You are on page 1of 22

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346

Earthquake-induced landslides: 19801997


guez a,1, J.J. Bommer b,*, R.J. Chandler b C.E. Rodr
b

a, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santafe de Bogota , Colombia Facultad de Ingenier Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BU, UK Received 11 November 1998; received in revised form 18 March 1999; accepted 23 March 1999

Abstract A database of earthquake-induced landslides has been compiled which extends the work of Keefer (Keefer DK. Landslides caused by earthquakes. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 1984;95:406421) who covered the period 18111980 to 1997. A total of 36 earthquakes world-wide are included, the new database having about the same number of earthquakes as reported by Keefer. Correlations evolving from the new database are compared with those of Keefer. Generally the results are very similar, though the presence of extreme outliers in some of the correlations emphasises the need to be aware of special cases, particularly those involving quick clay landslides. Seismological features, including multiple earthquakes and simultaneous arrival of different phases of seismic waves, also inuence the outliers. The correlations between earthquake magnitude and total landslide area, however, differ somewhat from Keefers. For the intermediate magnitude range 5.37.0, a modied correlation is suggested. The scatter of the data from which the correlations are derived is greater than found by Keefer. This is ascribed to the different geographic locations of the earthquakes in the two data sets. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Landslides; Earthquakes; Seismic hazards

1. Introduction The primary hazard to the built environment associated with earthquakes is the strong shaking of the ground caused by the passage of seismic waves, inducing inertial forces and relative displacements in structures that can lead to structural damage. The ground vibrations can also trigger secondary geotechnical hazards, including liquefaction and the settlement of loose deposits. These can greatly increase the human, social and economic impact of an earthquake. Amongst the secondary geotechnical hazards associated with earthquakes, landslides are potentially the most destructive. For example, in the Peruvian earthquake of 31 May 1970 almost half the 54,000 fatalities were due to a landslide, triggered by the shaking, that descended from the n, burying the villages of northern peak of Nevado Huascara Yungay and Ranrahirca in the Santa Valley [2,3]. Any comprehensive assessment of seismic hazard and risk therefore must include the hazard associated with earthquakeinduced landslides. For an individual slope, the assessment of landslide potential can be carried out using detailed
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 171-594-5984; fax: 171-225-2716. E-mail address: j.bommer@ic.ac.uk (J.J. Bommer) 1 Currently at Imperial College.

geotechnical investigations and stability calculations. On a larger scale, however, such methods are not generally applicable, and for zonation purposes it is necessary to quantify in a simpler form [4,5] both the vulnerability of slopes and the triggering mechanisms that can induce instability. For the assessment of the earthquake-induced landslide hazard it is necessary to establish correlations between seismic ground shaking and landslides in different geological, topographical and climatic conditions. As a contribution to this assessment, this article presents data from 36 earthquakes worldwide since 1980 that have triggered landslides. The main aim of the work has been to compile a database (the new database) which extends that presented by Keefer [1], which included 40 earthquakes, the latest of which was the Mammoth Lakes (California) earthquake of May 1980. Hereafter, all references to Keefer refer to Keefer (1984). The approach that has been adopted here is similar to that of Keefer, though some modications are made. The sources of the data are described, together with the structure of the earthquake database, the geological environment, the ground shaking and the landslides themselves. The correlations between the earthquake characteristics and the types and the areal extent of landsliding are explored, and the correlations found are compared with those of Keefer. The

0267-7261/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0267-726 1(99)00012-3

326

Table 1 Earthquakes responsible for triggering landslides, 19801997 Date Magnitude Focal depth Mw X VIII IX VIII VIII 4200 3500 17000 2 2 13000 650 2 45 km MMI Maximum intensity Number of slides a References b

Earthquake

Country

Year

Month

Day

Ms

Area affected by landslides km 2 [112] [13] [1417] [1827] [2832]

1 2

Irpinia Coalinga

Italy USA

3 4 5

Borah Peak NagokenSeibu Valparaiso

USA Japan Chile

2 4 2

6 7 8 9 10 VIII 4200 3300 VIII VIII VIII IX 90 40 45000 2200

Kalamata San Salvador Diebu Edgecumbe El Napo

Greece El Salvador China New Zealand Ecuador

VIII VIII VII IX IX

70 380 280 380 2500

[1,2,3335] [3638] [39] [4043] [4447] [4853] [5458]

11

Whittier Narrows

USA

12

Superstition Hills

USA

13 14 15 16

Nepal Killini Saguenay Spitak

Nepal Greece Canada Armenia

6.9 6.2 5.1 6.9 6.2 8.1 5.9 7.1 6.0 5.7 5.3 6.5 7.1 6.8 6.1 3.9 6.2 6.6 6.8 5.9 5.8 6.7 2 2 4

[5960] [1,2,61] [6267] [1,2,6873]

17 18 19 20 21 22 6.9 7.4 7.7 7.5 6.7

Soviet Tajik Loma Prieta Manjil Luzon Valle de la Estrella Erzincan

Tajikistan USA Iran Philippines Costa Rica Turkey

VII VIII X VIII IX IX VIII

12 14000 1000 3000 2000 150 625

2 4 3 3 4 2

[74] [41,7580] [2,8191] [9298] [111,99104] [2,83,105107] [108112]

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

23

Cape Mendocino

USA

24 25

Suusamyr Murindo

Kyrgytzstan Colombia

X X

2500 9700 100 5 500 420 10000 2 2 2

[113115] [116] [125,117120] [125,121123] [124125] [126127] 45 [125,128134]

26 27 28 29

HokkaidoNansei Ormond Fiorland Klamath Falls

Japan New Zealand New Zealand USA

30

Northridge

USA

1980 1983 1983 1983 1984 1985 1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 1990 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 7.0 7.0 6.6 7.0 6.7 7.4 7.8 6.2 6.8 5.9 5.9 6.7 X VII VIII VII VII IX

XI V V X IX III III IV IX X I III III III X X XI XI VIII X XI XII XII I X VI VII IV III III IV IV IV VIII X X VII VIII VIII IX IX I

23 02 09 28 14 03 03 09 13 10 07 02 06 06 01 04 24 24 21 16 25 07 07 23 17 20 16 22 13 15 25 26 25 19 17 18 12 10 10 21 21 17

6.9 6.7 4.7 7.3 6.4 7.8 6.4 7.2 5.8 5.4 5.4 6.6 6.0 6.9 5.8 4.8 6.2 6.6 6.6 5.6 5.8 6.8 5.8 5.5 7.1 7.3 7.8 7.6 6.8 5.8 7.1 6.6 6.6 7.3 6.7 7.3 7.6 6.0 7.0 5.8 5.8 6.8

0 7 13 10 18 43 33 49 28 12 15 20 5 15 17 13 5 1.9 65 25 28 5 11 10 8 19 25 21.5 27 10 15 20 22 16.5 14 10? 17 39 22 11 5 18

Table 1 (continued) Date Magnitude Focal depth Mw 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.5 5.7 6.0 7 3 VIII 12 14 22 20 X VII X VIII km MMI Maximum intensity Number of slides a References b

Earthquake

Country

Year

Month

Day

Ms

Area affected by landslides km 2 250 85 910 4550 85

4 2 3 2

31 32 33 34 35 36

Paez Arthurs Pass Hyoguken Nanbu Tauramena Arthurs Pass UmbriaMarche

Colombia New Zealand Japan Colombia New Zealand Italy

1994 1994 1995 1995 1995 1997 1997 1997

VI VI I I V IX IX X

06 18 17 19 29 26 26 14

6.6 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.5

[135137] [125,138139] [125,140154] [155157] [158] [159168]

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

2 10100 landslides; 3 1001000 landslides; 4 100010,000 landslides; 45 10,000100,000 landslides; 5 over 100,000 landslides. References numbers refer to list in Appendix A

327

328

Table 2 Types of landslides observed in earthquakes during 19801997 Landslides in rock Disrupted slides and falls Rock falls Rock slides Rock avalanches Rock slumps Rock block slides Soil falls Disrupted soil slides Soil avalanches Soil slumps Soil block slides Slow earth ows Soil lateral spreads Rapid soil ows Coherent slides Disrupted slides and falls Coherent slides Lateral spreads and ows Subaqueous landslides Landslides in soils

Earthquake

MS

MW

6.9 6.9 6.2 6.2 8.1 6.0 5.7 5.3 6.5 7.1 6.1 6.2 6.8 5.9 5.8 6.7

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Irpinia Borah Peak Coalinga Nagokenseuvy Valparaiso Kalamata San Salvador Diebu Edgecumbe El Napo Whittier Narrows Superstition Hills Nepal Killini Saguenay Spitak Soviet Tajik Loma Prieta Manjil Luzon Valle de la Estrella Erzincan Cape Mendocino Suusamyr Murindo Hokkaidonansei Ormond Fiorland Klamath Falls Northridge Paez Arthurs Pass Hyoguken Nanbu Tauramena Arthurs Pass Umbriamarche

6.9 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.8 5.8 5.4 5.4 6.6 6.0 5.8 6.2 6.6 5.6 5.8 6.8 5.5 7.1 7.3 7.8 7.6 6.8 7.1 7.3 6.7 7.6 6.0 7.0 5.8 6.8 6.6 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.5 5.9

6.9 7.4 7.7 7.5 6.7 7.0 7.0 6.7 7.8 6.2 6.8 5.9 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.5

6.0

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

329

Fig. 1. Relative frequency of each type of landslide during the earthquakes included in each database. Relative percentage is dened as the ratio between the number of earthquakes in which each type occurred and the total number of earthquakes studied in each database.

ndings are discussed in the nal section of the article, and possible further research using the combined database is outlined. 2. Compilation of the database The new database of the earthquake-induced landslides has been compiled from the major seismological and geotechnical journals, symposia and conferences, identifying seismic events that have caused slope instability. A list of references is included in Appendix A. A total of 36 earthquakes are identied, some of which are multiple events, and they are listed in Table 1. It is very unlikely that this list is completely comprehensive, but the authors believe that all of the most important cases for which some documentation is available have been included. For each event the information which characterises the earthquake and the landslides has been obtained as explained in the following two sections. 2.1. Earthquake characteristics The hypocentral locations for the earthquakes were obtained, wherever possible, from the reports on the

particular earthquake. In the absence of such studies, the source parameters were obtained from the Regional Catalogue of Earthquakes of the International Seismological Centre (ISC). For events during 19911997, earthquake source parameters have been extracted from the Seismicity Catalogues published on CD-ROM by the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). Earthquake size is quantied by both surface wave magnitude MS and by moment magnitude MW obtained from seismic moments published by Harvard University; Keefer used MS in his database, although he adopted MW for large earthquakes, because of the saturation of MS, and ML for the smallest earthquakes, for which MS was not available. The values of the surface wave magnitude in the new database range from 5.4 to 7.8. The geographical co-ordinates of landslide locations are taken from the appropriate maps, and the distance of each from the corresponding earthquake epicentre is calculated using spherical geometry. For locations at relatively short distances from moderate to large earthquakes, that can be associated with extensive fault ruptures, the use of epicentral distance can overestimate the distance of the site from the source of energy release. For this reason, following Keefer, the distance of each landslide is also measured from the fault-rupture zone. In this study, the distance has

330

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

Table 3 Geometric characteristics of earthquake-induced landslides Slide type Rock falls Disrupted rock slides Coherent rock slides Slide depth (m) 35, depending on discontinuities spacing (No representative data) 2050, given by geological features, such as weakness zones 3100, depending on geological setting Slide shape factor (d/L) a 0.15, only one data reported (No representative data) 0.080.10, apparent relationship with ground shaking 0.0050.3, apparently dependent on ground shaking Slip surface shape Planar on outward dipping discontinuities Predominantly planar, but other shapes were also reported Circular or planar on outward dipping discontinuities Predominantly complex mechanism (rotational translational), single mechanisms commonly planar Circular Predominantly planar, some circular cases also reported

Disrupted soil slides

Coherent soil slides Soil spreads and ows


a

650, apparently dependent on ground shaking 640, depending on the ground shaking

0.040.3, apparently dependent on ground shaking 0.0070.20, depending on geological setting

(d/L depth/length ratio)

been measured from the closest point on the surface projection of the fault rupture, as used in many strong-motion attenuation studies [6,7]. The surface projection of the fault in some cases has been extracted directly from individual studies; in other cases, it is dened on the basis of surface ruptures, aftershock locations and focal mechanism solutions. The denition of the source-to-site distance used in this study is slightly different from that adopted by Keefer, who used the distance to the closest point on the fault rupture, which in many cases was a slant distance to a sub-surface point. Isoseismal maps have been used to determine the maximum intensity of shaking caused by each earthquake, as well as the intensity at the location of each landslide. The isoseismal maps are constructed as smoothed contours from observations at individual sites, and within each isoseismal there will be local uctuations of the intensity of shaking. For this reason, it has been proposed that correlations of strong-motion recordings with intensity should be based on the values determined only on the basis of the observations in the immediate vicinity of the site in question [8]. For the database, such observations are clearly not available and hence the intensity values must necessarily be taken from the isoseismal maps with their inherent inaccuracy. All of the intensity values are presented on the Modied Mercalli (MM) scale; where the isoseismal maps are drawn on the MercalliCancaniSieberg (MCS), MedvedevSponheuer Karnik (MSK) or Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) scales, the conversions have been made according to the relationships between these scales presented by Reiter [9]. 2.2. Landslide characteristics Following Keefer, the landslides in the database are classied according to the categories dened by Varnes [10]. The types of slides associated with each of the earthquakes in the database are indicated in Table 2. The basic classi-

cation relates to the material affected, namely rocks or soils, and within these categories distinction is made between coherent slides, and disrupted slides and falls. Within the soil category there are also lateral spreads and ows. As indicated in Table 2, there are further sub-divisions within these basic categories to distinguish different mechanisms of landslide. Keefer presented for each type of slide the number of landslidesas an order of magnitudethat were reported to have been triggered by each earthquake. The information available for the earthquakes in the new database does not permit reliable determination of these landslide numbers for many of these events; thus Table 2 only indicates the type of slides observed following each earthquake. The total number of landslides, irrespective of the classication, triggered by each earthquake is given in Table 1. From these data it is not evident that the number of landslides is dependent on the earthquake magnitude, as suggested by Keefer, or on earthquake intensity, as proposed by Simonett [11]. Fig. 1 shows the relative frequency of each type of landslide within the new database, Keefers database and the combined database. The percentages refer to the relative frequency of each type of landslides generated by the earthquakes. The distributions amongst the different landslide types are very similar in both databases, with the exception that there are no sub-aqueous slides in the new database. In the new database there are relatively fewer soil and rock avalanches, slow earth ows, and lateral spreads, than in the Keefer database, but there is a much larger proportion of disrupted soil slides. The typical geometric characteristics of each of the slide categories are given in Table 3. These characteristics include ranges of depth to the slip surface and the geometry of the slide in terms of the aspect ratio and the shape of the slip surface. In the process of compiling the database, other characteristics of the slides have been noted, including the typical slope inclinations and heights. Not surprisingly, rock

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

331

Fig. 2. Area affected by landslides (km 2) as a function of earthquake magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). The solid line is the upper bound determined by Keefer (1984). Numbers refer to earthquake cases in Table 1. Dashed line is the new proposed upper bound.

falls and disrupted rock slides tend to occur on the steepest slopes, with angles greater than 35 and 55, respectively. Coherent rock slides occur on much shallower slopes, with inclinations of 15 or greater. The lower limit for slopes on which soil slides occur is about 8, although, of course, lateral spreads can occur during earthquakes even on level ground provided that there is a free face, such as a river bank or sea wall. Both soil and rock deposits are associated equally with earthquake-induced landslides. Although slides in soils occurred in almost all types of deposits, they occur predominantly in transported deposits, of which alluvial and colluvial deposits are the most common. Failure mechanisms in these cases are mainly disrupted slides and lateral ows, and during the movement a high internal disaggregation is induced. Failure of extensive areas of steep slopes covered by residual soils underlain by fresh rock is very common in the tropical zones. Slip surfaces in these events are usually along the soil/rock interface and internal disruption is high.

Rock slides usually involved sedimentary deposits, most of the events being structurally controlled by such features as discontinuities or other weakness planes. The low frequency of slides in igneous and metamorphic deposits can be explained by the higher weathering susceptibility of these rock types in seismic areas, resulting in soil rather than rock slides. Disrupted slides in rocks occur preferentially in poorly cemented sedimentary material, whereas rock falls, the most common slide mechanism, occur on very fractured rock slopes with a wide range of material type. In the new database, coherent rock slides are mainly conned to volcanic deposits such as tuff, pumice tephra and basalt, but there are also some cases involving sedimentary and metamorphic deposits. The total area affected by landslides is given, wherever possible, either as reported in the literature or taken from maps showing the landslides locations. For earthquakes in coastal regions only the onshore landslide areas have been included. These areas are presented in Table 1.

332

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

Fig. 3. Maximum epicentral distance to disrupted landslides as a function of magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). Solid line shows upper bound determined by Keefer (1984).

3. Earthquake-induced landslides The new database of earthquake-induced landslides is used to explore the correlations between earthquake parameters and landslide characteristics in a manner very similar to that of Keefer. One of the main objectives was to determine whether the correlations determined by Keefer are applicable to the new database. 3.1. Smallest earthquakes to cause landslides The rst correlation made by Keefer was to identify thresholds of minimum earthquake magnitude that triggered landslides so as to nd a lower bound. Such lower bounds can also be identied in the new database and the values found are as follows, with the corresponding value from Keefer in parentheses: Rock falls, rock slides, soil falls and disrupted soil slides ML 5.5 (ML 4.0) MS 5.4

Soil slumps and soil block slides ML 5.5 (ML 4.5) MS 5.4 Rock slumps, rock block slides, slow earth ows, soil lateral spreads and rapid soil ows ML 6.5 (ML 5.0) MS 5.9 Rock avalanches MS 6.5 (MS 6.0). Soil avalanches MS 6.0 (MS 6.5). As Keefer points out, many landslides occur without seismic triggering, and therefore on a slope that is imminently unstable, a landslide could be caused by very weak shaking. The smallest earthquake to have induced landslides that the authors have encountered is the Ledu (Qinghai, China) earthquake of 7 March 1984, with M 2:9. For this earthquake, Feng and Guo [12] reported the collapse of an aeolian deposit cliff with a slope of 5060, and suggested that the collapse was triggered due to the shallow earthquake source.

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

333

Fig. 4. Maximum epicentral distance to coherent landslides as a function of magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). Solid line shows upper bound determined by Keefer (1984).

This last case illustrates a point worthy of consideration, that with small magnitude earthquakes (M 5:5) the intensity of shaking will depend very much on the focal depth. Large magnitude crustal earthquakes are associated with ruptures that spread across the full width of the seismogenic layer and propagate lengthways, whence the focal depth is of little signicance in terms of the proximity of the source of energy release to the ground surface [13]. In contrast, for small earthquakes associated with ruptures of a few kilometres length, the focal depth will control the intensity of shaking in the epicentral area. 3.2. Magnitude and area affected by landslides Fig. 2 shows the correlations between the earthquake magnitude and the total area affected by the landslides in the new database, using both MS and MW as the measure of earthquake size. The corresponding upper bound found by Keefer is drawn, and it can be seen that a number of

the data points lie above this line. This suggests that in the intermediate magnitude range, between about 5.3 and 7.0, the upper bound of the affected areas is slightly above that suggested by the pre-1980 database. However, except for the Saguenay, San Salvador and Diebu earthquakes, data points above the Keefer line are all associated with multiple seismic events. Two data points, the most obvious as outliers on the surface-wave magnitude plot, lie signicantly above Keefers upper bound. These relate to the Whittier Narrows (California) earthquake of 1987, which was a multiple event, and the Saguenay (Canada) earthquake of 1988, which is discussed subsequently. Another observation that can be made from Fig. 2 is the considerable scatter of the data, which is much larger than shown by Keefer. He attributed the scatter in values of the affected areas to different seismological and geological factors. The most signicant element contributing to the scatter is likely to be the variation in the geographical

334

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

Fig. 5. Maximum epicentral distance to spreads and ows as a function of magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). Solid line shows upper bound determined by Keefer (1984). Dashed line shows liquefaction bound proposed by Ambraseys (1988).

environments where the earthquakes occur, with some located in areas of pronounced relief, whereas others occur in generally at areas with isolated slopes. Alternatively, landslides may be concentrated along man-made slopes, especially along highway cuts. Those cases which are associated with offshore events, or those in which the epicentre is very close to the coast, tend to fall well below Keefers line. Others have attempted to improve these relations, mainly by considering the relationship between epicentral distance and specic landslide density, for example as proposed by Tamura, Mora and Mora [5]. 3.3. Magnitude and maximum distance to landslides Perkins [14] points out that the maximum distance from the source of earthquakes of different magnitude at which landslides can be expected is a useful tool for the mapping of earthquake-induced landslide hazard. For each

earthquake, the distance from the epicentre to the farthest landslide in each group is plotted against the magnitude in Figs. 3, 4 and 5. Again, Keefers upper bound is shown. On the lower plot in Fig. 5, Keefers limit is conrmed by the new dataset, and also agrees well with the limit for liquefaction proposed by Ambraseys [15]. In Figs. 6, 7 and 8 the same data are plotted in terms of the maximum distance from the surface projection of the fault rupture. Although the denition of fault distance employed by Keefer is slightly different, as noted above, his upper bound curve is again included on these plots. It is interesting to note that although several data points in the new database lie above Keefers envelope in Fig. 2, on the plots of maximum fault distance (Figs. 68) only a single earthquake lies above his upper bound, the 1988 Saguenay earthquake. Comparison of Figs. 2, 68 reveals apparent incongruence as there are a number of cases in the new dataset that lie above Keefers upper bound in terms of area affected by landslides, but not in terms of the maximum distance of

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

335

Fig. 6. Maximum fault distance to disrupted landslides as a function of magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). Solid line shows upper bound determined by Keefer (1984).

landslides from the source. This is mainly due to the fact that these outliers in terms of the affected areas represent cases where the zone of landsliding is more circular than elongated, and centred around the earthquake source. The cases of very long distances to the furthest landslide correspond to cases where the zone of landsliding is elongated and eccentric with respect to the fault rupture. The shape, extension and eccentricity of the landsliding area with respect to the earthquake source depends on regional slope susceptibility and directivity of the seismic radiation, as was demonstrated for the case of the 1991 Valle de la Estrella (Costa Rica) earthquake by Mora [16]. The landslides associated with the 1988 Saguenay earthquake clearly represent a very special case. The landslides during this event were concentrated in the epicentral area, though the distance and the affected landslide area are strongly dependent on slope susceptibility, and on the effect of the simultaneous arrival of the seismic waves. The most

distant landslides on natural slopes were in very sensitive clays underlain by a glacial till deposit that dipped in the direction of the slope face. The upper part of the slip surface of these slides coincides with the clay-till interface, while the clay sensitivity at this depth is typically between 20 and 40, and in some cases reaches values as high as 100500 [17]. Fill embankments also failed at similar long distances from the epicentre to those of the natural slopes, and in these cases slopes consisted of ne granular deposits inclined at an angle close to the frictional angle of the material, and were founded on saturated loose deposits [17]. In contrast, Somerville et al. [18] found for this earthquake that for distances beyond about 50 km, the peak horizontal ground motions are controlled by the reections of shear waves from interfaces in the lower crust, arriving simultaneously with direct radiation from the source [19]. This may be another reason for the extreme landslide behaviour during this earthquake.

336

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

Fig. 7. Maximum fault distance to coherent landslides as a function of magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). Solid line shows upper bound determined by Keefer (1984).

3.4. Landslides and intensity of shaking The ground shaking caused by earthquakes can induce landslides either through the application of horizontal and vertical accelerations to a slope, or by the generation of pore pressures within the slope. At least for landslides in soils, both mechanisms probably contribute to the occurrence of landslides. Perkins [14] points out that an inherent weakness in using the maximum distance of the expected landsliding as a function of the earthquake magnitude is that it assumes that the same hazard exists at all locations within the locus dened by this distance. Clearly, the possibility of landsliding increases with the intensity of the ground motion and therefore correlations with macroseismic intensity rather than magnitude are likely to provide greater insight and ultimately a more exible tool for hazard assessment. Fig. 9 shows the minimum MM intensity that triggered the disrupted slides, coherent slides and lateral spreads in each of the earthquakes in the new database and in Keefers

database. These plots are subject to the same qualications made with respect to the minimum earthquake magnitude for triggering landslides, since a slope that is imminently unstable could be caused to fail by very weak shaking. Therefore, the landslides associated with intensities of IV and V probably correspond to highly susceptible slopes. Of greater signicance is the modal value on each plot, giving an indication of the level of shaking that typically is required to induce different types of landslides. The shapes of the histograms for the combined database are very similar to those presented by Keefer with a modal value of VI for coherent slides and VII for lateral spreads and ows, though the new database suggests that the modal value for the disrupted slides may be slightly higher at VI. The main conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that the triggering of landslides during earthquakes is strongly dependent on the susceptibility of the slope and hence the implied lower bounds are of limited use. It was for these reasons that the modied version of

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

337

Fig. 8. Maximum fault distance to spreads and ows as a function of magnitude MS (top) and MW (bottom). Solid line shows upper bound determined by Keefer (1984).

the MSK intensity scale produced by the European Seismological Commission [20] omits many of the former references to the effects on nature, including landslides, noting that evidence is insufcient to establish good correlation between these effects and particular intensity grades. The resulting European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) recommends that the effects of earthquake shaking on nature should be employed with caution and in conjunction with other observations, and that intensities should never be assigned purely on the basis of such observations. Fig. 10 shows the total number of individual slides in each category in the new database, plotted against the MM intensity that triggered the slide. None of the data are associated with landslides triggered at the lowest intensities, which were determined from comparing landslide distribution and isoseismal maps. For this reason, in Fig. 10 there are no data below intensity VI. The interpretation of these plots should take into account the fact that, in general the lower values of intensity will be felt over a relatively wider

area. In contrast, only four earthquakes from the new data have been shown to cause landslides in areas below a VI intensity, suggesting that landslides in lower intensity areas are isolated cases that may depend mainly on the antecedent slope susceptibility.

4. Discussion and conclusions This study provides a signicant extension of the database compiled by Keefer [1], increasing the number of documented earthquakes from 40 to 76, and updating the database to 1997. The analysis of the new and combined databases generally conrms the ndings of Keefer [1], although it appears that the maximum area that can be affected by landslides is slightly greater, for intermediate earthquake magnitudes, than the upper bound proposed by Keefer. The new database has also revealed that there can be exceptional cases (such as the 1988 Saguenay earthquake)

338

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

Fig. 9. The minimum MM intensity that triggered landslides in each earthquake in the new database (white) and Keefers database (1984) (black) for (top) disrupted landslides, (middle) coherent landslides, and (bottom) lateral spreads and ows.

Fig. 10. Total numbers of documented slides triggered at different MM intensities in the new database.

where highly susceptible slopes can be caused to slide by quite distant seismic events. Similarly, there are reports that suggest that under particular circumstances, landslides can be triggered by very small earthquakes. With this expanded database it is now possible to extend the research into the extent and impact of factors contributing to the triggering of landslides by earthquakes. One of the areas of current research being undertaken on the combined database is the exploration of correlations with instrumental measures of earthquake ground motion. Keefer [1] pointed out that there were few strong-motion records available from the landslide zones of the historical earthquakes in his database, but this is not the case for the

post-1980 database. Many of the earthquakes were extensively recorded by accelerographs and there are possibilities for modelling the ground motion at the landslide locations in terms of parameters related to amplitude, duration and energy, as been done for example by Wilson and Keefer [21] and Harp and Wilson [22]. Another area in which the study is being extended is through the inclusion of more detailed information on climatic conditions. It is arguable that rainfall-induced and earthquake-induced landslide hazard should be assessed simultaneously, and there is at least one method that combines both of these triggering mechanisms (intensity of rainfall and seismic intensity) in an index related to the

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

339

landslide hazard potential (Sergio Mora, Rolando Mora and nther Vahrson) [5]. WilhelmGhu Consideration is also being given to special features of the geological environment that can lead to a particular susceptibility to landslides. For example, it has been noted that the 1986 San Salvador (El Salvador) earthquake (MS 5.4) triggered a number of landslides an order of magnitude higher than would normally be expected in an earthquake of this size [23,24]. In Keefers [1] database, the 1976 earthquake in neighbouring Guatemala stands out in a similar way in terms of the number of landslides triggered. Both of these Central American earthquakes occurred in areas predominantly covered by poorly consolidated volcanic soils, which often exist as almost vertical slopes, of several metres height, in ravines and road cuttings. The large numbers of slides triggered in these locations is likely to be due in part to the existence of a large number of very steep slopes. Such slopes appear to remain stable in these soils because of the combined action of cementation and negative pore pressures; suctions of the order of 300 kPa have been measured in undisturbed soil samples from San Salvador [25,26].

Acknowledgements The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Mrs K.M. Crooks, who provided invaluable nezPereira help in collecting the data. Mr. A Mart enriched the seismic data and its analysis, and his helpful contributions are also acknowledged with thanks. The rst author would also like to thank COLFUTURO for supporting him as research student at Imperial College, and is particularly grateful to the Universidad Nacional de Colombia for its unconditional support.

pattern of faulting. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1986;76(2):381394. 5. DElia B. Dynamic aspects of a landslide reactivated by the November 23, 1980 Irpinia earthquake (Southern Italy). In: Faccioli E, Pecker A, editors. Slope stability in ditions, 1992. p. 2532. seismic areas. Ouest E 6. DElia B, Esu F, Pellegrino A, Pescara TS. Some effects on natural slope stability induced by the Italian earthquake. Proceedings of the XI ICSMFE, vol. 4. San Francisco: 1985. p. 19431949. 7. Del Pezzo E, Iannaccone G, Martini M, Scarpa R. The 23 November 1980 Southern Italy earthquake. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1983;73(1):187200. 8. Del Prete M, Trisorio Liuzzi G. Reactivation of mudslides after a long quiescent period. The case of Bouninventre in Southern Apennines. In: Faccioli E, Pecker A, editors. Slope stability in seismic areas. ditions, 1992. p. 3345. Ouest E 9. Deschamps A, King GCP. The Campania-Lucania (Southern Italy) earthquake of 23 November 1980. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 1983;62:296304. 10. Hutchinson JN, Del Prete M. Landslides at Calitri, Southern Apennines, reactivated by the earthquake of 23 November 1980. Geologia Applicata e Idrologia 1983;XX:1938. 11. Simonelli AL, Viggiani C. Effects of seismic motion characteristics on earth slope behaviour. In: Ishihara K, editor. Earthquake geotechnical engineering. 1985. p. 10971102. 12. Westaway R, Jackson J. Surface faulting in the Southern Italian Campania-Basilicata earthquake of 23 November 1980. Nature 1984;312:436438. Coalinga 13. Rymer MJ, Ellsworth WL. The Coalinga, California, earthquake of May 2 1983. USGS Prof. Paper. 1990;1487:1417. Borah Peak 14. Crone JA, Machette MN, Bonilla MG, Lienkaemper JJ, Pierce KL, Scott WE, Bucknam RC. Surface faulting accompanying the Borah Peak earthquake and segmentation of the Lost River Fault, Central Idaho. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1987;77(3):739 770. 15. EERI. The Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 28, 1983. Earthquake Spectra 1985;2(1):1237. 16. Jackson SM, Boatwright J. Strong ground motion in the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake and its aftershocks. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1987;77(3):724738. 17. Richins WD, Pechmann JC, Smith RB, Langer CJ, Goter SK, Zollweg JE, King JJ. The 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake and its aftershocks. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1987;77(3):694723.

Appendix A. References used in the compilation of the new database Irpinia 1. Ambraseys NN. Uniform magnitude re-evaluation of European earthquakes associated with strong-motion records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:120. 2. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:371400. 3. Cotecchia V, Del Prete M. The reactivation of large ows in the parts of southern Italy affected by the earthquake of November 1980, with reference to the evolutive mechanism. Fourth International Symposium on Landslides, vol. 2. Toronto: 1985. p. 3338. 4. Crosson RS, Martin M, Scarpa R, Key SC. The Southern Italy earthquake of 23 November 1980: an unusual

340

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

Nagoken 18. Inokuchi T. The Ontake rock slide and debris avalanche caused by the Nagoken-Seibu earthquake, 1984. In: Proceedings of the IV International Conference and Field Workshop on Landslides, Tokyo: 1985, p. 329 338. 19. Ishihara K, Yoshida Y, Nakamura S, Tsujino S, Sakuuchi H. Stability of natural slopes during the 1984 Nagano-Seibu earthquake. Proceedings of the Eighth Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1987;1:237240. 20. Morikawi H, Yazaki S, Oyagi N. A gigantic debris avalanche and its dynamics at Mount Ontake caused by the Naganoken-Seibu earthquake, 1984. In: Proceedings of the IV International Conference and Field Workshop on Landslides. 1985. p. 359364. 21. Ohmachi T, Midorikawa S. Ground-motion intensity inferred from upthrow of boulders during the 1984 Western Nagano prefecture, Japan, earthquake. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America1992;82(1):4460. 22. Sassa K. Keynote Paper: Access to the dynamics of landslides during earthquakes by a new cyclic loading high-speed ring shear apparatus. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Landslides 1985;3:19191939. 23. Sassa K. The mechanisms of high mobility in the Ontake Debris Avalanche. Proceedings of the Eighth Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1987;1:487490. 24. Sassa K. Special Lecture: Geotechnical model for the motion of landslides. In: Proceedings of the fth International Symposium on Landslides. 1988. p. 37 55. 25. Takeo M, Mikami N. Inversion of strong motion seismograms for the source process of the NaganokenSeibu earthquake of 1984. Tectonophysics 1987;144:271285. 26. Tanaka K. Some earthquake induced landslides in Japan. In: Proceedings of the IV International Conference and Field Workshop on Landslides. 1985. p. 347350. 27. Yanase H. Ochiai H, Matsuura S. A large-scale landslide on Mt. Ontake due to the Nagoken-Seibu earthquake, 1984. In: Proceedings of the IV International Conference and Field Workshop on Landslides. 1985. p. 323328. Valparaiso 28. Barrientos SE. Slip distribution of the Central Chile earthquake. Tectonophysics 1988;145:225241. 29. Celebi M. Topographical and geological applications determined from strong-motion and aftershocks records of the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1987;77(4):1147 1167. 30. Celebi M. A feature of the 3 March 1985 Chile

earthquake, possible terrain amplication. Proceedings of the Third US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1996;1:125136. 31. EERI. The Chile earthquake of March 3, 1985. Earthquake Spectra 1986;2(2):249508. 32. Troncoso JH. The Chilean earthquake of 3 March 1985. Effects on soil structures. In: Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1986. p. 110. Kalamata 33. Anagnostopolous SA, Rinaldis D, Lekidis VA, Morgaris VN, Theodulidis NP. The Kalamata, Greece, earthquake of September 13, 1986. Earthquake Spectra 1987;3(2):365402. 34. Elnashai AS, Pilakoutas K. The Kalamata, Greece earthquake of 13 September 1986, ESEE Report 86.9, 1986, Imperial College, London. 35. Tselentis GA, Drokopoulos J, Makropoulos K. Short Note: site effects on seismograms of local earthquakes in the Kalamata region, Southern Greece. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1988;78(4):15971602. El Salvador 36. EERI. The San Salvador earthquake of October 10, 1986. Earthquake Spectra 1987;3(3):00. 37. Harlow D, White RA, Rymer MJ. The San Salvador earthquake of 10 October 1986 and its historical context. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1993;83(4):11431154. 38. Rymer MJ, White RA. Hazards in El Salvador from earthquake-induced landslides. In: Brabb, Harrod, editors. Landslides: extent and economic signicance. 1989. p. 105109. Diebu 39. Zhenging H. The MS 5.9 Diebu earthquake, Gansu Province, January 8, 1987. Earthquake Research in China 1990;4(2):163171. Edgecumbe 40. Dowrick DJ. Edgecumbe earthquakesome notes on its source, ground motions, and damage in relation to safety. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1988;21:198203. 41. Dowrick DJ. Magnitude reassessment of New Zealand earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1991;20:577996. 42. Franks CAM. Engineering geological aspects of the Edgecumbe, New Zealand. Earthquake of 2 March 1987. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 1988;21:337 345. 43. Pender MJ, Robertson TW. Edgecumbe earthquake: reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra 1987; 3(4):659745.

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

341

El Napo 44. Lara O. Effects of earthquakes on lifelines: case historythe El Napo 1987 earthquake. Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid. Spain, 1994. 45. Nieto AS, Schuster RL. Mass wasting and ooding induced by the 5 March 1987 Ecuador earthquake. Landslides News 1988;2:58. 46. Schuster RL, Nieto AS, ORourke TD, Crespo E, Plaza-Nieto G. Mass wasting triggered by the 5 March 1987 Ecuador earthquakes. Engineering Geology 1996;42:123. ` G. Landslides triggered 47. Tibaldi A, Ferrari L, Pesquare by earthquakes and their relations with faults and mountain slope geometry: an example from Ecuador. Geomorphology 1995;11:215226. Whittier Narrows 48. Harp EL, Wilson RC. Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and slides: evidence from 1987 Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills earthquake strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1995;85(6):17391757. 49. Jones L, Hauksson E. The Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987 seismology. Earthquake Spectra 1988;4(1):4353. 50. Leyendecker EV, Highland LM, Hopper M, Arnold EP, Thenhaus P, Powers P. The Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987early results of isoseismal studies and damage surveys. Earthquake Spectra 1988;4(1):110. 51. Linde AT, Johnson MJS. Source parameters of the October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake from crustal deformation data. Journal of Geophysical Research 1989;94(B7):96339643. 52. Trifunac MD. The Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987note on peak accelerations during the 1 and 4 October earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1988;4(1):101111. 53. Weber FH. Whittier Narrows earthquakesLos Angeles County, October 1 and 4, 1987. California Geology 1987;40(12):1987. Superstition Hill 54. Hanks TC, Allen CR. The Elmore Ranch and Superstition Hills earthquakes of 24 November 1987: introduction to the special issue. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1989;79(2):231238. 55. Holzer TL, Youd TL, Hanks TC. Dynamics of liquefaction during the 1987 Superstition Hills, California, earthquake. Science 1989;244:5659. 56. Magistrale H, Jones L, Kanamori H. The Superstition Hills, California, earthquakes of 24 November 1987. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1989;79(2):252281.

57. Sharp RV, Budding KE, Bootwright J, Ader MJ, Bonilla MG, Clark MM, Fumal, TE, Harms KK, Lienkaemper JJ, Monton DM, ONeill BJ, Ostergren CL, Ponti DJ, Rymer MJ, Saxton JL, Sims JD. Surface faulting along the Superstition Hills fault zone and nearly faults associated with earthquakes of 24 November 1987. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1989;79(2):252281. 58. Sipkin S. Moment-tensor solutions for 24 November Superstition Hills, California, earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1989;79(2):493499. Nepal 59. Boyce JR. Earthquake damage to a low cost road in Nepal. VI International Symposium on Landslides. 1985. p. 4350. 60. EOS News. Nepal quake doesnt t. EOS 1988;69(38):860. Killini 61. MSc/EFTU Group, The Killini, Elias, Greece Earthquake of October and November 1988, ESEE Report 89.6, 1989, Imperial College, London. Saguenay 62. Boore DM, Atkinson GM. Source spectra for the Saguenay, Quebec, earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1992;82(2):638719. 63. Cajka M, Drysdale J. Intensity report of the November 25, 1988. Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake. Geological Survey of Canada (Open File Report) 1988;3279:1986. 64. Free M. The attenuation of earthquake strong-motion in intraplate regions. PhD Thesis, 1996, Imperial College, University of London. 65. Haddon RA. Waveform modeling of strong-motion data for the Saguenay earthquake of 25 November 1988. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1992;82(2):720754. 66. Lefebvre G, Leboeuf D, Hornych P. Slope failures associated with the Saguenay earthquake, Quebec, Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1992;29:117 130. 67. Somerville PG, McLaren JP, Saikia CK, Helmberg DV. The 25 November 1988 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake: source parameters and the attenuation of strong ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1990;80(5):11181143. Spitak 68. Bommer JJ, Ambraseys NN. The Spitak (Armenia, USSR) earthquake of 7 December 1988: a prelininary engineering seismology report. ESEE Research Report 89.1, 1989, Imperial College, London. 69. Bommer JJ, Ambraseys NN. The Spitak (Armenia, USSR) earthquake of 7 December 1988: a preliminary

342

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

engineering seismology report. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1989;18:921925. 70. EERI, Armenia earthquake reconnaissance report, Earthquake Spectra, Special Supplement, August, 1989. p. 1175. 71. Hadjian AH. The Spitak, Armenia earthquake of 7 December 1988why so much destruction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1993;12:124. 72. Ishihara K. Earthquake-induced landslides near Spitak, Armenia, USSR. Landslide News 1991;5:2526. 73. Wood PR, Berril JB, Gillon NR, North PJ. Earthquake of 7 December 1988, Spitak, Armenia: Report of the NZNSEE Team visit of 1989. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering 1993;26(3):253283. Soviet Tajik 74. Ishihara K, Okusa S, Oyagi N, Ischuk A. Liquefaction-induced ow slide in the collapsible loess deposit in Soviet Tajik. Soils and Foundations 1990;30(4):7389. Loma Prieta 75. Clough GW, Martin JR, Chameau JL. The geotechnical aspects. Practical Lessons from the Loma Prieta earthquake. Washington: National Academic Press, 1994. p. 2967. 76.EERI. Loma Prieta earthquake reconnaissance report, Earthquake Spectra. vol. 6, Special Supplement, 1990. 77. Elnashai A, Bommer JJ, El-Ghazouli A. The Loma Prieta (Santa Cruz, California) earthquake of 17 October 1989: Seismological, geotechnical and structural eld observations. ESEE Research Report 89.11, 1989, Imperial College, London. 78. Harp EL, Schmidt K, Wilson RC, Keefer DK, Jibson RW. Effects of Landslides and coseismic fractures triggered by the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake. Landslide News 1991;5:1822. 79. Plakfer G, Galloway JP. Lessons learned from the Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989. United States Geological Survey (circular) 1989;1045:148. 80. Seed RB, Dickenson SE, Idriss IM. Principal geotechnical aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Soils and Foundations 1991;31(1):126. Manjil 81. Astarch-Asl A. Lessons of the 1990 Manjil-Iran earthquake. Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1994;11:69977000. 82. Berberian M, Qorashi M, Jackson JA, Priestley K, Wallace T. The Rudbar-Tarom earthquake of 20 June 1990 in NW Persia: preliminary eld and seismological observations, and its tectonic signicance. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1992;82(4):1726 1755. 83. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y. Near-source attenuation

of peak horizontal acceleration from world wide accelerograms recorded from 1957 to 1963. Proceedings of the Fifth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. EERI, Berkeley, California 1994;3:283 292. 84. Haeri SM, Samree HA. Study on Giash landslide induced by Manjil earthquake, Iran. In: Ishihara K, editor. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Balkema, 1995. p. 10311036. 85. Haeri SM. Liquefaction associated with Manjil earthquake of June 20 1990, Iran. Fifth International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1991;325339. 86. Haeri SM, Zolfaghary MR. On the earthquake induced liquefaction in Astaneh, Iran earthquake. Tenth World Conference 1992;11:69977000. 87. Astarch-Asl A. Lessons of the 1990 Manjil-Iran earthquake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World Conference) 1994;1:129134. 88. Ishihara K. Manjil earthquake of 21 June 1990, Iran. Landslide News 1991;5:24. 89. Ishihara K, Haeri M, Moinfar AA, Towhata I, Tsujino S. Geotechnical aspects of the June 20 1991, Manjil earthquake in Iran. Soils and Foundations 1994;32(3):6178. 90. Moinfar AA, Naderzadeh A. Lessons learned from the 20 June 1990 Manjil, Iran earthquake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World Conference) 1994;11:7001 7007. 91. Moinfar AA, Naderzaadeh A. An immediate and preliminary report on Manjil, Iran earthquake of 20 June 1990. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1990;23(4):254283. Philippines 92. Arboleda RA, Punongbayan RS. Landslides induced by the 16 July 1990 Luzon, Philippines, earthquake. Landslide News 1991;5:57. 93. EERI. The Philippines earthquake. Reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra (special suppl.) 1991;7:00. 94. EQE International. The July 16, 1990, Philippines earthquake. A Quick Look Report, 1990. 95 Hopkins DC, Clark WD, Matuschka T, Sinclair JC. The Philippines earthquake of July 16, 1990 Report of eld visit. Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1991;24(1):395. 96. Ishihara K, Acacio AA, Towhata I. Liquefactioninduced ground damage in Dagupan in the July 16, 1990. Luzon earthquake. Soils and Foundations 1993;33(1):133154. 97. Kojima H, Tokimatsu K. Liquefaction-induced damage, and geological and geophysical conditions during the 1990 Luzon earthquake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World Conference) 1992;8:135140. 98. Sharpe RL. July 16, 1990 Luzon, Philippines, earthquake. Tenth World Conference 1992;11:70277031.

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

343

Valle de la Estrella 99. EERI. Costa Rica earthquake. Reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra (special suppl.) 1991;7:1127. 100. EQE International, The April 22, 1991. Valle de la Estrella, Costa Rica Earthquake. A Quick Look Report, 1991. n de suelos y feno menos asocia101. Mora S. Licuefaccio n, Costa Rica, (MS dos duarnte el Sismo de Telire-Limo 7.6; 22 April 1991). Segundo Seminario Colombiano de a Sismolo gica y Geotecnia, Bogota, Colombia, Ingenieri 1997. 102. Mora S. Los Deslizamientos causados por el terre n del 22 de Abril de 1991, factores moto de Telire-Limo con otros eventos en Costa Rica. de control y comparacio a Sismolo Segundo Seminario Colombiano de Ingenieri , Colombia, 1997. gica y Geotecnia, Bogota 103. Santana G. The April 22, 1991. Limon (Costa Rica) earthquake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World Conference) 1994;8:70337038. 104. Youd TL, Rollins KM, Salazar AF, Wallace RM. Bridge damage caused by liquefaction during the 22 April 19991 Costa Rica earthquake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World Conference) 1992;8:153158. Erzincan 105. Hencher SR, Acar IA. The Erzincan earthquake, Friday, 13 March 1992. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 1995;28:313316. 106. EERI. Erzincan, Turkey Earthquake of March 13, 1992. Reconnaissance Report. Earthquake Spectra, Supplement to vol. 9, 1993. zu gu llu O, Yilmaz C, Akkas N. 13 107. Erdik M, Yu March, 1992 (MS 6.8) Erzincan earthquake: a preliminary report. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1992;11:279310. Cape Mendocino 108. Earthquakes and volcanoes (special issue). Cape Mendocino Earthquake, California, on April 25-26, 1992. Earthquakes and Volcanoes 1992;23(3):92134. 109. Oppenheimer D, Beroza G, Carver G, Dengler L, Eaton J, Gee L, Gonzalez F, Jayko A, Li WH, Lisowki M, Magee M, Marshall G, Murray M, Mc Pherson R, Romanowicz B, Sotake K, Simpson R, Somerville P, Stein R, Valentine D. The Cape Mendocino, California, earthquakes of April 1992: subduction of triple junction. Science 1993;261:433438. 110. Person WJ. Seismological notesMarchApril 1992. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1993;83(1):295302. 111. Schwartz SY. Source parameters of aftershocks of the 1991 Costa Rica and 1992 Cape Mendocino, California, earthquakes from inversion of local amplitude ratios and broadband waveforms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1995;85(6):15661575.

112. Velasco AA, Ammon CJ, Thorne L. Recent large earthquakes near Cape Mendocino and in the Gorda Plate. Broadband source time functions, fault orientations and rupture complexities. Journal of Geophysical Research 1994;99(B1):711728. Suusamyr m G, Salganik MP. 113. Dziewonski AM, Ekstro Centroid-moment tensor solutions for JulySeptember 1992. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 1993;79:287297. 114. Ghose S, Mellors RJ, Korjenkov AM, Hamburger HW, Poulos GL, Omuraliev M, Mamirov E, Muraliev AR. The MS 7.3 1992 Suusamyr, Kyrgyzstan, earthquake: 2. Aftershocks focal mechanisms and surface deformation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1997;87(1):2338. 115. Mellors RJ, Vernon FL, Poulos GL, Abers GA, Hamburger MW, Ghose S, Iliasov B. The MS 7.3 1992 Suusamyr, Kyrgyzstan, earthquake: 1. Constraints on fault geometry and source parameters based on aftershocks and body-wave modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1997;87(1):1122. Murindo 116. INGEOMINAS. Los sismos del Atrato Medio, 17 y 18 de Octubre de 1992. Noroccidente de Colombia, de Bogota , Colombia. 1993. p. 145. Santafe Hokkai-Nansei 117. Butcher GW, Beetham RD, Millar PJ, Tanaka H. The Hokkaido-Nansei earthquake. Final report of the NZNSEE Reconnaissance team. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1994;27(1):254. 118. EERI. Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake and tsunami of July 12, 1993. Reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to vol. 11, 1995:1166. 119. Yamagishi H, Amamiya K, Kurosawa K. Landslides induced by the Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake, Japan, 12 July 1993. Landslide News 1994;8:1012. 120. Yasuda T, Hosuda H. A discussion on the mechanics of a llback failure caused by the Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake. In: Ishihara K, editor. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Balkema, 1995. p. 10631067. Ormond 121. Chapman HE. Ormond earthquake10 August 1993: report on visit to examine the effects on bridging. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1993;26(3):309311. 122. Christensen SA. Ormond Earthquake. Liquefaction reconnaissance report. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1993;26(3):312328. 123. Read SAL, Sritharan S. Reconnaissance report on

344

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

the Ormond Earthquake10 August 1993. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1993;26(3):292308. Fiorland 124. Van Dissen R, Cousins J, Robinson R, Reyners M. The Fiorland Earthquake of 10 August, 1993: a reconnaissance report covering tectonic setting, peak ground acceleration, and landslide damage. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1994;27(2):147154. 125. Zhao JX, Dowrick DJ, McVerry GH. Attenuation of peak ground accelerations in New Zealand earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1997;30(2):133158. Klamath Falls 126. Brantley SR, editor. The Klamath Falls, Oregon, earhquakes on September 20, 1993. Earthquakes and Volcanoes (special issue). Klamath Falls Earthquake 1993;24(3):104146. 127. Person WJ. Seismological notesSeptember October 1993. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1995;84(4):12841290. Northridge 128. EERI. Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994. Reconnaissance report. vol. 1 and 2. Earthquake Spectra, Supplement C to vol. 11, 1995. 129. Harp EL, Wilson RW. Inventory of landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake. United States Geological Survey (Open-File Report). 1995:95213. 130. Jibson RW, Harp EL, Keefer DK, Wilson RC. Landslides triggered by the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Landslide News 1994;8:710. 131. NZNSEE. Brief report on the 17 January 1994, Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1994;27(1):5565. 132. Seismological Society of America. The Northridge M 6.7 earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1996;86(1B):S1S361. 133. US Geological Survey. Northridge, California, Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Earthquakes and Volcanoes 1994;25(1,2):447, 60106. 134. US Geological Survey and Southern California Earthquake Center. The Magnitude 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake of 17 January 1994. Science 1994;266:389397. Paez 135. Avila GE, Caro PE, Cepeda H, Moreno M, Torres P, n para uso del suelo en la cuenca Agudelo A. Zonicacio o Pa a ez. VIII Jornadas Geotecnicas de la Ingenieri del Ri de Bogota , Colombia, 1995. Colombiana, Santafe

ez-Cauca del 6 de 136. INGEOMINAS. El Sismo de Pa n de Emergencia. Informe a la Junio de 1994. Evaluacio n Accidental del Congreso Nacional, Santafe de Comisio , Colombia, 1994. Bogota nez JM, Avila G, Agudelo A, Schuster RL, 137. Mart Casadevall TJ, Scott KM. Landslides and debris ows triggered by the 6 June 1994 Paez earthquake, Southwestern Colombia. Landslide News 1995;9:1315. Arthur Pass (1994) 138. Berril JB, McManus KJ, Clarke GH. A note on the Arthurs Pass earthquake 18 June 1994. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1995;28(4):294299. 139. Paterson BR, Bourne-Webb PJ. Reconnaissance report on highway damage from the 18 June 1994, Arthurs Pass earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1994;27(3):222226. Hyogo-Ken Nanbu 140. Lekkas E, Kranis H, Stylianos P, Leounakis M. Earthquake-induced landslides during the great Hanshin earthquake of January 17, 1995 (Kobe, Japan). Seventh Symposium on Landslides 1996;2:989994. 141. Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Baron I. Selected engineering seismology and structural studies of the Hyogoken-, Kobe, Japan earthquake 17th January, 1995. ESEE Research Report 1995;95.2:146. 142. Ide S, Takeo M, Yoshia Y. Source process of the Kobe earthquake: determination of spatio-temporal slip distribution by Bayesian modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1996;86(3):547566. 143. Ishihara K, Yasuda S. Ground damage in coastal areas. In: Preliminary report on the great Hanshin earthquake, January 17, 1995. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. p. 1117. 144. Ishikawa Y, Tsunaki R, Takeshi, T. Chapter 9. Slope movement disasters and damage to sediment and slope movement (or landslide) control facilities. In: Journal of Research, Public works Research Institute, 1997;33:371 436. Report on the Disaster caused by the 1995 Hyogen Nanbu earthquake. 145. Japanese Geotechnical Society, Great Hanshin earthquake disasters, Special issue of Soils and Foundations, 1996. 146. Kamai T. Landslides in the Hanshin urban region caused by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Japan. Landslide News 1995;9:12113. 147. Matsuo M, Ochiai H, Morikawa T, Umemura J. Ground damage due to the Great Hanshin earthquake. In: Preliminary report on the great Hanshin earthquake. January 17, 1995. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. p. 165187. 148. Ochiai H, Kitahara H, Sammori T, Kazutoki A. Landslides triggered by the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr

345

earthquake in Rokko mountains. Seventh Symposium on Landslides. 1996. p. 10071012. 149. Okimura T. Damage to mountain slopes and embankments in residential areas. In: Preliminary report on the great Hanshin earthquake. January 17, 1995. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. p. 340346. 150. Okimura T, Yamagami T, Ugai K. Slope failures during the 1995 Southern Hyogo earthquake in Japan. 7th. 1996. p. 10131018. 151. Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Sakamoto T. The rapid and disastrous Nikawa landslide. Landslide News 1995;9:6 9. 152. Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Evans S. Long-runout Takarazuka landslide. Landslide News 1995;9:911. 153. Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Irikura K, Okimura T. Landslides triggered by the HyogokenNanbu earthquake. Landslide News 1995;9:25. 154. Takada S, Okimura T, Yan Lee T. Seismic motion and damage characteristics. In: Preliminary report on the great Hanshin earthquake. January 17, 1995. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. p. 270281. Tauramena a y Geotecnia LTDA. Estudio de Riesgo 155. Ingenier cnica Monte 907 y la Torre Sismico y estabilidad geote de Telecomunicaciones. Informe ECOPETROL, Santafe , Colombia. 1995. p. 116. de Bogota a y Geotecnia LTDA. Efectos del sismo de 156. Ingenier Tauramena (Enero 19/95) sobre la carretera de acceso a la n de bombeo de El Porvenir y los oleoductos estacio Araguaney/ApiayEl Porvenir. Informe ECOPETROL, de Bogota , Colombia. 1996. p. 144. Santafe de 157. INGEOMINAS. Informe Tauramena, Santafe , Colombia. 1995. p. 140. Bogota Arthurs Pass 158. Paterson B.R, Berril J.B. Damage to state highway 73 from the 29 May 1995, Arthurs Pass earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1999;28(4):300310. Umbria-Marche 159. Basili R, Bosi V, Galadini F, Galli P, Meghraoui M, Messina P, Moro M, Sposato A. The Colorito earthquake sequence of SeptemberOctober 1997. Surface breaks and seismotectonic implications for the Central Appenines (Italy). Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1998;2(2):291302. 160. Basli R, Bosi V, Capotorti F, Galadini F, Galli P, Giuliani R, Meghraoui M, Messina P. Earthquake of 26 September in Umbria-Marche Region, Observations on geological effects along Quaternary faults, 1997. 161. EERI Special Earthquake Report. Reconnaissance report on the Umbria-Marche, Italy, Earthquake of 1997, 1997.

162. EFTU. Field observations of the Italian earthquakes of SeptemberOctober 1997. Reconnaissance Report, 1997. 163. Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Allmark TB, Martinez A, Orlando A. The Umbria-Marche earthquake sequence of SeptemberOctober 1997, (submitted for publishing as a Quick-look Report to EQE, 1998). 164. Politecnico de Milano. I Terremoti Umbrio-Marchigiani dei Settembre/Ottobre 1997: esperienze sul campo dei Dottorado di Ingegneria Sismica, 1997. de Camerino. Preliminary Report on the 165. Universita 26 September 1997 earthquakes, Structural Geology and Tectonic group, 1998. 166. Cello G, Mangano P, Mazzoli S, Tondi E. Evidence for surface faulting during the September 26, 1997, Colorito (Central Italy) earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1998;2(2):303324. 167. Website: http:\\www.unicam.it/university/unitoper/ Umbria 168. Website: http:\\www.eeri.org/Reconn/Umbria

References
[1] Keefer DK. Landslides caused by earthquakes. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 1984;95:406421. [2] Lomnitz C. The Peru earthquake of May 31, 1970. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1970;60:14131416. [3] Kuroiwa J, Deza E, Jaen H. Investigations of the Peruvian earthquake of May 31, 1970. Proceedings, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome 1973;I:447457. [4] Varnes DJ, Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. Paris: UNESCO, 1984. [5] JSSMFE, Manual for zonation on seismic geotechnical hazards. Tokyo: Japanese Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1993. [6] Joyner WB, Boore DM. Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1981;71:20112038. [7] Ambraseys NN, Bommer JJ. The attenuation of ground accelerations in Europe. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1991;20:11791202. [8] Margottini C, Molin C, Narcisi B, Serva L. Intensity vs. acceleration: Italian data. In: Margotinni C, Sena L, editors. Proceeding, workshop on historical seismicity of Central-Eastern Mediterranean region, ENEA, Rome, 1987, p. 213226. [9] Reiter L. Earthquake hazard analysis: issues and insights, New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. [10] Varnes, DJ. Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ, editors. Landslidesanalysis and control, National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board Special Report 176. 1978. p. 1233. [11] Simonett DS. Landslide distribution and earthquakes in the Bewani and Torricelli Mountains, New Guinea. In: Jennings JN, Mabbutt JA, editors. Landform studies from Australia and New Guinea, Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press, 1967. [12] Feng X, Guo A. Earthquake landslide in China. Proceedings of the IV International Conference and Field Workshop on Landslides, Tokyo 1985;339346. [13] Scholz CH. The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, London: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

346

guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325346 C.E. Rodr nthal G, editor. European macroseismic scale 1992 Luxembourg: [20] Gu European Seismological Commission, 1993. [21] Wilson RC, Keefer KD. Predicting areal limits of earthquake-induced landsliding. In: Ziony JI, editors. Evaluating earthquake hazards in Los Angeles region, Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360. 1985. p. 317345. [22] Harp EL, Wilson RC. Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and slides: evidence from Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills earthquake strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1995;85:17391757. [23] Rymer MJ. The San Salvador earthquake of October 10, 1986 geologic aspects. Earthquake Spectra 1987;3:435463. [24] Rymer MJ, White RA. Hazards in El Salvador from earthquakeinduced landslides. In: Brabb EE, Harrod BL, editors. Landslides: extent and economic signicance, Balkema, 1989 p. 105109. [25] Rolo R. Elements of seismic hazard in El Salvador and Central America, MSc Dissertation, Imperial College, University of London, 1998. nicas de la tierra [26] Bommer J, Rolo R, Mendez P. Propiedades meca blanca y la inestabilidad de taludes. Revista ASIA, El Salvador 1998;129:1521.

[14] Perkins DM. Landslide hazard maps analogues to probabilistic earthquake ground motion hazard maps. In: Cruden DM, Fell R, editors. Landslide risk assessment, Balkema, 1997 p. 327332. [15] Ambraseys NN. Engineering seismology. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1988;17:1105. [16] Mora S. Los deslizamientos causados por el terremoto de Telire n del 22 de Abril de 1991, factores de control y comparacio n Limo con otros eventos en Costa Rica. Segundo Seminario Colombiano de a Sismolo gica y Geotecnia, Bogota , Colombia 1997. Ingenier [17] Lefebvre G, Leboeuf D, Hornych P. Slope failures associated with the Saguenay earthquake, Quebec, Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1992;29:117130. [18] Somerville PG, McLaren JP, Saikia CK, Helmberger DV. The 25 November 1988 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake: source parameters and the attenuation of strong motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1990;80:11181143. [19] Burger RW, Somerville PG, Barker JS, Herrmann RB, Helmberger DV. The effect of crustal structure on strong ground motion attenuation relations in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1987;77:420439.