landslide management using geospatial technology (lmgt)

LANDSLIDE MANAGEMENT USING GEOSPATIAL
TECHNOLOGY
(LMGT): CASE STUDY FOR KOTA KINABALU
AREA, SABAH, MALAYSIA
Rodeano Roslee1, Mustapa Abd. Talip1 &
Tajul Anuar Jamaluddin2
Centre for Remote Sensing & GIS (CERGIS),
Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Locked Bag 2073,
88999 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah
1
Geology Program, Centre for Environmental Science
and Natural Resources, Faculty of Science and
Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600
Bangi, Selangor
2
OUTLINE
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussions
 Conclusions
 Acknowledgement
INTRODUCTION
Landslide – Geohazards process
caused fatalities and property loss
 Occur in natural slopes and artificial
slopes (cut and embankment).
 The frequency of landslide occurrences
growing each year:






Development increase on hilly/highland
areas.
Lack of experience and technical
weakness in slope engineering.
Lack of awareness and negligence.
Climate change.
Lack of monitoring & enforcement for the
policies/guidelines/acts available.
Highland Tower Landslide, Ampang
(11th Dec 1993) (48 fatalities)
(Cont’d)


Although landslide usually associated with
hilly area, mountainous or hillside areas, but
it can still happen in flat area.
In flat areas, landslide may occur on cuts and
embankment slopes (construction of
highways and buildings), river bank, landslide
spread type, collapse/subsidence/sinkhole
and various types associated with quarrying
and mining exposure.
Rawang Perdana, 2001
(Tajul Anuar Jamaluddin, 2009)
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND LANDSLIDE IN MALAYSIA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Akta Pemuliharaan Tanah, 1960, Akta 385.
Kanun Tanah Negara, 1965 (Akta 56/1995).
Akta Jalan, Parit Dan Bangunan 1974, Akta 133.
Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling, 1974, Akta 127.
Akta Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa, Akta 172, (1976) dan Pindaan Akta
Perancangan Bandar dan Desa, Akta A933(1995).
6. Undang-Undang Kecil Bangunan Seragam, 1984.
7. Penilaian Kesan Alam Sekitar, EIA (Jabatan Alam Sekitar Malaysia), 2003.
8. Garis Panduan Pemeliharaan Topografi Semulajadi Di Kawasan Berbukit
Dalam Perancangan Dan Pembangunan Fizikal Oleh JPBD
9. Garis Panduan/Sistem Pengurusan Cerun (Jabatan Kerja Raya) (Slope
Maintenance System (SMS), Malaysian Engineered Hillslope Management
System (MEHMS), Combined Hydrological and Stability Model (CHASM),
Slope Priority Ranking System (SPRS), Sistem Pengurusan Maklumat
Cerun (SIMS) & Slope Management and Risk Tracking System (SMART).
(Cont’d)
10. Garis Panduan/Pemetaan Geologi Terain, Jabatan Mineral
dan Geosains.
11. Garis Panduan Unit Perancang Ekonomi (UPE).
12. Mitigating the risk of landslide on hill-site developent (The
Institution of Engineers).
13. Garis Panduan Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK).
14. Penilaian Kesan Alam Sekitar (EIA) bagi pembinaan Lereng
Bukit (Jabatan Perlindungan Alam Sekitar Negeri Sabah,
Malaysia.
(Cont’d)
Reality….?
(Cont’d)
(Tajul Anuar Jamaluddin, 2009)
(Cont’d)
IN SABAH….. ?
(Cont’d)
(Cont’d)
Karambunai Resort
Kg. Lok Bunuq, Sepanggar
(06/01/2001 & 12/10/2006)
(Cont’d)
Landslide records in Malaysia
26.
Bil
Tarikh
Lokasi
Fatiliti/ Kerugian
1.
2.
3.
17 Dis 1919
18 Okt 1973
1980
Bukit Tunggal, Perak
Gunung Cheroh, Perak
Batu Caves
4
10 April1992
Jalan Sultan Ismail, KL
12 mati
40 mati
13 mati
Sebahagian jalan
ditutup
27 Dis 1992
Kuari di Pulak Salak Batu,
Sandakan
5 Feb 1993
Sekolah Menengah Maxwell, KL
13 Mei 1993
15 Mei 1993
5.
1 mati
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Kampung Sri Serendah,
Serendah
Koleksi surat khabar
lama musnah
10 buah keluarga
dipindahkan
Pancor, Seremban
4 buah kereta musnah
33.
8 Sept 1993
Landasan keretapi Sungai Buloh
Perkhidmatan keretapi
tergendala
34.
10.
25 Okt 1993
Jalan Kuala Lipis-Gua Musang
1 terbunuh 1 cedera
35.
11.
16 Nov 1993
Taman Lipis II
Kenderaan tertimbus
12.
22 Nov 1993
Hong Seng Estate, Pulau Pinang
1 buah rumah musnah
13.
28 Nov 1993
KM 63 Lebuhraya KL - Karak
2 mati
14.
30 Nov 1993
Jalan Bandar Baru Salak – Nilai
2 mati
30 Nov 1993
Taman Golden Dragon, Kampar
1 buah van nyaris
tertimbus
11 Dis 1993
Blok 1 Highland Towers,
Ampang
48 mati
39.
17.
15 Dis 1993
Kuala Lipis
9 kereta tertimbus
40.
18.
22 Mac 1994
Pine Resort, Bukit Fraser
Apartment rosak
2 Mei 1994
Perumahan Puchong
Perdana(bekas lombong)
3 mati
20.
30 Mei 1994
Lombong Bijih timah di Kampar
2 mati
21.
17 Nov 1994
Km 81 Jalan Gerik-Jeli
2 mati
6.
7.
8.
9.
15.
16.
19.
32.
36.
37.
8 Dis 1994
Cameron Highland
7 mati, 3 buah
rumah musnah
30 Jun 1995
Genting Sempah, jalan
ke Genting Highlands
20 mati, 22 cedera
9 Okt 1995
Masjid Tanah, Melaka
16 Okt 1995
Changkat Tunku
1 Nov 1995
6 Jan 1996
30 Ogos 1996
10 Okt 1996
18 Okt 1996
18 Okt 1996
13 Feb 1997
12 Mac 1997
Jalan Tapah-Cameron
Highlands
Gua Gempurung,
Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan
Aliran debris Pos
Dipang, Kampar, Perak.
Km 49 Jln Ipoh, Kuala
Terla, Cameron Highland
Tanah Rata Cameron
Highland Pahang
Gelang Patah Johor
Km 4.5 Jln Tuaran,
Sabah
Rumah Panjang KTM,
Kg Kerinchi
38.
11 Mei 1997
41.
42.
43.
9 Okt 1997
25 Dis 1997
Jalan Pantai Dalam, KL
Jalan Tok Ungku,
Seremban
Km14 Lebuhraya Hulu
Langat-Ampang
27 Ogos 1998
Puchong Jaya
28 Nov 1998
Bukit Awana, Pulau
Pinang
24 Dis 1998
Taman Kejora 1, Kulim
Bahagian sisi kedai
musnah
Bahagian belakang
rumah musnah
Jalan ditutup
1 mati, 1 lori
tertimbus
44 mati, 9 hilang &
kampung musnah
4 mati, 2 cedera
16 keluarga
dipindahkan
1 maut, 6 keluarga
dipindahkan
Sebahagian jalan
tertimbus
1 cedera
1 mati 4 cedera, 19
keluarga
dipindahkan
1 mati
3 mati
1 buah kereta
tertimbus
15 kenderaan
tertimbus
20 orang
dipindahkan
(Cont’d)
44.
45.
46.
47.
15 Mei 1999
7 Jan 2000
9 Jan 2000
Bukit Antarabangsa
Kampung Raja, Batu 48
and Batu 49,Tringkap
Tanah Rata – Brinchang,
Cameron Highland
10 ribu penduduk
terkandas
62.
25 Feb 2000
Kampung Sri Damai,
Taman Kencana, Ampang
1 mati
28 Ogos
2000
Subang Jaya
28 Dis 2000
Taman Rasa Jaya
21 Sept
2001
Kg. Sungai Chinchin, Bt.
8, Jln Gombak, Selangor
52.
7 Jan 2001
Sepanggar Bay, Sabah
3 mati
53.
13 April
2001
22 Sept
2001
Tmn Rawang Perdana,
Rawang
Sg Chinchin, Km 13, Jln
Gombak
Rumah-rumah
rosak
28 Dis 2001
Gunung Pulai, Johor
4 mati
28 Jan 2002
Simunjan, Kuching,
Sarawak
16 mati, beberapa
buah rumah
musnah
20 Nov 2002
Taman Hillview, Ampang
Jaya
8 mati, 5 cedera
26 Nov 2003
Runtuhan batuan di Bukit
Lanjan (North Klang
Valley Expressway)
Lebuhraya
terpaksa ditutup
untuk tempoh > 6
bulan.
12 Oct. 2004
Debris flow at Gua
Tempurung (PLUS
Highway)
Kerosakan pada
jambatan
51.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
26 Jun 2006
63.
17 cedera
50.
31 Mei 2006
5 mati
Sandakan, Sabah
49.
5 Nov. 2004
Gangguan
7 Feb 2000
48.
60.
61.
Perkhidmatan
komuter tergendala
5 buah rumah
musnah
1 maut, beberapa
buah rumah dan
kenderaan rosak
1 mati
9 Okt 2006
64.
65.
66.
Okt. 2006
22 Mac 2007
Sept. 2007
Taman Harmonis, Gombak
Kg Pasir, Hulu Kelang,
Selngor
Jalan Persekutuan 606
Sepanggar, Sabah
Section 10, Wangsa Maju,
Kuala Lumpur
Jln Tg. Tualang-Sg. Durian,
Perak
Kuarters Kerajaan, Presinct
9, Putrajaya
Kolej Ibrahim Yaakub,
UKM Bangi
1 maut, 1 rumah rosak
4 maut, 3 blok rumah
panjang rosak
1 maut dan beberapa buah
rumah musnah
Penduduk 3 blok rumah
panjang terpaksa
dipindahkan
Jalan ditutup secara berkala
untuk kerja membaikpulih
25 kenderaan rosak
1 blok asrama dikosongkan
Sources: Shu et al. 1981, Chow 1981, Chow 1984, Chan, 1998, Tajul
Anuar Jamaluddin et al. 2003, http//:www.emedia.com.my, News Straits
Times 2007, Institut Penyelidikan Tanah Runtuh Negara (NASREC)
UiTM (2007), Cawangan Kejuruteraan Cerun JKR, (2007) & Tajul
Anuar Jamaluddin 2009.
LANDSLIDE MORPHOLOGY
Varnes (1978)
LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATIONS
Materials
Mechanisme
Soils
Rocks
Non-Cohesive
Cohesive
Fall
Rock Fall
Debris Fall
Soil Fall
Toppling
Rock Toppling
Debris Toppling
Soil Toppling
Rock Slide
Debris Slide
Soil Slide
Lateral Spread
Rock Spread
Debris Spread
Soil Spread
Flow
Rock Flow
Debris Flow
Soil Flow
Slide
Rotational
Translational
Complex
Combinations of two or more types of moving
(Varnes, 1984)
(Cont’d)
LANDSLIDE CAUSING FACTORS
Natural Factors:

Geology


Geomorphologiy


Geomechanic identifications.
Precipitation/Water runoff/Groundwater table


Physical & chemical change.
Geological structures and discontinuities


Slope locations and geomorphological process.
Weathering


Rock types, mineral content, texture, grain size etc.
Water and/or snow as triggering factors.
Aktiviti Seismos (gegaran gempabumi)

Earthquakes as triggering factors.
(Cont’d)
Non-Natural Factors:

Design/engineering
weakness (e.g. slope
built too steep, too high).

Deforestation,
hill
denudation,
loading
above slope, too steep
at foot slope, etc.).
(Cont’d)
Non-Natural Factors:

Incompatibility land
use (construction on
slope too steep, active
slope, weak bedrock,
etc.)

Lack of maintenance
(clogged
drains,
drainage
systems
malfunction, erosion,
etc.).
(Cont’d)
Non-Natural Factors:

The
vibration
of
heavy vehicles, work
piling or blasting
rocks
in
nearby
quarry, etc.

Lack of supervision
during
the
construction
of
stabilization
structures/slope
protection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
LANDSLIDE MANAGEMENT USING GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY (LMGT)

What are the probable dangers/problems? [Danger
Identification]

What would be the magnitude of dangers/problems?
[Hazard Assessment]

What are the possible consequences and/or elements at
risk? [Consequence/Elements at Risk Identification]

What might be the degree of damage in elements at
risk? [Vulnerability Assessment]

What is the probability
Quantification/Estimation]

What is the significance of estimated risk? [Risk
Evaluation]

What should be done? [Risk Management]
of
damage?
[Risk
(Cont’d)
LRM Cycles (Taubenb¨ock et al., 2007)
(Cont’d)
Relationship in LRM (Alexander, 2002)
(Cont’d)
CONCEPTS
Risk = Hazard x Elements at risk x Vulnerability
Vulnerability: The degree of loss to a given element or set of
elements within the area affected by a hazard. It is expressed on a
scale of 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss).
Elements at risk: Population, buildings and engineering works,
infrastructure, environmental features and economic activities in the
area affected by a hazard.
Hazard: Probability that a particular danger (threat) occurs within a
given period of time.
Rating value for landslide hazard analysis (LHA)
No
Landslide Hazard
Identifications
Factors Parameter






1
2
Geology
Soil Types


















Lithology
Quaternary Alluvium (Clay, silt, sand & peat)
Arenaceous and argillaceous rocks, coal and calcareous beds
Argillaceous rocks; some arenaceous and calcareous beds
Argillaceous rocks; some arenaceous and calcareous rocks, and associated
chert, lava and pyroclastics
Mainly metamorphic rocks of amphibolite, gneiss and schist and associated
granite, granodiorite and tonalite (Crystalline Basement)
Gabbro, dolorite, diorite and their fine-grained equivalents
Serpentinite, peridotite, dunite and pyroxenite
Granodiorite, diorite and granite
Fault (distance)
< 10 m
11 m – 50 m
51 m – 99 m
> 100 m
Thionic fluvisols, dystric histosol and thionic gleysol
Dystric & eutric regosols, humic, dystric & eustric gleysols and gleyic podzol
Eutric fluvisol, gleyic, dystric & eutric cambisols, humic, dystric and eutric
gleysols
Gleyic acrisols, gleyic luvisols, humic, dystrik and eutric gleysols
Humic, dystrik & eutric gleysols and dystric histosols
Dystric histosols and humic gleysol
Orthic, ferric & gleyic acrisols and gleyic podzol
Orthic, ferric and gleyic acrisols
Orthic acrisols and dystric cambisol
Orthic acrisols, chromic, dystric cambisol and lithosol
Rating Value
15.0
13.0
11.0
10.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
1.5
0.5
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
(Cont’d)
No
3
4
5
Landslide Hazard
Identifications
Slope Gradient
Hydrology and
Geohydrology
Types of land use
Factors Parameter























60o
31o – 60o
16o – 30o
6o – 15o
0o – 5o
Precipitation (monthly ave.)
> 300 mm
201 mm – 300 mm
101 mm – 200 mm
41 mm – 100 mm
0 mm – 40 mm
Water runoff (distance)
<5m
6 m – 10 m
11 m – 15 m
16 m – 20 m
> 20 m
Commercial sector
Residential sector
High education institutions & school
Industrial sector
Public infrastructure sector
Agriculture, forestry and others
Rating
Value
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
15.0
13.0
11.0
9.0
7.0
5.0
(Cont’d)
No
6
Landslide Hazard
Identifica-tions










Engineering

characteristics of 
soils and rocks 


or,






Factors Parameter
Soil Shear Strength () (kN/m2)
< 20
20 – 40
40 – 75
75 – 150
150 – 300
> 300
Standard penetration test (SPT) (N)
Cohesive soil
0–2
2–4
4–8
8 – 15
15 – 30
> 30
Non-cohesive soil
0–4
4 – 10
10 – 30
30 – 50
> 50
Rating
Value
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
(Cont’d)
No
Landslide
Hazard
Identifica-tions
Factors Parameter






6
Engineering
characteristics
of soils and

rocks





Rating
Value
Rock Shear Stress () (kN/m2)
< 25
25 – 50
50 – 100
100 – 250
> 250
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Rock quality designation (RQD) (%)
< 25
25 – 50
50 – 75
75 – 90
90 – 100
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Landslide Hazard Analysis (LHA)
 Landslide hazard Analysis (LHA) is the fundamental
information for any hazard assessment or every final
assessment in landslide studies.
 In this study, LHA were categories into seven parameters:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Geology,
Geodynamic features
Slope conditions
Hydrology/geohydrology
Types of landuse, and
Engineering characteristics of soils and rocks.
(Cont’d)
Geological map
Landslide distributions map
 0o – 20o” (49 %)
 21o – 40o (5 % )
 41o – 60o (33%)
 61o – 80o (12%)
> 80o (1%)
Digital elevation model (DEM)
Slope gradient map
(Cont’d)
Geohydrology map
Hydrology map
 Residential sector
(15%)
 Commercial sector
(10%)
 Industrial sector
(8%)
 Higher education
institutions & schools
sector (7%)
 Public infrastructure
sector (5%)
Land use map
Soil types map
(Cont’d)
Analysis results of rock samples
Outcrop Locations
RS1
RS2
RS3
RS4
RS5
RS6
RS7
Coordinates
6°1'16.60"U
/116°6'45.64"T
5°56'23.85"U/
116°3'27.37"T
5°58'18.41"U/
116°4'37.13"T
5°59'13.81"U/
116°4'37.04"T
5°58'31.61"U/
116°4'10.30"T
6°6'59.46"U/
116°9'53.46"T
5°56'50.70"U/
116°5'44.11"T
Lithology
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Weathering grade
II to V
IV to V
III to V
III to IV
III to IV
III to IV
III to IV
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (%)
9 – 87
13 – 34
6 – 63
38 – 77
12 – 65
15 – 35
12 – 28
Point load strength index, I s(50)
0.42 – 4.80
1.04 – 5.20
3.12 – 11.45
8.33 – 13.53
0.22 – 1.76
0.81 – 3.67
0.62 – 2.39
Uniaxial compressive strength
correlation, UCS = 24 I S (50) (mPa)
10.19 – 115.20
24.99 – 124.90
74.94 – 274.79
199.85 –
324.75
5.28 – 42.24
19.44 – 88.08
14.88 – 57.36
Outcrop Locations
RS8
RS9
RS10
RS11
RS12
RS13
RS14
Coordinates
5°55'10.06"U/
116°6'51.31"T
5°55'2.07"U
/116°5'41.20"T
5°58'11.14"U/
116°5'29.89"T
5°55'56.11"U/
116°7'1.67"T
6°2'40.14"U/
116°9'26.51"T
6°0'16.50" U/
116°7'51.67"T
6°6'7.09"U/
116°10'29.69"T
Lithology
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Weathering grade
III to IV
IV to V
III to IV
III to IV
III to IV
III to V
II to IV
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (%)
18 – 38
10 – 25
12 – 43
17 – 31
18 – 45
5 – 25
16 – 86
Point load strength index, I s(50)
0.08 – 1.12
0.04 – 0.16
0.76 – 4.40
0.12 – 0.44
0.04 – 0.32
1.04 – 5.20
0.10 – 0.73
Uniaxial compressive strength
correlation, UCS = 24 I S (50) (mPa)
1.92 – 26.88
0.96 – 3.84
18.24 – 105.60
2.88 – 10.56
0.96 – 7.68
24.99 – 124.90
2.40 – 17.52
Outcrop Locations
RS15
RS16
RS17
RS18
RS19
RS20
Coordinates
5°55'10.27"U/
116°3'39.42"T
6°7'15.00"U/
116°12'30.38"T
6°0'56.04"U/
116° 7'36.55"T
6°0'27.16"U/
116° 8'54.60"T
6°0'26.38"U/
116°7'49.42"T
5°58'26.97"U/
116°4'55.00"T
Lithology
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Interbedded
sandstone-shale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Interbedded
sandstoneshale
Weathering grade
III to V
III to IV
IV to V
III to IV
III to V
II to IV
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (%)
8 – 50
12 – 35
10 – 20
22 – 55
15 – 40
12 – 37
Point load strength index, Is(50)
0.14 – 0.52
0.38 – 7.68
0.55 – 2.89
1.35 – 2.71
0.48 – 1.25
1.04 – 10.41
Uniaxial compressive strength
correlation, UCS = 24 IS (50) (mPa)
3.36 – 12.48
9.12 – 184.32
13.20 – 69.36
32.48 – 64.95
11.52 – 30.00
24.98 – 249.81
(Cont’d)
Outcrop Locations
Analysis results of soil samples
SS1
6°1'16.60"U
/116°6'45.64"T
Weston
SM
V to VI
36 – 50
7 – 18
10 – 20
18 – 62
1 – 60
12.43
15.86
SS2
5°56'23.85"U/
116°3'27.37"T
Dalit
CL
V to VI
11 – 50
50
31
13
6
48
23
25
14.25
20.60
SS3
5°58'18.41"U/
116°4'37.13"T
Kinabatangan
CH
V to VI
3 – 50
10 – 16
6 – 10
33 – 50
24 – 64
33 – 50
16 – 26
17 – 24
3.92 – 9.81
21.20 – 28.47
SS4
5°59'13.81"U/
116°4'37.04"T
Sapi
CL
V to VI
9 – 15
29 – 67
10 – 30
3 – 60
0–7
29 – 47
17 – 26
12 – 21
6.82 – 21.62
2.47 – 3.43
SS5
5°58'31.61"U/
116°4'10.30"T
Lokan
CL
V to VI
5 – 14
41 – 55
20 – 30
14 – 35
1–4
42 – 44
20 – 24
20 – 22
13.71
17.90
SS6
6°6'59.46"U/
116°9'53.46"T
Tuaran
SM
V to VI
1 - 15
5 - 15
10 – 24
60 – 80
1 – 15
18.31 – 33.98
1.80 – 3.89
SS7
5°56'50.70"U/
116°5'44.11"T
Klias
SC
V to VI
9 – 29
10 – 22
17 – 25
44 – 72
1 – 24
12.30
26.70
SS8
5°55'10.06"U/
116°6'51.31"T
Tanjung Aru
SM
V to VI
9 – 23
20 – 24
20 – 22
47 – 90
1 – 13
10.4 – 10.6
3.39 – 15.30
97.66
89.43
81.49 – 118.27
15.45 – 33.61
78.31
27.74 – 54.38
163.18
28.17 – 92.67
SS9
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
Coordinates
5°55'2.07"U
/116°5'41.20"T
5°58'11.14"U/
116°5'29.89"T
5°55'56.11"U/
116°7'1.67"T
6°2'40.14"U/
116°9'26.51"T
6°0'16.50" U/
116°7'51.67"T
6°6'7.09"U/
116°10'29.69"
T
5°55'10.27"U/
116°3'39.42"T
6°7'15.00"U/
116°12'30.38"
T
Soil Association (s)
Classification (BS5930)
Weathering grade
Standard Penetration Test (N)
Clay (0.002 mm)
Silt (0.002 - 0.0063 mm)
Sand (0.0063 – 2.000 mm)
Gravel (2.000 – 63.000 mm)
Lokan
CL
V to VI
5 – 42
41 – 45
20 – 26
3 – 39
1–3
Brantian
SM
V to VI
7 – 13
18 – 20
24 – 28
46 – 50
2 – 12
Brantian
SM
V to VI
2 – 16
11 – 17
10 – 20
51 – 79
1 – 17
Klias
SC
V to VI
9 – 15
13 – 15
20 – 22
57 – 63
4–7
Kinabatangan
CH
V to VI
3 – 33
27 – 64
20 – 30
6 – 51
1–3
Crocker
CH
V to VI
18 – 49
33 – 49
30 – 38
4 – 41
0–6
Tanjung Aru
SM
V to VI
6 – 30
1 – 15
1 – 26
56 – 94
0 – 10
Weston
SM
V to VI
2 – 23
2 – 28
2 – 20
14 – 20
1–7
Liquid Limit (LL) (%)
33 – 49
-
-
-
54 - 56
28 – 65
-
-
Plastic Limit (PL) (%)
Plasticity Index (PI) (%)
Cohesion, C (kN/m2)
Friction angle (o)
Undrained Shear Strength (S)
(kN/m2)
15 – 20
18 – 29
9 – 13.1
5.2 – 11.1
12.00
13.46
9.40
14.52
21 - 27
29 – 33
13.42 – 15.72
4.51 – 6.01
16 – 31
12 – 34
9.96 – 19.27
3.13 – 16.80
83.80
87.10
29.20 – 36.78
20.89 – 79.65
4.95 – 15.99
8.31 – 17.85
48.77 –
112.60
1.67 – 9.36
4.27 – 7.64
27.20 – 52.34
5.81 – 9.57
7.46 – 24.26
45.09 –
144.77
Coordinates
Soil Association (s)
Classification (BS5930)
Weathering grade
Standard Penetration Test (N)
Clay (0.002 mm)
Silt (0.002 - 0.0063 mm)
Sand (0.0063 – 2.000 mm)
Gravel (2.000 – 63.000 mm)
Liquid Limit (LL) (%)
Plastic Limit (PL) (%)
Plasticity Index (PI) (%)
Cohesion, C (kN/m2)
Friction angle (o)
Undrained Shear Strength (S)
(kN/m2)
Outcrop Locations
24.07 – 49.60
(Cont’d)
Analysis results of soil samples
Outcrop Locations
Coordinates
Soil Association (s)
Classification (BS5930)
Weathering grade
Standard Penetration Test (N)
Clay (0.002 mm)
Silt (0.002 - 0.0063 mm)
Sand (0.0063 – 2.000 mm)
Gravel (2.000 – 63.000 mm)
Liquid Limit (LL) (%)
Plastic Limit (PL) (%)
Plasticity Index (PI) (%)
Cohesion, C (kN/m2)
Friction angle (o)
Undrained Shear Strength (S)
(kN/m2)
SS17
6°0'56.04"U/
116° 7'36.55"T
Dalit
CL
V to VI
2 – 20
34 – 40
20 – 34
26 – 45
0–1
28 – 33
15 – 17
13 – 16
13.95 – 14.58
3.81 – 4.15
SS18
6°0'27.16"U/
116° 8'54.60"T
Sapi
CL
V to VI
16 – 50
27 – 60
20 – 30
9 – 43
1 – 15
34 – 46
14 – 18
20 – 28
42.89 – 44.86
4.44 – 4.78
SS19
6°0'26.38"U/
116°7'49.42"T
Tuaran
SM
V to VI
3 – 16
6 – 12
6 – 10
76 – 86
1–4
4.70 – 8.46
2.22 – 6.86
SS20
5°58'26.97"U/
116°4'55.00"T
Crocker
CL
V to VI
3 – 39
49 – 52
20 – 40
8 – 30
0–1
27 – 36
15 – 21
12 – 15
3.46 – 11.95
3.01 – 7.54
27.27 – 29.09
58.42 – 61.58
20.09 – 40.79
13.98 – 38.42
(Cont’d)
 Very Low Hazard
(10 %)
 Low Hazard (16%)
 Moderate
Hazard(14% )
 High Hazard (48%)
 Very High Hazard
(12%)
Landslide hazard analysis results
(Cont’d)
Population Map (PM)
 Kota Kinabalu City area estimated having highest
populations of 457,661 persons, followed by
Penampang area of 170,357 persons, and the Tuaran
area of 104,659 persons.
 Population rate increments in study area were
estimated about 30 % to 50 % for each 10 year (Year
1980: 195,097, year 1991: 360,111, year 2000:
563,597 & year 2008: 732,677) (Jabatan Perangkaan
Malaysia, 2008).
 This situation indicates that the elements at risk
(people, vehicles, infrastructure and property) will
continue to rise.
Property Value Map (PVM)
 A total of four (4) main land use is taken into
account in this paper namely the residential sector,
commercial sector, industrial sector, and agricultural,
forestry and others sectors.
Based on the results of LMGT analysis carried out,
commercial property sector recorded the highest
value of (751,125,100,000) (00,000'), followed by
the residential sector (42,260,953,000) (00,000'),
industrial sector (603,765,000) (00,000') and
agricultural, forestry and others sectors
(211,577,000) (00,000').
(Cont’d)
 Very Low Risk zone
(14%)
 Low Risk zone
(10%)
 Moderate Risk
zone (52%)
 High Risk zone
(22%)
 Very High Risk
zone (2%)
Landslide risk analysis results
(Cont’d)
Family of F-N curves by Proske (2006)
(Cont’d)
Risk criteria for natural hillsides by GEO (1998)
(Cont’d)
Definitions of "acceptance criteria" for landslides
No. Risk Qualifier
Definition
1 Acceptable Level society desires to achieve
Level society accepts to live with to
2
Tolerable
secure certain benefits
3
Individual Imposed on an individual
4
Societal
Imposed to society as a whole
Risk voluntarily faced to gain
5
Voluntary
benefits
6 Involuntary Risk imposed by a body
7
Specific
Risk for a specific element
8
Total
Sum of specific risks
CONCLUSIONS
1.
In terms of landslide hazards, the resulted LHM of Kota Kinabalu area
suggests that 10% of the area can be categorised as Very Low Hazard, 16%
as Low Hazard, 14% as Moderate Hazard, 48% as High Hazard and 12% as
Very High Hazard. Whereas, in terms of landslide risks, the LRM indicates
that 14% of the area is in Very Low Risk zone, 10% in Low Risk zone, 52%
in Medium Risk zone, 22% in High Risk zone and 2% in Very High Risk
zone. Areas with low degree of landslides hazard does not mean have the
low risk to experience landslides, and vice-versa.
2. The benefit of a LMGT is to provide insight and options for decision-making
in practical problems. The benefits includes:
 It encourages a rational, systematic approach for assessing the safety of slopes, and a
framework to put uncertainties and engineering judgment into a system and allows
comparison of hazards and risks for different slopes.
 It focuses attention or what happens if the slope fails and liabilities and responsibilities of
the parties involved and provides an open and transparent process on the nature and key
contributors of risk and uncertainty for discussion with the regulators, owners, stakeholders,
etc. (Fell et al., 2005).
 It increases awareness of the need to consider uncertainties, and insight on what can go
wrong and their potential consequences.
(Cont’d)
3. Due to its generalized data input, the resulting LMGT cannot be used by
local administration for detailed engineering structural design, but it is of
great value for either local and federal departments government or
developers to locate areas prone to landslide hazard or high risk areas, to
organize more detailed analysis in the identified “hot spot” (hazardous
areas) and can manage the impact of landslide disaster that may affect
the regional economy (loss and damage to property), or welfare of the
community (deaths and homeless) (risky areas).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 Centre for National Infrastructures of Geospatial
Data (MAcGDI)
 Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
 Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) – CERGIS
 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) - SEDPRI