Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII 177

Precision of D.M.S. columns from real time

in-place measurements and improvement in
micro-movements analysis with
early warning function
M. Lovisolo1 & A. Della Giusta2
1
C.S.G. S.r.l., Italy
2
University of Padova, Italy

Abstract
This paper contains results of statistics on inclinometric data sets obtained from
the in-place multiparametric differential system D.M.S. The data analysed here
have been collected continuously at prescribed time intervals, and refer to
landslide case histories. An estimate of measurements precision was obtained
combining the results of both laboratory tests and ‘in-situ’ strings of sensors in
vertical boreholes of different depth. Measurement uncertainty is well within the
requirements for In Place Inclinometers (Dunnicliff and La Fonta [1], La Fonta
and Beth [2]). The statistically redundant data collected by D.M.S. allows an
appreciable improvement of precision in field measurements. This is a first step
towards the solution of the problem of early warning systems for public safety.
Keywords: D.M.S., inclinometric data, multiparametric differential system,
precision, systematic errors, landslide, micro-movement, early warning.

1 Introduction
Knowing the accuracy and precision of inclinometric data is very relevant,
particularly when even the smallest indication of displacement is a matter of
concern. As thoroughly discussed for the case of probe inclinometers among
others by Mikkelsen [3], field measurements can be influenced by several
systematic errors, thus producing false indication of displacement. As a
consequence, data must always be accurately screened to evaluate the error

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
178 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII

potential in order to avoid engineering action based on errors instead of actual

displacements.
Mikkelsen [3] evidences that the system field accuracy of the inclinometer
probe survey is ±7.8mm, for a 30m hole.
This specification was derived empirically from a large number of dataset and
includes 50 readings with a 2 foot probe with casing installed within 3° of
vertical, and includes both random and systematic error. Among the systematic
errors, the most common are: a single calibration bias-shift between opposite
reading traverses, sensitivity drift, rotation error from the combination of casing
inclination and sensor alignment, and depth positioning.
For a single reading increment random errors were found to be 0.125 mm,
and accumulating with the square root of the number of readings; systematic
errors were found 0.175 mm and accumulate directly with the number of
readings.
The Random error cannot be corrected, whereas systematic errors can.
Accuracy of ±2.5mm is a high order value and can be achieved with careful
survey practices and error correction during data reduction. The achievable limit
to accuracy is ±1,24mm (random error), but requires careful selection from
redundant data sets and an excellent installation of casing.
Detection and correction of these errors is not an easy task, and this is the main
problem in probe inclinometer surveys.
Working with strings of in place inclinometers (IPI), systematic errors related
to the repositioning of the probe instrument are substantially avoided.
Of course other problems remain, mainly related to the electronics stability,
or mechanic and electric noises. According to La Fonta and Beth [2] from a
string of length 30m with 10 inclinometric sensors it would be possible to
measure the position of the top with an ‘overall correctness’ of ±2mm, that is
close to the random error of probe inclinometer. ‘Overall correctness’ according
to the former authors is the measure of the movement relative to the original
position, and is measured in standard deviation using the approximation formula:

σ overall = ∑
N
(L/ j × σJ ) (1)
j =1 N

where σoverall and σj are the standard deviations of the top positioning and of each
sensor, respectively; Lj are the lengths of the hard modules containing the
sensors, and N is the number of sensors. To reach the quoted ‘correctness’ of
±2mm in 30m, the relative accuracy - that is the accuracy relative to the original
position - of any single sensor must be about 45 seconds of arc (0.011°, or
0.2mm/m). The actual accuracy of sensors can be verified only in testing
laboratories equipped with very precise and accurate instruments, but in routine
fieldwork we are more interested in the changes in the string position rather than
in its absolute positioning, that is in the measurements’ precision rather than their
accuracy (Dunnicliff [4]).

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII 179

2 D.M.S. system and instrument configuration

D.M.S. (Differential Monitoring of Stability,
patent pending C.S.G. S.r.l.) is a differential
multiparametric system designed for the stability
monitoring of slopes, excavation fronts,
engineering works, structures; the system allows
continuous control of potentially instable areas in
2D/ 3D (Giuffredi et al., [5]; Lovisolo et al. [6]).
Each D.M.S. module can be equipped with
one of the following sensors: biaxial
inclinometric sensors (I), extensometric sensors
(E), piezometric sensors (U). Each single module
can be equipped also on demand with
accelerometric sensor.
D.M.S. columns in this test are composed of a
sequence of hard modules, each containing an
inclinometric sensor (D.M.S. I) and inclinometric
+ piezometric sensor (DMS IU), electronic boards
for data control, A.D. conversion, and
transmission.
In the instrument test configuration, the
modules are linked by special 2D flexible joints
(20 KN traction resistance) that allow strong,
continuous adaptability to bends and twists of the
casing, whilst maintaining rigorously the
orientation with respect to a reference system
defined during installation.
The system maintains the correct direction
without the inclinometric casing grooves, so
monitoring is possible also inside smooth casings
like piezometers (diam > 2”). This particular
feature allows the water level monitoring in the
same hole, with a piezometric U sensor installed
in the D.M.S. column (Cabella case history).
Each module is joined to the casing by
pressing a Sh 90/A polyurethane centraliser (5
mm thick) at each end.
Figure 1: D.M.S. 2D Data transmission is digital in standard RS 485
column. 1) Stainless steel to allow more functionality and the possibility to
AISI 304, module hosting connect all the sensors to the same control unit
all the electronic sensors, with only 4 cables (2 for power, 2 for signal),
control and RS485 exceeding the limits in overall size that are typical
transmission. 2) Special of the traditional analogical transmission in I.P.I.
flexible junction. 3) Sh 90/A
polyurethane centraliser.

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
180 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII

2.1 Test procedures

The estimate of measurements precision was obtained combining the results of

both laboratory tests and ‘in-situ’ strings of inclinometric sensors in vertical
boreholes of different depth.
The discussion of two field examples will show how D.M.S. allows both
defining the top of a 30m string with an uncertainty close to ±0.5mm - well
within the requirements for In Place Inclinometers (Dunnicliff and La Fonta [1],
La Fonta and Beth [2]) - and identifying and discarding erratic data.
The relevant precision increase mainly depends on the statistically redundant
data collected by D.M.S. sensors. Consequently, an analysis of the micro-
movements can be faced to help resolve the problem of early warning systems
for public safety. Some examples of possible ambiguous interpretation will also
be discussed. This is the first step towards reasonably safe estimates of actual
micro - movements of the sensor string.

2.1.1 Laboratory test

Previously to field installation, as usually we performed calibration tests within
the sensors measuring range (roll + pitch) cross coupling and repeatability tests
one week long. We used biaxial electrolitic sensors (Dunnicliff [4]) SP 5003
A000 manufactured by Spectron Sensors (USA) with measuring range ±20°,
repeatability 0.02°, linearity 0.2 at 25 %.
Only sensors with performances superior to the mean values declared by the
manufacturer were selected. Calibration tests were performed using a rotary table
Moore type.

2.1.2 Field tests

The D.M.S. monitoring column is assembled by screwing one instrumented
module to another, starting from n° 1, respecting specific procedures.
The installation comes through a proper selector, fixed to a hydraulic rig
having the following characteristics: mast length > 1.2 m, extraction force>12
KN, crowd force > 10KN, translator selector with azimuth keeping active,
blocking clamp 100-46 mm. After the communication test with a specific RS 485
device connected to laptop and GEOTEST software, the calibration phase starts,
with a 24 h ca delay time from the installation.
The local control unit provides for the readings in digital at regular time
intervals, according to the requested program.
Remote control, download, storage and processing of data are realized with a
remote control station, equipped with GSM /GPRS integrated transmission and
“GEOMASTER” software. Data base is in Paradox format.
Field tests lasted at least three months, similarly to the laboratory experiment
performed by La Fonta and Beth [2] to test long term behaviour.

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII 181

3 Case history
3.1 Cabella

The analysed data come from the monitoring of a quiescent complex landslide,
whose potential reactivation determines high-risk conditions for the Cabella
village, both for the sliding mass movement and for the Borbera river occlusion.

Table 1: Cabella – Statistical parameters.

Roll Pitch
Sensor n° Mean Value Standard Pearson Mean Value Standard Pearson
Deviation Coefficient Deviation Coefficient
(deg) (deg) (deg) (deg)
1 0.000 0.001 0.03 -0.005 0.005 -0.83
2 0.000 0.002 -0.21 0.000 0.000 0.00
3 -0.029 0.013 -0.64 -0.007 0.008 -0.50
4 -0.003 0.004 0.25 0.000 0.002 -0.20
5 0.047 0.012 0.46 0.031 0.011 0.64
6 0.006 0.005 0.39 -0.009 0.006 -0.46
7 -0.009 0.002 -0.19 -0.010 0.000 0.00
8 -0.003 0.005 0.75 -0.015 0.006 -0.82
9 -0.001 0.003 -0.28 0.000 0.000 0.00
10 0.002 0.004 0.16 -0.001 0.003 0.34
11 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.001 0.09
12 -0.023 0.025 -0.79 0.008 0.038 0.71
13 0.002 0.004 0.11 0.000 0.000 0.04
14 -0.008 0.004 0.32 -0.010 0.004 0.34
15 0.000 0.000 -0.06 -0.006 0.005 -0.81
17 0.007 0.004 0.30 -0.016 0.014 0.25
18 0.004 0.006 0.77 0.001 0.014 0.81
19 -0.004 0.005 -0.77 0.006 0.005 0.80
20 0.002 0.007 -0.57 0.011 0.004 0.63
21 -0.012 0.009 -0.81 -0.016 0.005 -0.79
22 -0.004 0.005 -0.83 0.005 0.005 0.82
23 -0.006 0.005 0.70 0.017 0.004 0.20
24 0.002 0.005 0.42 0.001 0.002 0.00
25 -0.005 0.005 -0.79 0.001 0.003 -0.45
26 -0.006 0.005 -0.14 0.005 0.005 0.26
27 -0.010 0.001 -0.13 0.004 0.005 0.33
28 0.002 0.005 0.15 0.010 0.001 0.12
29 0.016 0.007 0.71 0.000 0.001 -0.10
30 -0.007 0.005 0.74 -0.002 0.004 0.51

Global -0.001 0.005 0.000 0.006

mean (deg)
Global -0.024 0.096 0.037 0.097
mean
(mm/m)
σtot (mm) 0.51 0.52
σtot (mm) 0.41 0.42
without 12

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
182 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII

The D.M.S. column was designed with a continuous monitoring 29m high
vertical, composed of 28 D.M.S. I modules (inclinometric) and 1 D.M.S. IU
module (inclino-piezometric) measuring 1m long each, installed between -3.5
and -32.5m b.g.l., inside a 35m deep drilling hole, rigged with a 3” piezometric
casing.
Continuous monitoring lasted three months (October 2004-January 2005)
with one reading/min/ per sensor, recording the average values of 120 readings.
Table 1 reports the mean of readings in degrees for each sensor at the end of
the test, together with the standard deviation and the Pearson coefficient, which
reflects the linearity of the correlation between time and angular measurements.
Table 1 also reports roll and pitch standard deviations of the whole string,
calculated as:
N
σ tot = ± ∑σ
j =1
2
j (2)

which provides the precision of the measurements defining the top positioning.
Eq (2) is equal to Eq. (1) since each sensor is 1 meter long. Including all the
29 sensors in Eq 2 we obtain σtot = ±0.52mm along roll and σtot = ±0.53mm along
pitch, a very good result to be compared to the ±2mm requirement by La Fonta
and Beth [2].
This substantial level of precision allows to identify sensors that otherwise
would be masked, and that require particular attention, as highlighted in Fig 2.

Cabella

0,045

0,040

0,035

0,030
sigma(deg)

0,025 roll
0,020 pitch

0,015

0,010

0,005

0,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
sensor

Figure 2: Standard deviations of roll and pitch.

The large majority of sensors – 25 out of 29 - is stable, and 22 of them have

σ ≤ 0.005° . In our experience, for measurements ≤ 0.05° , sensors with
σ > 0.010° can be affected by instability, that is micro-movements or electronic

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII 183

noise. Micro movements are more probable when also the Pearson coefficient
becomes significant, > 0.6 . Among these sensors, we point to sensor n°5,
whose roll and pitch increased in about six hours from 0.00° to 0.03° and 0.05°
respectively after a sudden four meters increase in the water table level. This
happened few days after the beginning of the measurements, which subsequently
stabilized to the new values, as the water level stabilised. This movement seems
to be balanced by that of n°3, with a limited decrease in both roll and pitch,
followed by stabilization. Sensor n°18 seems to be affected by continuous micro-
movement along the pitch direction, that began after one month of absolute
stability. This micro-movement has not yet stabilized, and obviously needs an
accurate monitoring.
The outlier behaviour of sensor n°12 is quite peculiar. Its σ values are due to
an abrupt change, after two months of full stability, of both roll (- 0.07°) and
pitch (+0.08°), followed by stabilization. No influence can be attributed to the
temperature recorded by thermometers installed in each sensor, since the latter
remained unchanged all along the measurements time. We do not have a
convincing explanation, and suppose that this can depend on a zero shift.
Omitting sensor n°12 in Eq (2), σtot along roll and pitch decrease to ±0.41 and
±0.32mm respectively.

3.2 Cassine

The D.M.S. monitoring column covered a sector of high risk area (RME) of the
medieval village of Cassine, which is morphologically identifiable with the
escarpment that delimits the ancient stream terrace of the Bormida river.
The morphology is characterized by a tabular surface of the pleistocenic
terrace, delimitated by particularly steep slopes, at intervals sub-vertical, locally
interested by rockfall and soil slip which determined the runoff and the damage
of buildings placed alongside both the superior and the inferior terrace surface.
In order to prevent this kind of landslide, it is extremely important to
continuously monitor the analysis of micro-movement, in order to involve the
Civil Protection function, provided for this area typology (alert/evacuation).
D.M.S. column has been installed close to the most unsafe sector in January
2003, using 13 biaxial inclinometric modules, each long 1m, installed between
ground level and –13m b.g.l., inside an inclinometric casing.
The reported data refer to six months of continuous recording with one
reading/min/ per sensor, and recording the average values of 60 readings.
Tab 2 and Fig 3 show the stability of sensors from 1 to 10 at the end of the
test. Precision is very high, as evidenced by mean standard deviations of ±0.003°
and ±0.002° for roll and pitch, respectively. At this σ level, the high Pearson
coefficient of some sensors becomes meaningless.
The standard deviation increases towards the top, becoming greater than
0.010° for the last two sensors 12 and 13, where high Pearson coefficients are
also present, suggesting an actual displacement.

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
184 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII

Table 2: Cassine statistical parameters.

Roll Pitch
Sensor n° Mean Value Standard Pearson Mean Value Standard Pearson
Deviation Coefficient Deviation Coefficient
(deg) (deg) (deg) (deg)
1 0.0000 0.0006 0.00 -0.0002 0.0013 0.02
2 0.0013 0.0034 -0.50 0.0000 0.0003 0.00
3 -0.0047 0.0050 -0.86 0.0000 0.0012 -0.86
4 0.0003 0.0018 0.21 -0.0001 0.0009 -0.01
5 -0.0046 0.0050 0.50 -0.0019 0.0058 -0.17
6 -0.0084 0.0037 -0.56 -0.0016 0.0037 -0.61
7 -0.0001 0.0008 -0.08 -0.0065 0.0048 -0.78
8 -0.0002 0.0012 -0.19 -0.0003 0.0017 -0.16
9 0.0000 0.0006 0.01 -0.0080 0.0040 -0.58
10 -0.0067 0.0047 -0.41 0.0000 0.0009 -0.01
11 0.0055 0.0073 0.80 -0.0021 0.0087 -0.76
12 0.0173 0.0228 0.93 0.0154 0.0248 0.86
13 -0.0274 0.0198 -0.15 0.0536 0.0414 0.81

Global -0.002 0.006 0.004 0.008

mean (deg)
1-13
Global -0.002 0.003 -0.002 0.002
mean (deg)
1-10
Mean -0.037 0.103 0.065 0.134
(mm/m)
1-13
Mean -0.040 0.047 -0.032 0.043
(mm/m)
1-10
σtot (mm) 0.37 0.48
1-13
σtot (mm) 0.15 0.14
1-10

These sensors identify micro movements in the colluvial laying on the marine
formation “Sabbie d’Asti”, due to saturation/essication process that affect the
soft soil during the season, and the relevant temperature changes that are
recorded by the thermometers inside each sensor.
The top of the Cassine string is located with a standard deviation σtot =
±0.37mm along the roll and σtot = ±0.48mm along the Pitch axis, including all
the sensors.
Obviously omitting the sensors interesting the colluvial, the precision
increases to σtot = ±0.15mm and σtot = ±0.14mm respectively, that correspond to
σtot = ±0.45mm for a 30m column.

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII 185

Cassine

0,045

0,040

0,035

0,030
sigma, deg

0,025
roll
pitch
0,020

0,015

0,010

0,005

0,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Figure 3: Standard deviations of roll and pitch.

4 Conclusions
The results of ‘in situ’ tests performed with D.M.S. I – IU columns equipped
with inclinometric biaxial sensors, selected after laboratory tests, are very
encouraging.
The top positioning of the Cabella string containing 29 sensors per 29m
length was defined with a precision close to ±0.5mm along both the roll and the
pitch axis. The same value – ±0.5mm rescaled to a 30m length - is obtained from
the stable part of the Cassine string after six months of continuous
measurements. These results are confirmed by several other field tests presently
under examination.
Fig 4, modified from Mikkelsen [3], shows the definite improvement of IPI
measurements with respect to probe inclinometer, mainly due to the drastic
decrease of the systematic errors.
D.M.S. results are well within the requirements by Dunnicliff and La
Fonta [1], La Fonta and Beth [2] for in place inclinometers (IPI).
This high precision obtained with D.M.S. allows the identification of sensors
probably subject to micro – movements and hence to face in a new way the
problems related to early warning transmission for public safety.
The early warning could be transmitted in the first stage of movement, identified
by means of a continuous monitoring of data collected by strings (installed
continuously all along the landslide body) and a simple statistic analysis based
on an automatic real-time evaluation of standard deviation and Pearson
coefficient. This analysis must also take into account all the other parameters
measured by D.M.S. column, like piezometers, accelerometers, extensimeters on
Z axis.

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)
186 Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XII

Error - (mm)
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0

10
Depth -(m)

15

20

25

30

Field Accuracy inclinometer Probe Survey (Total Error, Mikkelsen 2003)

Inclinometer Probe Survey (Random Error, Mikkelsen 2003)
I.P.I. Accuracy Criterion ( Dunnicliff and La Fonta-2001, La Fonta & Beth-2002)
D.M.S. Precision

Figure 4: Comparison of inclinometric data. (Modified from Mikkelsen [3]).

References
[1] Dunnicliff J. & La Fonta J.G., 2001- In place inclinometers. A significant
test program, Geotechnical News, vol 19 No 1 March pp 33, 34.
[2] La Fonta JG & Beth M.B., 2002. In place inclinometers, a significant test
program. SolData -France
[3] Mikkelsen E., 2003 Advances in inclinometer data analysis. In: “Field
Measurements in Geomechanics” – Myrvoll (ed.) 2003 Balkema Publishers
[4] Dunnicliff, J. 1988-1993 Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field
Performance 75-78, 108, 255-258, 271-272 New York: John Wiley
[5] Giuffredi F., Zanolini L., Foglino L., 2003: Application of a new integrated
multi-parametric monitoring system for the analysis of micro-movements in
the Civil Protection activities. An example. In: “Field Measurements in
Geomechanics” – Myrvoll (ed.) 2003 Balkema Publishers
[6] Lovisolo M., Ghirotto, S. Scardia C, Battaglio M., 2003 The use of
Differential Monitoring Stability (D.M.S.) for remote monitoring of
excavation and landslide movements In: “Field Measurements in
Geomechanics” – Myrvoll (ed.) 2003 Balkema Publishers

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 41, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-355X (on-line)