Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science

International

16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

ISSN: 2454-7352

Landslide Hazard Zonation (LHZ) Mapping Using RS

and GIS Techniques: A Case Study of Kumbur River
Basin of Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District,
Tamilnadu, India
R. Mahesh1*, R. Baskaran1 and R. Anbalagan2
1
Department of Industries and Earth Sciences, Tamil University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
2
Department of Earth Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author RM designed the study,
performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Authors RB and RA managed the analyses of the study. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/JGEESI/2018/42875
Editor(s):
(1) Badiora Adewumi Israel, Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning, College of Environmental Design & Management,
Wesley University, Nigeria.
(2) Wen-Cheng Liu, Department of Civil and Disaster Prevention Engineering, National United University, Taiwan and Taiwan
Typhoon and Flood Research Institute, National United University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Reviewers:
(1) Monalee A. delaCerna, Surigao State College of Technology, Philippines.
(2) Chia-Feng Hsu, National Taiwan Ocean University (NTOU), Taiwan.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/25887

Received 29th May 2018

nd
Original Research Article Accepted 2 August 2018
Published 14th August 2018

ABSTRACT
Landslide is one of the disasters which lead to large-scale damage to properties and life. It
frequently occurs in hilly regions like Himalaya, Western and Eastern Ghats. In Tamil Nadu, most of
the landslides are often seen in Blue Mountains, Kodaikanal and Yercaud, occasionally in the other
areas. Kodaikanal hills are facing two major problems viz. urbanization and environmental
degradation. In this study, the landslide hazard zonation maps are prepared based on the
causative factors of slope instability, namely thick soil accumulation, lithology, geological structure
drainage density, slope morphometry, relative relief, land use and land cover and hydrogeological
conditions in facet wise by using BIS code: IS 14496 (Part-2) – 1998. As per BIS classification
method, Kumbur River Basin area, the distribution pattern of Landslide Hazard Zonation (LHZ)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected];

 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

indicates that in the total 82 facets, 3 facets come under very high hazard category, 17 facets come
under high hazard category, 40 facets are present in moderate hazards and remaining 25 facets
come under range in low hazard.

Keywords: Landslide Hazard Zonation; Kumbur River Basin; RS and GIS; Kodaikanal hills.

1. INTRODUCTION susceptibility zonation (LHZ) map for the upland

catchment of river Kumbur Kodaikanal Taluk,
Kodaikanal hills have been the centre of Tamilnadu, India using GIS techniques by
urbanization in the past few decades. The recognizing and mapping the paleo-slide
frequent problems in Kodaikanal area are mainly locations and the associated terrain attributes
road blockades due to slope failure along the [6]. The terrain parameters such as
roadside during rains leading to smaller and geomorphology, drainage density, soil type, soil
medium slide due to unplanned construction, thickness, land use, Normalized Difference
drainage and agricultural activities. The Vegetation Index (NDVI), slope stability aspect,
construction activities in the form of resorts, relative relief, slope length, profile curvature, plan
hotels, houses, cottages and other structures curvature, flow path length and topographic
have resulted in a large-scale deforestation. The wetness index were selected for this study
tourist's inflow has increased alarmingly in the [4] and [5]. Using GIS techniques and Weights of
past few years, evidenced by a large number of Evidence (WofE) model, the present research
new resorts in and around Kodaikanal demonstrates the application of weighted overlay
municipality. analysis method to produce the landslide
hazard zone map for Kumbur River Basin [13]
Landslides are one of the natural disasters which and [14].
account for huge damage to properties in terms
of direct and indirect risk [1]. The term “landslide” 2. METHODOLOGY
basically means a slow to rapid downward
movement of instable rock and debris masses 2.1 Study Area
aided of gravity which can be categorized into
various types on the basis of slope failure Kodaikanal is situated in the southern tip of the
characteristics [2]. Increase in population and upper Palani hills in the Western Ghats and a
rapid urbanization has led to the expansion of long history of hill resorts in Dindigul district,
construction activities in hilly terrain and has Tamil Nadu. Mannavanur, Poondi town is
catapulted frequency of landslides to dramatic situated in the central part of the Study area. It
proportions in recent decades [3]. The present has a total geographical area of about 104.7736
study areas, Kumbur River Basin of Kodaikanal sq. km and extent from 10o 07’00” N to 10o 16’
o o
Taluk are prone to landslides and were affected 00” N latitude and between 77 16’ 00” E to 77
by frequent landslides in the past. In October 21’ 00” E longitude. The sub-watershed is partly
2011, heavy rain resulted in landslides at covered by 58F/7sw, 8nw, and 8sw of Survey of
Kumbur River Basin, high range areas of India Toposheets.
Dindigul district bordering Tamilnadu State,
caused massive loss to crop and property. The base map incorporating main details and
Similarly, in October 2012, inclement weather reference information was prepared from above
condition brought heavy-rain at Mannavanur, said toposheets. Using land use, soil and rainfall
Poondi, on various areas of Kodaikanal taluk. data, runoff the potential of each facet is
Damage on farmland and houses were reported. identified and it is a supplement to prepare
Traffic was disrupted on several arterial roads, landslide hazard zonation [15,16] and [17].
including Mannavanur and Poondi-Kodaikanal
highway road, as the water level rose drastically 2.2 Geology and Structural Discontinuity
in Kumbur River [4,5] and [6].
The study area is underlain of Archean age,
The reliability of the hazard analysis depends on Charnockite and Gneisses are being the major
various factors and methods deployed [7] and formation. A major portion of Study area largely
[8]. Various methods of analysis have been covered by Charnockite rock and it is covered by
proposed by many different authors [9,10,11] and about 90% of the taluk area. The remaining area
[12]. Saranathan et al prepared landslide comes under Hornblende Biotite gneiss. One of

2
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

the gneissic bands is running along Mannavanur- or wedge mode evaluated and possible failure is
Kumbur road and Kilavarai-Natampatti area and obtained.
another small batch of the gneissic band is seen
in Poondi area. Fig. 2 shows Geology and 2.3 Rainfall
structure of the study area, derived from
Geological Survey of India, Chennai and The precipitation occurs during from season viz.
structure features extracted from aerial South-West monsoon from June to September,
photographs, 1985 and satellite image IRS-1C, North-East monsoon across October to
LISS III, March 2008, National Remote Sensing December, winter falls between January and
Centre, Hyderabad (with limited field check) [18] February and summer showers from March to
and [19]. May. The period from May to November is the
chief rainy season during which period about 70
The structural discontinuity in relation to the to 80% of annual rainfall is received. The area
slope angle and direction has a greater influence gets rain from two monsoon seasons, the south-
on overall stability condition of the area [20]. The west monsoon and the north-east monsoon. The
structural discontinuities were covered in 82 south-west monsoon starts in June and ends in
facets and they are furnished in Table 3 and September. The north-east monsoon season is
these observed structural details are plotted on from October to November. The highest rainfall
stereo-net (Fig. 3). As per the relationship of was recorded at Mannavanur and the lowest
structural discontinuity with slope, the numerical recorded at Kilavarai. The average rainfall is
ratings for each of the situations in either plainer around 102.6 mm per year.

Fig. 1. Location Map of the study area

3
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Fig. 2. Geology and Structure

Fig. 3. Stereo Net

4
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Table 1. List of structural discontinuities

Sl. No Latitude – Longitude Structural Details Remarks

o o o
1. 10 11. 30 N - 77 20. 06 E J1 Strike N 105 Poondi
o
Dip Direction N 35 W
o
Dip 40
o o o
2. 10 11. 46 N - 77 19. 31 E J1 Strike N 50 Nattampatti Road Cut
o
Dip Direction N 20 E
o
Dip Amount 90
J2 Strike N 20o
o
Dip Direction N 60 E
o
Dip Amount 90
3. 10o 12. 09 N - 77o 19. 11 E J1 Strike N 15 o
Pollur Road cut
Dip Direction N 80oE
o
Dip Amount 90
J2 Strike N 80o
o
Dip Direction N20 W
Dip Amount 90o
4. 10o 12. 19 N - 77o 19. 21 E J1 Strike N 30o Pollur agriculture
o
Dip Direction N 60 W
Dip Amount 50o
5. 10o 11. 68 N - 77o 19. 02 E J1 Strike N 15o Kilavarai Road cut
o
Dip Direction N260 W
o
Dip Amount 90
o
J2 Strike N5
o
Dip Direction N250 W
Dip Amount 35o
o o o
6. 10 12. 42 N - 77 18. 79 E J1 Strike N 10 Kilavarai Agriculture
o
Dip Direction N 260 E
o
Dip Amount 40
7. 10o 11. 89 N - 77o 20. 04 E J1 Strike S 200o Poondi Agriculture
o
Dip Direction N 100 E
o
Dip Amount 90
o o o
8. 10 11. 91 N - 77 20. 03 E J1 Strike N 30 Poondi Agriculture
o
Dip Direction N310 W
Dip Amount 75o
9. 10o 11. 84 N - 77o 20. 02 E J1 Strike N 90o Poondi Agriculture
o
Dip Direction N 10 E
Dip Amount 90o
o
J2 Strike N 140
o
Dip Direction N 75 E
o
Dip Amount 90
o o o
10. 10 12. 39 N - 77 20. 36 E J1 Strike N 350 E Kavunchi
o
Dip Direction N 20 W
Dip Amount 80o
o o o
11. 10 12. 16 N - 77 20. 40 E J1 Strike N 40 Kavunchi to Poondi Road
Dip Direction N 320oW cut
o
Dip Amount 82
o o o
12. 10 12. 31 N - 77 20. 38 E J1 Strike N 140 Kavunchi water falls
o
Dip Direction N 240 W
Dip Amount 76o
o o o
13. 10 13. 16 N - 77 20. 61 E J1 Strike N 140 Mannavanur
o
Dip Direction N 55 E
Dip Amount 90o
o o o
14. 10 13. 54 N - 77 20. 81 E J1 Strike N 320 Mannavanur
o
Dip Direction N 60 E Agriculture
Dip Amount 70o

5
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Sl. No Latitude – Longitude Structural Details Remarks

15. 10o 13. 29 N - 77o 20. 79 E J1 Strike N 40o Mannavanur
o
Dip Direction N 325 W Road cut
o
Dip Amount 90
o
J2 Strike N 120
o
Dip Direction N 205 W
Dip Amount 90o
o
J3 Strike N 35
o
Dip Direction N 310 W
o
Dip Amount 41
o o o
16. 10 13. 39 N - 77 20. 75 E J1 Strike N 160 Mannavanur
o
Dip Direction N 60 E Agriculture
o
Dip Amount 46
o
J2 Strike N 150
o
Dip Direction N 65 E
o
Dip Amount 60
17. 10o 13. 86 N - 77o 20. 47 E J1 Strike N 160o Mannavanur to
Dip Direction S 240oW Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 58
o o o
18. 10 13. 94 N - 77 20. 41 E J1 Strike N 10 Mannavanur to
o
Dip Direction N 90 E Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 90
J2 Strike N 110o
o
Dip Direction N 15 E
Dip Amount 62 o
J3 Strike N 95o
o
Dip Direction N 200 W
o
Dip Amount 90
o o o
19. 10 13. 94 N - 77 20. 40 E J1 Strike N 90 Mannavanur to
o
Dip Direction N 190 E Kizhanavayal Road cut
Dip Amount 80o
o
J2 Strike N 70
o
Dip Direction N 340 W
o
Dip Amount 90
o o o
20. 10 13. 97 N - 77 20. 39 E J1 Strike N5 Mannavanur to
Dip Direction N 280oW Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 45
o
J2 Strike N 355
o
Dip Direction N 75 E
o
Dip Amount 65
21. 10o 15. 18 N - 77o 20. 06 E J1 Strike N 160o Mannavanur to
o
Dip Direction N 85 E Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 31
o
J2 Strike N 50
o
Dip Direction N 150 E
o
Dip Amount 90
o
J3 Strike N 120
o
Dip Direction N 40 E
o
Dip Amount 90
22. 10o 15. 03 N - 77o 20. 07 E J1 Strike N 110o Mannavanur to
Dip Direction N 20o E Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 90
23. 10o 14. 79 N - 77o 19. 89 E J1 Strike N 65o Mannavanur to
o
Dip Direction N 165 E Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 63 Murugan Temple

6
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Sl. No Latitude – Longitude Structural Details Remarks

24. 10o 14. 47 N - 77o 20. 10 E J1 Strike N 40o Mannavanur to
o
Dip Direction N 125 E Kizhanavayal Road cut
o
Dip Amount 90
o
J2 Strike N155
o
Dip Direction N 80 E
Dip Amount 90o
o o o
25. 10 14. 28 N - 77 20. 18 E J1 Strike N 160 Mannavanur to
o
Dip Direction N 80 E Kizhanavayal Road cut
Dip Amount 75o
o
J2 Strike N 145
o
Dip Direction N 55 W
Dip Amount 45o
o
J3 Strike N 50
Dip Direction N 330o W
o
Dip Amount 45
o o o
26. 10 13. 66 N - 77 20. 20 E J1 Strike N 80 Mannavanur to Kumbur
o
Dip Direction N 345 W Road cut
o
Dip Amount 90
o o o
27. 10 13. 67 N - 77 20. 19 E J1 Strike N 340 Mannavanur to Kumbur
o
Dip Direction N 80 E Road cut
o
Dip Amount 52
o o o
28. 10 13. 80 N - 77 20. 17 E J1 Strike N 320 Mannavanur to Kumbur
o
Dip Direction N 50 E Road cut
o
Dip Amount 50
o
J2 Strike N 350
o
Dip Direction N 95 E
o
Dip Amount 61
o o o
29. 10 13. 82 N - 77 20. 12 E J1 Strike N 330 Mannavanur to Kumbur
o
Dip Direction N 250 W Road cut
o
Dip Amount 56 Near Drainage
J2 Strike N 330o
o
Dip Direction N 50 E
o
Dip Amount 61
J3 Strike N 52o
o
Dip Direction N 340 W
o
Dip Amount 90
30. 10o 13. 81 N - 77o 20. 05 E J1 Strike N 10o Mannavanur to Kumbur
o
Dip Direction N 90 E Road cut
o
Dip Amount 56 Near Drainage
o
J2 Strike N 85
o
Dip Direction N 165 E
o
Dip Amount 90
o
J3 Strike N 275
o
Dip Direction N 10 E
o
Dip Amount 58
*J1, J2 and J3 represents Joints at a particular location

The different data used in the study area as 2008, Geocoded satellite imagery,
follows, National Remote Sensing Centre,
Hyderabad.
i) Base map prepared from a topographical iv) Field data involving observations of
map of Survey of India at 1:25,000 scale. lithology, structure, slope morphometry,
ii) Geological map from Geological Survey of relative relief and hydrogeological
India, Chennai. conditions.
iii) Land use/land cover map derived v) Software used ArcGIS 10.3, ERDAS
from IRS -1C LISS III March Imagine 2015.

7
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

The methodology followed was based on the moderate hazards, 10 facets go in low hazard
Bureau of Indian Standards 14496 (part 2) 1998. range and remaining 12 facets go in very low
The Landslide Hazard Zonation of this area has hazard range.
been prepared using the maximum landslide
hazard evaluation factor rating scheme (LHEF) The correction factor for weathering
and the total estimated hazard (TEHD). LHEF is
a numerical system is based on the major (i) Highly weathered – rock discoloured, joint
inherent causative factors of slope instability open with the weathered product, rock
such as lithology, structure, slope morphometry, fabric alter to a large extent – correction
relative relief, land use/land cover and factor C1
hydrogeological conditions. A detailed LHEF (ii) Moderately weathered – rock discoloured
rating scheme showing ratings for different types with fresh rock patches weathering more
of subcategories for individual causative factors around joint planes but rock intact in nature
[15] shown in Tables 1 and 2. The total estimated correction factor C2
hazard indicates the net probability of instability (iii) Slightly weathered – rock slightly
calculated facet wise. The TEHD of an individual along joint planes, which may be
facet was obtained by adding the ratings of the moderately tight to open intact rock-
individual causative factors obtained from LHEF correction factor C3. The rock correction
rating scheme. On the basis of TEHD, five for weathering to be multiplied with the
categories - very low hazard zone (< 3.5), low fresh rock rating.
hazard zone (3.5–5.0), moderate hazard zone
(5.1–6.0), high hazard zone (6.1–7.5) and very For rock type-I, C1=4, C2=3, and C3=2
high hazard zone (> 7.5) were classified [15,16]
and [17]. For rock type-II, C1=1.5, C2=1.25, and C3=1.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Facet Map

A detailed evaluation of landslide hazard
evaluation factor rating scheme (Tables 1 and 2) The landslide hazard zonation map of
showing numerical weightages of sub-watershed the study area is prepared on a facet map, which
of all the causative factors has been made for in turn is derived from the topographical map.
each facet identified. Based on the Landslide The facet map is prepared by demarcating
Hazard Evaluation Factor rating for individual slope facets on the Survey of India Toposheets
facets, Total Estimated Hazard (TEHD) was No. 58F/7SE, 58F/8NE, 58F/11SW and
estimated for different facets by adding the rating 58F/12NW of 1:25,000 scale by dividing the
values for individual facets. Facet wise topographical sheet into smaller facet. The
distribution of the TEHD values in the area slope facets are generally delineated by ridge
facilitates classification of the terrain into different break in slope, stream, spurs etc. Overall 82
hazard zones for Kumbur basin sub- facets are identified in this area shown in Fig. 4.
watershed [20]. As per the BIS classification
method, five different types of landslide hazard 3.2 Slope Morphometry
zonation are mentioned. Fig. 8 shows Landslide
Hazard Zonation of the study area. The The slope morphometry map defines various
distribution pattern of Landslide Hazard Zonation slope categories of the study area and is
indicates that 3 facets are in very high hazard, 17 prepared out of USGS/NASA SRTM image of 90
facets are in high hazard 40 are in m resolution (2007).

Table 2. Maximum LHEF Causative factor ratings

S. no Causative factor Maximum LHEF Rating

1. Lithology 2
2. Structure 2
3. Slope Morphometry 2
4. Relative relief 1
5. Land Use and Land Cover 2
6. Hydrological conditions 1
(Source: BIS code no: (IS: 14496 (part-2); 1998)

8
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Table 3. Landslide Hazard Evaluation Factor (LHEF) Rating Scheme

(IS: 14496 (part-2); 1998)
Contributory factor Rating
I. Lithology Type - I
Rock type Quartzite and limestone 0.2
Granite and gabbro 0.3
Gneiss 0.4
Type - II
Well cemented sedimentary rocks dominantly 1
Sandstone with minor beds of claystone
Poorly cemented sedimentary rocks dominantly 1.3
Sandstone with minor clay-beds
Type - III
Slate and phyllite 1.2
Schist 1.3
Shale inter-bedded with clayey and non-clayey rocks 1.8
Highly weathered shale, phyllite and schist 2
Older well cemented fluvial fill material 0.8
Clayey soil with naturally form surfaces 1
Sandy soil with naturally form surface (alluvial) 1.4
Soil type Debris comprising mostly rock pieces mixed with Clayey/sandy soil (colluvial)
older well compacted 1.2
Younger loose material 2
II. Structure (i) Relationship of parallelism I > 30º 0.20
Between the slope II 21º-30º 0.25
Discontinuity III 11º-20º 0.30
Planar IV 6º-10º 0.40
Wedge V < 5º 0.50
(ii) Relationship of dip I > 10º 0.3
Discontinuity and inclination II 0º-10º 0.5
Slope III 0º 0.7
Planar IV 0º-(-)10º 0.8
Wedge V >(-)10º 1
(iii) Dip of discontinuity I 0.20
II 0.25
III 0.30
IV 0.40
V 0.50
Depth of Soil cover <5m 0.65
6-10 m 0.85
11-15 m 1.30
16-20 m 2.00
> 20 m 1.20
III. Slope morphometry
(i) Escarpment/cliff > 45º 2.0
(ii) Steep slope 36º-45º 1.7
(iii) Moderately steep slope 26º-35º 1.2
(iv) Gentle slope 16º-25º 0.8
(v) Very gentle slope < 15º 0.5
IV. Relative Relief
(i) Low <100m 0.3
(ii) Medium 101-300m 0.6
(iii) High >300m 1.0

9
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Contributory factor Rating

V. Land use and land cover
(i) Agricultural land/populated flat land 0.6
(ii) Thickly vegetated forest area 0.8
(iii) Moderately vegetated area 1.2
(iv) Sparsely vegetated area with lesser ground cover 1.5
(v) Barren land 2
VI. Hydrogeological conditions
(i) Flowing 1
(ii) Dripping 0.8
(iii) Wet 0.5
(iv) Damp 0.2
(v) Dry 0

Fig. 4. Slope Facet Map of the Study Area

The distribution pattern of slopes in this area The area generally has very high relative relief of
varies from very gentle slope to escarpment, about 260 m and high relative relief of about 170
ranges between 0.5 and 2.0 respectively. The m and moderate relative relief of about 120 m
sub-watershed cover about 50 facets are in and followed by the medium of about 92 m
o o o
ranges on 35 – 45 inclination, 20 facets in 25 – and remaining 66 m is low relative relief shown in
o o o
35 inclination and 12 facets in 15 –25 ranges Fig. 6.
o
and remaining have slopes more than 45
inclination shown in Fig. 5. 3.4 Land Use and Land Cover

3.3 Relative Relief Land use and land cover map where prepared by
using NRSA classification and interpreted from
The relative relief value of each face is calculated IRS 1C and LISS III imagery. Land use and land
by using SOI Toposheets and LHEF rating given cover map are the indirect indications of the
to each facet. stability of the hill slopes. In the Kumbur basin

10
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Fig. 5. Slope map of the study area

Fig. 6. Relative relief map of the study area

11
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

Fig. 7. Land use map of the study area

Fig. 8. Landslide Hazard Zonation map of the study area

12
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

sub-watershed, 12 different types of land use ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

classes were identified such as Settlement, Crop
Land, Fallow Land, Plantation, Dense Forest, The authors thanks the Municipality of
Degraded Forest, Forest Blank, Scrub Land, Kodaikanal and Highways department, Dindigul
Barren Rocky, and River and reclassified into as who has provided the details of critical locations
per LHEF ratings. While agriculture and and for their high cooperation on this work.
plantation are the dominant land uses under the
classification present in this area. About 72% of COMPETING INTERESTS
the total area is occupied by agricultural
activities. Though scrubland is occupied around Authors have declared that no competing
12.35% of the area, most of the settlement is interests exist.
noticed in the southern part of the sub-
watershed. The Reserve Forest lands are
REFERENCES
situated in the southwest and southeast parts of
the study are shown in Fig. 7.
1. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY. Landslide
risk assessment and management: An
3.5 Hydro-geology
overview. Engineering Geology. 2002;
After monsoonal season, Hydrogeological 64(1):65–87.
conditions congregated from the field, for the 2. Cruden DM. A simple definition of a
reason that rainfall is an important triggering landslide. Bulletin IAEG. 1991;43(1):27-29.
factor of the vulnerable slides in hilly region. The 3. Mohammad Onagh, Kumra VK, Praveen
hydro-geological conditions of the sub-watershed Kumar Rai. Landslide susceptibility
show that eastern, central and southwestern mapping in a part of Uttarkashi district
parts of the facets are generally damp in (India) by multiple linear regression
conditions. Most of these areas are coming method. Int. J of Geology, Earth and
under agricultural activities; about 50 facets are Environmental Sciences. 2012;2(2):102-
shown in this condition. Sub-watershed shows 120.
that North and Northeastern portions, 4. Saranathan E, Rajesh Kumar, Kannan M,
Kizhanavayal area, Kumbur area are normally Anbalagan R. Landslide Macro Hazard
wet in condition. It is clearly shown that in these Zonation of the Yercaud Hill slopes ghat
areas few springs are present. About 27 facets sections – km 10/4 to 29/6, Indian
are coming under this condition. Remaining 5 Landslides. 2010;3(1):9-16.
facets are in dripping condition. 5. Saranathan E, Ravindar S,
Chandrasekaran R, Gopinath K, Kannan
4. CONCLUSION M. Landslide Susceptibility Zonation for
Kumuli Ghat section, Theni District,
LHZ mapping is a pragmatic approach which Tamil Nadu, Indian Landslides. 2011;4(1):
takes into accounts both inherent and 45-50.
external factors for slope instability. Stable zones 6. Saranathan E, Kannan M, Victor
like low hazard considered safe for civil Rajamanickam G. Assessment of
constructions. Hill slopes falling in moderate Landslide Hazard Zonation mapping in
hazard classes are also safe for construction Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu – India. Disaster
practice, but may contain local instability Advances. 2012;2(5):42-50.
conditions, which should be suitably accounted 7. Dikau R, Cavallin A, Jager S. Databases
during constructions. For slopes falling in high and GIS for landslide research in
hazard classes, it is always advisable to avoid Europe. Geomorphology. 1996;15(3-4):
constructions. For land developers eager to 227–239.
constructs on high hazard classes’ areas are 8. Leroi E. Landslide risk mapping: Problems,
subject for Detailed Geotechnical and limitations and developments. In Cruden,
Engineering studies. D., & Fell, R. (Eds), Landslide Risk
Assessment, A. A. Balkema Publishers,
The results of the present study can help Rotterdam; 1997.
citizens, planners and engineers to reduce 9. Carrara A, Guzzetti F, Cardinali M,
losses caused by existing and future Reichenbach P. Use of GIS technology in
landslides by means of prevention and the prediction and monitoring of landslide
mitigation. hazard. Nat Hazards. 1999;20:117–135.

13
 Mahesh et al.; JGEESI, 16(4): 1-14, 2018; Article no.JGEESI.42875

10. Dai FC, Lee CF. Landslide characteristics 15. Anbalagan R. Landslide hazard evaluation
and, slope instability modelling using and zonation mapping in mountainous
GIS, Lantau Island, Hong Kong. terrain. Engineering Geology. 1992;32:
Geomorphology. 2002a;42(3-4):213–228. 269- 277.
11. Dai FC, Lee CF. Landslides on natural 16. Anbalagan R. An overview of Landslide
terrain - physical characteristics and Hazards in Himalaya, Available Knowledge
susceptibility mapping in Hong Kong, Base, Gaps and Recommendation for
Mountain Research and Development. future research, Himalayan Geology. 1996;
2002b;22(1):40–47. 17:165-167.
12. Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinalli M, 17. Anbalagan R, Singh B, Chakraborty D,
Reichenbach. Landslide hazard evaluation: Kohli A. A filed manual for landslide
A review of current techniques and their investigations, Department of Science and
application in a multi-scale study Central Technology, New Delhi, India; 2007.
Italy. Geomorphology. 1999;31(1-4):181– 18. Manual of National Land Use and Land
216. Cover Mapping using Multi-temporal
13. Kannan M, Saranathan E. Macro Landslide Satellite Data, National Remote Sensing
Hazard Zonation Mapping – Case study Agency, Hyderabad; 1998.
from Bodi – Bodimettu Ghat section, Theni 19. Preparation of Landslide Hazard Zonation
District, Tamil Nadu – India, Journal of maps in mountainous terrains-guidelines,
Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 2011; part 2 Macro-zonation, Bureau of Indian
39(4):485-496. Standard, IS 14496; 1998.
14. Kannan M, Saranathan E, Anbazhagan R. 20. Pachauri AK. Facet based Landslide
Evaluation of Vulnerable Zones in Bodi- Hazard Zonation (LHZ) maps for the
Bodimettu Ghat section, Bodinayakkanur Himalayas: Example from Chamoli region,
Taluk, Theni District, Tamil Nadu, Indian Journal of Geological Society of India.
Landslides. 2011;4(1):39-44. 2007;69(6):1231-1240.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2018 Mahesh et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/25887

14