Remote Sensing Integration to Geohazard Management at the Castle-Monastery of Panagia Spiliani, Nisyros Island, Greece
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Panagia Spiliani as Cultural Heritage
1.2. Problem Statement
- Target of the safety measures. Active measures were essential, at least at the upper part of the slopes, to avoid effects on the structures of the monastery. Passive measures were only sufficient for small-scale instabilities at the lower part of the slopes, where the main target was to protect the public walking around the hill for access to the nearby beach of Chochlaki. Active measures required improved access to the slopes for observation and evaluation of the in situ conditions, as well as for the implementation of measures. Previous recent attempts (in the 2010s) to mitigate the risks were mainly limited to passive measures that did not contribute to the protection of the monastery.
- Geomaterials on the slopes. The nature, condition and structure of the geomaterials on the slopes were such that a wide range of response and failure types were observed, due to the range of weathering degree, erodibility, jointing and hardness. Failure types ranged from the detachment of small blocks from a small to moderate height, to the sliding and detachment of large hanging rock volumes from the crest of the slopes, with effects on the monastery and its surrounding space. The sliding of soil-like materials on the crest of the slope was also a risk.
- Aesthetics. Obvious restrictions existed relating to the effect of the measures on the alteration of the natural and man-made landscape. Technical solutions applied on part of the slopes during the 1980s (covering the slopes with shotcrete), albeit effective from a safety point of view, could of course no longer be applied.
- Geometry of the slopes and accessibility. The height of the slopes (20–35 m) and their inclination (often sub-vertical to locally negative), together with the existence of the monastery and the very limited access to the top for even small equipment and machinery, either for investigation or for construction, imposed restrictions to the proper geological and geotechnical mapping of the slopes and excluded solutions involving a reduction of the slope angle and/or slope height or measures that could not be installed manually or using hand-operated machinery. Sampling boreholes, which would be an option for a more detailed investigation of the conditions, were extremely difficult to execute due to these accessibility problems, and that was also the issue for the engineering geological mapping of the slopes. Remote sensing methods compensated for these problems and—in a manner of speaking—replaced the commonly applied techniques.
1.3. The Role of Remote Sensing
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. UAV Photogrammetry
2.1.1. Topographic Survey
2.1.2. Digital Geological Field Mapping
2.2. Terrestrial Laser Scanning
2.2.1. Rock Mass Structural Mapping
- (A)
- A detailed inspection of the 3D model and delineation of the critical tectonic discontinuities. Each extracted discontinuity comprises an individual subset of XYZ points.
- (B)
- Principle components analysis (PCA) on the XYZ feature space of each subset, to determine the normal vector which corresponds to the orientation of the surface it represents. The normal vector is calculated as the eigenvector corresponding to the lowers eigenvalue and its normal to the measured surface.
2.2.2. Support to Mitigation Design
3. Results
3.1. Topographic Survey—Construction of Cross-Sections
3.2. Engineering Geological Assessment
3.3. Mitigation Measures
- Avoidance of the further evolution of rock falls (rock blocks of small to moderate size) on the upper parts of the slopes, close to the foundation level of the monastery (1 of 2):
- 2.
- Avoidance of the further evolution of rock falls (rock blocks of large size) on the upper parts of the slopes, close to the foundation level of the monastery (2 of 2):
- 3.
- Protection of the foundation level of the monastery against sliding and erosion:
- 4.
- Erosion protection at the toes of the slopes:
- 5.
- Small-scale rock fall control:
- 6.
- Further protection of the public walking around the hill:
3.4. Remote Sensing Monitoring
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marinos, V.; Prountzopoulos, G.; Asteriou, P.; Papathanassiou, G.; Kaklis, T.; Pantazis, G.; Lambrou, E.; Grendas, N.; Karantanellis, E.; Pavlides, S. Beyond the Boundaries of Feasible Engineering Geological Solutions: Stability Considerations of the Spectacular Red Beach Cliffs on Santorini Island, Greece. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farmakis, I.; Marinos, V.; Papathanassiou, G.; Karantanellis, E. Automated 3D Jointed Rock Mass Structural Analysis and Characterization Using LiDAR Terrestrial Laser Scanner for Rockfall Susceptibility Assessment: Perissa Area Case (Santorini). Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2020, 38, 3007–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margottini, C.; Fidolini, F.; Iadanza, C.; Trigila, A.; Ubelmann, Y. The conservation of the Shahr-e-Zohak archaeological site (central Afghanistan): Geomorphological processes and ecosystem-based mitigation. Geomorphology 2015, 239, 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kincey, M.; Gerrard, C.; Warburton, J. Quantifying erosion of ‘at risk’ archaeological sites using repeat terrestrial laser scanning. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2017, 12, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicu, I.C.; Rubensdotter, L.; Stalsberg, K.; Nau, E. Coastal Erosion of Arctic Cultural Heritage in Danger: A Case Study from Svalbard, Norway. Water 2021, 13, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wichmann, V.; Strauhal, T.; Fey, C.; Perzlmaier, S. Derivation of Space-Resolved Normal Joint Spacing and in Situ Block Size Distribution Data from Terrestrial LIDAR Point Clouds in a Rugged Alpine Relief (Kühtai, Austria). Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2019, 78, 4465–4478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrap, R.M.; Hutchinson, D.J.; Sala, Z.; Ondercin, M.; Difrancesco, P.M. Our GIS Is a Game Engine: Bringing Unity to Spatial Simulation of Rockfalls. GeoComputation 2019, 2019, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Sala, Z.; Jean Hutchinson, D.; Harrap, R. Simulation of Fragmental Rockfalls Detected Using Terrestrial Laser Scans from Rock Slopes in South-Central British Columbia, Canada. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 19, 2385–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abellán, A.; Jaboyedoff, M.; Oppikofer, T.; Vilaplana, J.M. Detection of Millimetric Deformation Using a Terrestrial Laser Scanner: Experiment and Application to a Rockfall Event. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farmakis, I.; Hutchinson, D.J.; Vlachopoulos, N.; Westoby, M.; Lim, M. Slope-Scale Rockfall Susceptibility Modeling as a 3D Computer Vision Problem. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 2712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farmakis, I.; DiFrancesco, P.-M.; Hutchinson, D.J.; Vlachopoulos, N. Rockfall Detection Using LiDAR and Deep Learning. Eng. Geol. 2022, 309, 106836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.G.; Rosser, N.J.; Hardy, R.J.; Brain, M.J. The Importance of Monitoring Interval for Rockfall Magnitude-Frequency Estimation. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2019, 124, 2841–2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kromer, R.A.; Hutchinson, D.J.; Lato, M.J.; Gauthier, D.; Edwards, T. Identifying Rock Slope Failure Precursors Using LiDAR for Transportation Corridor Hazard Management. Eng. Geol. 2015, 195, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonneau, D.A.; Hutchinson, D.J.; Mcdougall, S. Characterizing Debris Transfer Patterns in the White Canyon, British Columbia with Terrestrial Laser Scanning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation, Golden, CO, USA, 10–13 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- DiFrancesco, P.M.; Bonneau, D.; Hutchinson, D.J. The Implications of M3C2 Projection Diameter on 3D Semi-Automated Rockfall Extraction from Sequential Terrestrial Laser Scanning Point Clouds. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westoby, M.J.; Brasington, J.; Glasser, N.F.; Hambrey, M.J.; Reynolds, J.M. “Structure-from-Motion” Photogrammetry: A Low-Cost, Effective Tool for Geoscience Applications. Geomorphology 2012, 179, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abellán, A.; Oppikofer, T.; Jaboyedoff, M.; Rosser, N.J.; Lim, M.; Lato, M.J. Terrestrial Laser Scanning of Rock Slope Instabilities. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2014, 39, 80–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farmakis, I.; Karantanellis, E.; Hutchinson, D.J.; Vlachopoulos, N.; Marinos, V. Superpixel and Supervoxel Segmentation Assessment of Landslides Using UAV-Derived Models. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 5668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besl, P.J.; McKay, N.D. A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1992, 14, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinos, P.; Hoek, E. GSI: A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength estimation. Paper Presented at the ISRM International Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, 19 November 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Blanch, X.; Guinau, M.; Eltner, A.; Abellan, A. A cost-effective image-based system for 3D geomorphic monitoring: An application to rockfalls. Geomorphology 2024, 449, 109065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, K.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, J. Smart monitoring of rock slopes: Combining laser scanning, photogrammetry and IoT. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2024, 147, 105655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Engineering Geological Unit | Unit Weight (kN/m3) | Hoek–Brown Parameters | Mohr–Coulomb Parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
σci (MPa) | GSI | Ei (GPa) | mi | φ (°) | c (kPa) | ||
EGU1 | 15–17 | - | - | - | - | 22–24 | 40–60 |
EGU2 | 18–19 | 9–11 | 52–67 | 1.7–1.8 | 12–18 | - | - |
EGU3 | 19–20 | 10–12 | 55–70 | 1.8–2.0 | 15–20 | - | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vassilis, M.; Ioannis, F.; Themistoklis, C.; Dimitra, P.; Georgios, S.; Georgios, P.; Efstratios, K. Remote Sensing Integration to Geohazard Management at the Castle-Monastery of Panagia Spiliani, Nisyros Island, Greece. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2768. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16152768
Vassilis M, Ioannis F, Themistoklis C, Dimitra P, Georgios S, Georgios P, Efstratios K. Remote Sensing Integration to Geohazard Management at the Castle-Monastery of Panagia Spiliani, Nisyros Island, Greece. Remote Sensing. 2024; 16(15):2768. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16152768
Chicago/Turabian StyleVassilis, Marinos, Farmakis Ioannis, Chatzitheodosiou Themistoklis, Papouli Dimitra, Stoumpos Georgios, Prountzopoulos Georgios, and Karantanellis Efstratios. 2024. "Remote Sensing Integration to Geohazard Management at the Castle-Monastery of Panagia Spiliani, Nisyros Island, Greece" Remote Sensing 16, no. 15: 2768. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16152768
APA StyleVassilis, M., Ioannis, F., Themistoklis, C., Dimitra, P., Georgios, S., Georgios, P., & Efstratios, K. (2024). Remote Sensing Integration to Geohazard Management at the Castle-Monastery of Panagia Spiliani, Nisyros Island, Greece. Remote Sensing, 16(15), 2768. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16152768