following section. A total estimated hazard (TEHD)

value for each grid is obtained which is then classified into Landslide Hazard Zones.

2.1 Geology and Tectonics of study area

The study area belongs to one of the Lesser Himalayan divisions, i.e. Rudraprayag Formation

of Garhwal Group. Rudraprayag Formation has five litho-types (members) viz. Uttyasu

Quartzite, Lameri Member, Haryali Quartzite, Thalasu Schistose Grit, and Karanprayag

Metavolcanics. Kaliasaur area comprises of Uttyasu Quartzite (the oldest stratigraphic unit

exposed). This member consists of white, pink, purple, medium to coarse grained, profusely

ripple marked quartzite and subordinate purple/greenish gray slates with Basic Metavolcanics.

Kumar and Agrawal (1975) have referred this unit as “Rudraprayag Quartzite “of

Rudraprayag Formation. As the Formation and the Member unit cannot be designated by the

single term, R.N. Srivastava and A. Ahmad (1979) have replaced the term “Rudraprayag

Quartzite” with Uttyasu Quartzite.

3. Methodology and Procedure

The objective of this study basically was to prepare a micro-hazard zonation map having risk/

hazard prone areas which could guide the road maintenance agencies so as to take appropriate

safety measures for risk free unhindered flow of traffic particularly in rainy seasons. The

process of accomplishment of the above said objectives began with a detailed field study of

the selected site that included structural and lithological mapping of the area and collection of

the necessary geological and geotechnical data. Prior to detailed field investigation a large

scale topographic map on 1:500 scale was prepared. All subsequent field mapping was

carried out in the same scale. Thereafter the map was divided into grids measuring 45 x 45 m

(Figure 2) to individually study each grid for a realistic and accurate evaluation of stability of

the slope and inferring the type of possible failure for each of the grids. Following the above

mentioned methodology each grid has been classified into different zones of potential

landslide hazard. These grids with their landslide hazard potential have been utilized to

develop a landslide hazard map of the whole area. Stability has also been assessed for rock

slopes of the area by quantifying the various parameters viz. lithology, structural relationships,

slope gradient, landuse/ landcover, and water conditions that define the susceptibility of

slopes to failure, for each of the grids of the study area. The Landslide Hazard Evaluation

Factor (LHEF) rating scheme used in this study, is a field investigation based technique and

is being effectively used for Landslide Hazard Zonation in India (BIS Code 14496)[5]

i.e. the

classification of an area into small zones on the basis of their relative susceptibility to

landslides. The parameters of investigation usually consist of information regarding

geological and geotechnical has been modified to some extent as per the site condition (Table

1).


India




Figure 2: Grid map of the study area.

Table 1: Proposed LHEF Rating Scheme

Parameter Rating

Lithology 2

Structural Relationships 3

Slope Gradient 2

Landuse/ Landcover (including Road Construction)) 2

Groundwater Condition 1

TOTAL 10

The ratings have been assigned to the selected parameters for each of the grids. The obtained

ratings for all the parameters in each of the grids were then added to get a resultant total

estimated hazard (TEHD) value for each of the grids. This TEHD value is then used to define

the micro hazard zonation class (Table 2). For each of the five selected factors, based on the

gathered information, separate layers have been created. These five layers have been

superimposed to obtain the TEHD value and the final micro-hazard zonation map.

Table 2: Micro Hazard Zonation on the basis of Total Estimated Hazard

Zone TEHD Value Description of Zones

I <2 Very Low Hazard VLH) Zone

II 2 – 4 Low Hazard (LH) Zone

III 4 – 6. Moderate Hazard (MH) Zone

IV 6 – 8 High Hazard (HH) Zone

V >8 Very High Hazard (VHH) Zone

4. Rating Scheme of Parameters

4.1 Lithology

Lithology of an area combined with various conditions of the rocks, i.e. compaction,

deformation, fracturing, intrusions, alteration etc. holds good significance as a factor

responsible for causing landslides. The stability of a site, thus, can be inferred from the

lithology/ rock type it inhibits and its conditions ( Brabb, 1972). The study done by Gupta

and Joshi (1990) in Ramganga catchment area shows that the landslide is more prone in


India




Figure 4: (a) Pink Quartzite (b) White Quartzite (c)

Brown Quartzite (d) Metavolcanics

a b

c d

quartzite, where the study area is also rich in the quartzite. The grids of 45 X 45 m were

placed over the geological map of the area which was prepared over the surveyed area

(Figure 3). Different types of quartzite, i.e. pink, white and brown (Figure 4. a,b,c) having

varying degree of weathering and other conditions are intruded by scattered patches of

metavolcanics (Figure 4. d). The rock type falling in each of the grids was noted and given a

rating. The rating was then corrected for various weathering condition (Table 3) of the rocks.

If within a grid, two or more rock types are encountered, the one holding higher percentage

was considered for the whole grid, but the grid was further subdivided in cases where the

occurring rock types are in approximately equal proportion .On the basis of the obtained

ratings and lithological rating map have been prepared (Figure 6.a).

Figure 3: Geological and Structure map of study area


India




Table 3: Proposed LHEF Rating Scheme for Lithology

Factor Category Rating Remarks

Lithology Correction factor for weathering:

Rock Type

Type – I

Quartzite (white,

pink & brown)

Type – II

Metavolcanics

0.2

0.4

(a) Highly weathered – rock discolored,

joints open with weathering products, rock

fabric altered to a large extent; Correction factor

C1.

(b) Moderately weathered – rock

discolored with fresh rock patches, weathering

more around joint planes, but rock intact in

nature; Correction factor C2.

(c) Slightly weathered – rock slightly

discolored along joint planes, which may be

moderately tight to open, intact rock; Correction

factor C3.

The correction factor for weathering should

be multiplied with the fresh rock rating to

get corrected rating.

For rock type I

C1 = 4, C2 = 3, C3 = 2

For rock type II

C1 = 1.5, C2 = 1.25, C3 = 1.0

4.2 Structure

Structure of rocks is studied based on the attitude of beds, slope gradient, discontinuities

present, and their inter-relationships (Hoek & Bray, 1981). The discontinuities include joint

sets, faults, foliation, fractures etc. The interaction of structural parameters helps in

classifying the weak and stable zones in a site and produces a clear picture of the area’s

potential landslide zones. Structural analysis in itself is a very important parameter but

becomes indispensable in landslide recognition when related to slope gradient. On the basis

of slope and joint orientations, two types of possible failures were identified using stereoplots

as planar (Figure 5a) and wedge (Figure 5b) failures for each of the grids.

Figure 5: Stereoplots of the study area; (a) Planar failure (b) Wedge failure

A structural map of the area (Figure 3) has been prepared and the grids distributed on it.

Attitude of beds and major discontinuities in form of sets of joints and foliation in each grid

have been identified. Structural entities have been defined for both planar and wedge failure

conditions (Table 4). First the type of probable failure is assessed from the grid’s stereoplot

and then the appropriate mathematical formula, as per the structural rating scheme (Table 4)

is applied. The obtained results for the type of failure in a grid almost match with what had


India




been observed in the field. On the basis of the obtained ratings, and structural rating map

have been prepared (Figure 6.b).

Table 4: Proposed LHEF Rating Scheme for Structural

Factor Category Rating Remarks

Structure

Relationship of structural

discontinuity with slope.

Relationship of parallelism

between the slope and the

discontinuity.*

PLANAR (αj – αS)

WEDGE (αi – αS)

Relationship of dip of

discontinuity and

inclination.

PLANAR (βj – βS)

WEDGE (βi – βS)

Dip of discontinuity.

PLANAR (βj)

WEDGE (βi)

I > 300

II – (210 – 30

0)

III – (110 – 20

0)

IV – (60 – 10

0)

V ≤ 50

I > 100

II – (00 – 10

0)

III = 00

IV – (00 – (-10

0))

V < (-100)

I > 150

II – (160 – 25

0)

III – (260 – 35

0)

IV – (360 – 45

0)

V ≤ 450

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

αj = dip direction of joint

αi = dip direction of line of

intersection of two

discontinuities

αs = direction of slope

inclination

βj = dip of joint

βi = plunge of line of

intersection of two

discontinuities

βs = inclination of slope.

Category

I = Very favourable,

II = Favourable,

III= Fair,

IV = Unfavourable,

V = Very unfavourable

*Discontinuity refers to the

planar discontinuity or the line

of intersection of two planar

discontinuities, whichever is

important concerning

instabilities.

4.3 Slope Gradient

The slope gradient has been assessed for each grid using topographic map of the area. This

angle is then classified into five categories as very gentle, gentle, moderate, steep and very

steep slope.

Table 5: Proposed LHEF Rating Scheme for Slope Gradient

Category Gradient Rating

Escarpments/ Cliff > 600

2.00

Steep slope 450 – 60

0 1.60

Moderately steel slope 300 – 45

0 1.20

Gentle slope 150 – 30

0 0.80

Very gentle slope < 150 0.40


India




The highest frequency of landslides occurs in the slope class 15-25 followed by 25°-35° and

35°-45° (S. Sarkar et al., 1995) Each of the grids is then assigned an appropriate rating on the

basis of proposed LHEF rating scheme (Table 5 and Figure 6.c).

4.4 Landuse / Landcover

Land when utilized efficiently can be saved from erosion and weathering and hence,

stabilized. Landcover/ Landuse, thus, need to be studied for potential landslide assessment.

Landcover can be inferred as dense forest, barren land, agricultural land and industrial or

commercial land. The slope stability generally increases with better forestation and

vegetation. Barren land is most susceptible to landslides whereas a dense forest or highly

vegetated landcover is least susceptible. It has been observed that the slopes which are barren

have been utilized for the purpose of road construction and in current study is considered one

of the most influencing anthropogenic factors on slope stability.Based on the landuse and

vegetation cover, the rating system has been given as indicated in Table 6 and Figure 6(d)

Table 7: Proposed LHEF Rating Scheme for Landuse/ Landcover

Landuse and Landcover Rating

Agricultural land/ Populated flat land 0.40

Thickly vegetated area 0.80

Moderately vegetated area 1.20

Sparsely vegetated area with lesser ground cover 1.60

Barren land/ road construction 2.00

Table 8: Proposed LHEF Rating Scheme for Groundwater conditions

Groundwater Condition Rating

Dripping

Flowing

Wet

Damp

Dry

1.00

0.80

0.50

0.20

0.00

4.5 Water Conditions

Hydrology of an area plays vital role in determining the susceptibility of rock/ soil to failure.

Hydrological properties of an area include presence of streams, rivers, underground water

conditions, saturation state of rock/soil, and drainage pattern of the area. Dislocated water

bodies due to presence of discontinuities and shallow water-table conditions in hilly terrains

along with heavy rainfall make the slopes prone to instability.During the prolonged monsoon

phases, increased pore-water pressure creates favorable conditions for deep-seated landslides

(Y.P. Sundriyal et al., 2007).The hydrological conditions at the chosen site do not pose much

of the challenge for slopes as the investigations reveal, the area is almost dry. Only near the

toe of the slope along the bank of river Alaknanda, the slopes are found damp. Drainage


India




density in the area is also low. Thus, ratings for dry condition have been assigned to the study

area (Table 7).Included in landuse is also the road construction factor. Toe cutting for road

construction in hilly terrains like this is one of the most powerful triggering factors of the

landslide, as after cutting the slope face is left barren that gets easily degraded. Thus, the

areas along the highway, where slope has been cut have been assigned rating two.

Figure 6: (a) Lithological rating map of the study area (b) Structural rating map of the study

area (c) Slope gradient rating map of the study area (d) Landcover / Landuse rating map of

the area

5. Conclusion

Kaliasaur landslide, five decades old problem is still persisting on NH-58 at km 147. The

Micro Landslide Hazard Zonation map has been developed following LHEF rating scheme in

a large scale of 1:500. The area divided into equal-sized grids of 45 x 45 sq. m provides

opportunity to assess the susceptibility to failure for each grid individually. The Micro LHZ

map developed (Figure 7) indicates three levels of hazard, low, moderate and high (II, III, &

IV). Low hazard zones represent currently stable slopes whereas the maximum area is

covered under the moderate degree of hazard representing the slopes that are not stable and

may fail as soon as any of the triggering factors come into play. Several zones are marked by

high degree hazard indicating the slopes that are not stable and have already failed. Total

estimated hazard value, obtained by adding the individual ratings of all the parameters, varies


India




between 3 (medium) and 8 (high) which are descriptive zones of moderate to high hazard.

The Micro – Hazard Zonation Map (MHZM) has clearly indicated the presently affected

areas under high hazard. The results have been justified in the field and found worth

recommendation.

Figure 7: Final Micro Hazard Zonation Map

Even comparing MHZM with Rock Mass Rating (RMR) (Figure 8) and Slope Mass Rating

(SMR) (Figure 9) of the study area, area coming within high hazard zone is also falling in

poor stable conditions describe by above mentioned geomechanical classifications.

Figure 8: RMR of the study area Figure 9: SMR of the study area

So approach to new methodology defining new ratings to parameters .i.e. Litholgy, Structure,

Slope, Landcover and Landuse and Water conditions; are coming approximately accurate for

Kaliasaur landslide. Also defined methodology can be modified for site specific study.


India




6. References

1. Ahmad, T., Harris, N., Bickle, M., Chapman, H., Bunbury, J., and Prince, C., (2000),

Isotopic constraints on the structural relationships between the Lesser Himalayan

Series and the High Himalayan Crystalline Series, Garwhal Himalaya: Geological

Society of America Bulletin, 112, pp 467–477, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(2000)

112<0467:ICOTSR>2.3.CO;2.

2. Anbalagan, (1992), Landslide hazard evaluation and zonation mapping in mountainous

terrain, Engineering Geology, 32, pp 269-277.

3. Bordet, P., (1961), Recherches géologiques dans l’Himalaya du Népal, région du

Makalu: Paris, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

4. Bordet, P., Colchen, M., and Le Fort, P., (1972), Some features of the geology of the

Annapurna range Nepal Himalaya: Himalayan Geology, 2, pp 537–563.

5. Brabb, E.E., (1972), Landslide susceptibility in San Mateo County, California. U.S. 1.

Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF360, Scale 1:62,500.

6. Brabb, E.E., (1984), Innovative approach to landslide hazard and risk mapping, in

Proceedings of the 4th

International Symposium on Landslides Toronto, pp 307-324.

7. Bureau of Indian Standards Code 14496.

8. Carrara, A., (1983), Multivariate models for landslide hazard evaluation, Mathematical

Geology, 15(3), pp 403-427.

9. Carrara, A., (1988), Multivariate models for landslide hazard evaluation, A “Black

Box” approach, Workshop on Natural Disasters in European Mediterranean

Countries, Perugia, Italy, pp 205-224.

10. Carrara, A., M.Cardinali, F. Guzzetti., (1992), Uncertainty in assessing landslide

hazard and risk, ITC Journal, 2, pp 172-183.

11. Carrara, A., M. Cardinali, R. Detti, and F. Guzzetti., (1991), GIS techniques and

statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard: Earth surface process, Landform v.

16(5), pp 427-445.

12. Carrara, A., M. Cardinali, R. Detti, and F. Guzzetti, V. Pasqui, and P. Reichenbach,

(1990), Geographical Information Systems an multivariate models in landslide hazard

evaluation, Proc. ALPS 90-6th

Int. Conf. and Field workshop on Landslides, August

31- September 12, 1990, Milano, Italy, pp 17-28.

13. Carrara, A., F. Guzzetti, M. Cardinali, and P. Reichenbach., (1999), Use of GIS

technology in the prediction and monitoring of landslide hazard, Natural hazards, 20,

pp 117- 135.


India




14. Carro M, De Amicis, M Luzi, Marzorati S., (2003), The application of predictive

modeling techniques to landslides induced by earthquakes, the case study of the 26

September 1997, Umbria-Marche Earthquake (Italy), Eng Geol, 69, pp 139-159.

15. Célérier, J., Harrison, T.M., Webb, A.A.G., and Yin, A., (2009), The Kumaun and

Garwhal Lesser Himalaya, India. Part 1: Structure and stratigraphy. Geological

Society of America Bulletin, doi: 10.1130/B26344.1; published online 21 July 2009.

16. Gehrels, G.E., DeCelles, P.G., Martin, A.J., Ojha, T.P., Pinhassi, G., and Upreti, B.N.,

(2003), Initiation of the Himalayan orogen as an early Paleozoic thin-skinned thrust

belt: GSA Today, 13(9), pp 4–9, doi: 10.1130/1052-

5173(2003)13<4:IOTHOA>2.0.CO;2.

17. Gehrels, G.E., DeCelles, P.G., Ojha, T.P., and Upreti, B.N., (2006), Geologic and U-

Th-Pb geochronologic evidence for early Paleozoic tectonism in the Kathmandu

thrust sheet, central Nepal Himalaya: Geological Society of America Bulletin, 118, pp

185–198.

18. Gupta RP, Joshi BC., (1990), Landslide hazard zoning using the GIS approach- A

case study from the Ramganga catchment, Himalayas, Engineering Geology,1990, 28,

pp 119-131.

19. Gupta V, Sah MP, Virdi NS, Bartarya SK., (1993), Landslide hazard zonation in the

upper Satlej Valley, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, J Himal Geol, 4, pp 81-93.

20. Gupta RP, Saha AK, Arora MK, Kumar A., (1999), Landslide hazard zonation in a

part of Bhagirathy Valley, Garhwal Himalayas, using integrated remote sensing-GIS,

J Himal Geol, 20(2), pp 71-85.

21. Hashimoto, S., Ohta, Y., and Akiba, C., (1973), Geology of the Nepal Himalayas:

Tokyo, Saikon.

22. Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W., (1981), Rock slope engineering. Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, London, pp 1-100.

23. Hughes, N.C., Peng, S.C., Bhargava, O.N., Ahluwalia, A.D., Walia, S., Myrow, P.M.,

and Parcha, S.K., (2005), Cambrian biostratigraphy of the Tal Group, Lesser

Himalaya, India, and early Tsanglangpuan (late Early Cambrian) trilobites from the

Nigali Dhar syncline: Geological Magazine, 142, pp 57–80, doi:

10.1017/S0016756804000366.

24. Hutchinson, J.N., (1995), Keynote paper: Landslide Hazard Assessment. Proc. 6th

International Symposium on Landslides, February, (ed. Bell DH), Christchurh, New

Zealand, pp 1805-1841.

25. Kumar, G. and Agarwal, N.C., (1975), Geology of Srinagar-Nandprayag area

(Alaknanda Valley), Chamoli-Garhwal and Tehri-Garhwal Districts, Kumaun

Himalaya. U.P. Himalayan Ecology, 5, pp 29-59.


India




26. Kumar, Kishor, Kimothi, S., Goyal, Nitesh, Prasad, P.S., Rawat, S., Mathur, S.,

(2008a), Dynamic Nature of Kaliasaur Landslide: A Geomorphological Appraisal.

Diamond Jubilee Conference on “Landslide Management: Present Scenario and

Future Directions”, Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India,

10th

– 12th

February, 2008.

27. Kumar, Kishor, Kimothi, S., Mathur, S., (2008b), Topographic Control on the Spatial

Distribution of Landslide and Topographic Conditions Favourable to Landslides.

National Conference on “Mass Instability and Earthquake Risk Management in

Mountainous Regions: Challenges, Lessons Learnt and Future Strategy”, Disaster

Mitigation and Management Centre, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

28. Kumar, Kishor, Kimothi, Shivashish, Mathur, Sudhir, (2008c), Implications of

Ignoring Seismogenic Landslides in Himalayas. International Symposium on

Mountain building and Climate – Tectonic Interaction, Wadia Institute of Himalayan

Geology, Dehradun, India, October 23rd

– 25th

, 2008.

29. Kumar, Kishor, and Sati, D., (2005), Exploring the History of Alaknanda –

Patalganga Tragedy of 1970 and Possibility of its Recurrence and Impacts on

Patalganga Basin – A GIS and Remote Sensing Based Study. Proc. Of 8th

Annual

International Conference, Map India, New Delhi, 2005.

30. Kumar, Kishor, Tolia, D.S., Kumar, S., (1996), Landslide Hazard Evaluation in a part

of Himalaya, Proc. Of 7th

International Symposium on Landslides, Trondhem,

Norway. Balkema, Rotterdam.

31. Mehrotra, G.S., Sarkar, S., and Dharmaraju,R., (1992), Landslide hazard assessment

in Rishikesh-Tehri area, Garhwal Himalaya,India, Proceedings of Sixth International

Symposium on Landslides, Christchurch, New Zealand.

32. Metcalfe, R.P., (1993), Pressure, temperature and time constraints on metamorphism

across the Main Central Thrust zone and High Himalayan Slab in the Garhwal

Himalaya. In: Treloarand, P.J., Searle, M.P. ŽEds., Himalayan Tectonics. Geol. Soc.

Spec. Publ., 74, pp 485–509.

33. Miller, C., Klotzli, U., Frank, W., Thoni, M., and Grasemann, B., (2000), Proterozoic

crustal evolution in the NW Himalaya (India) as recorded by circa 1.80 Ga mafi c and

1.84 Ga granitic magmatism: Precambrian Research, 103, pp 191–206, doi:

10.1016/S0301-9268(00)00091-7.

34. Pachauri AK, Pant M., (1992), Landslide hazard mapping based on geological

attributes, Eng Geol, 32, pp 81-100.

35. Panikkar SV, Subramanyan V., (1996), A geomorphic evaluation of landslides around

Dehradun and Mussoorie,Uttar Pradesh ,India, Geomorphology, 15, pp 169-181.


India




36. Patrick L. Barnard, P.L., Owen, L.A., Sharma, M.C., Finkel, R.C., (2001), Natural

and human-induced landsliding in the Garhwal Himalaya of northern India.

Geomorphology, 40, pp 21-35.

37. Richards, A., Argles, T., Harris, N., Parrish, R., Ahmad, T., Darbyshire, F., and

Draganits, E., (2005), Himalayan architecture constrained by isotopic tracers from

clastic sediments: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 236, pp 773–796, doi:

10.1016/j.epsl.2005.05.034.

38. Saha AK, Gupta RP, Arora MK,(2002), GIS – based landslide hazard zonation in a

part of the Himalayas, Int J Remote Sens, 23, pp 357-369.

39. Sarkar, S., Kanungo, D.P., Mehrotra, G.S., (1995), Landslide Hazard Zonation: A

Case Study in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Mountain Research and Development, 15(4),

pp 301-309.

40. Sarkar, S., Kanungo, D.P., and Patra, A.K., (2006), Landslides in the Alaknanda

Valley of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and

Hydrogeology, 39, pp 79–82.

41. Sati, S.P., Sundriyal, Y.P., and Rawat, G.S., (2007), Geomorphic indicators of

neotectonic activity around Srinagar (Alaknanda basin), Uttarakhand. Research

Communications, Current Science, 92(6).

42. Srivastava R.N. and Ahmad, A., (1979), Geology and structure of Alaknanda valley,

Garhwal Himalaya. Himalayan Geology, 9(1), pp 225-254.

43. Sundriyal, Y.P., Tripathi, J.K., Sati, S.P., Rawat, G.S., and Srivastava, P., (2007),

Landslide-dammed lakes in the Alaknanda Basin, Lesser Himalaya: Causes and

implications. Research Communications, Current Science, 93(4).

44. Valdiya, K.S., (1980a), Geology of Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, Interim Record:

Dehradun, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology.

45. Valdiya, K.S., (1988), Tectonics and evolution of the central sector of the Himalaya.

Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A 326, pp 151–175.

46. Varnes, D.J., (1980), Landslide Hazard Zonation- Review of principle and practices.

Bulletin IAEG.

47. Varnes, D.J., (1984), Landslide Hazard Zonation: A review of principles and

practices. UNESCO, Paris, pp 1-63.

48. Westen, C.J. , Rengers, N., Terlien, M.T.J., Soeters, R., (1997), Prediction of the

occurrence of slope instability phenomenal through GIS-based hazard zonation,

Geologische Rundschau, 86(2), pp 404-414.

Documents

Micro-Hazard Evaluation and validation of landslide in a ... · 1- Geotechnical Engineering Division, ... geological and geomorphic setup (Kishor Kumar et ... is being effectively