The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

METHODS TO MODEL CO-SEISMIC LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT

RANDALL W. JIBSON
United States Geological Survey, USA
ABSTRACT: Landslides typically cause a large proportion of earthquake damage, and the
ability to predict slope performance during earthquakes is important for many types of
seismic hazard analysis and for the design of slopes. Newmarks method for modeling a
landslide as a rigid-plastic block sliding on an inclined plane provides a useful method for
predicting approximate landslide displacements. Applying Newmarks method requires
knowledge of the critical or yield acceleration of the landslide (i.e the seismic coefficient
which results in a factor of safety of 1.0), which can be determined from the static factor of
safety and the landslide geometry. Earthquake acceleration-time histories can be selected to
represent the shaking conditions of interest, and those parts of the record that lie above the
critical acceleration are integrated to determine the velocity of the landslide block relative
to the base; the resulting velocity time history is then integrated to determine the permanent
landslide displacement. For approximate results, simplified Newmark methods can be
used, which estimate Newmark displacement as a function of landslide critical acceleration
and the characteristics of the earthquake shaking.
INTRODUCTION
Most moderate and large earthquakes trigger landslides, and these landslides commonly
cause a significant proportion of total earthquake damage. Earthquakes having magnitudes
greater than about 4 can trigger landslides on very susceptible slopes near the epicenter, and
earthquakes having magnitudes greater than about 6 can generate widespread landsliding
(Keefer, 1984). Accurately predicting which slopes will move and the severity of that
movement, however, is difficult. This paper briefly reviews some published methods to
predict earthquake-triggered slope displacement and shows how these methods can be
applied to practical problems.
The ability to predict approximate amounts of
earthquake-induced landslide movement can be used for regional seismic-hazard analysis
and in designing slopes to withstand earthquake shaking.
The seismic performance of a slope can be evaluated in several ways. The simplest and
most widely used approach is pseudostatic analysis, in which an earthquake acceleration
acting on the mass of a potential landslide is treated as a permanent static body force in a
limit-equilibrium (factor-of-safety) analysis. The factor of safety is computed with the
destabilizing force induced by the earthquake included in the analysis. The main issue with
pseudostatic analysis is defining an appropriate level of earthquake acceleration.
Alternatively, pseudostatic analysis can be used to define the acceleration level that will
initiate failure. In this case, different earthquake accelerations are applied iteratively until
the factor of safety is reduced to 1.0; this acceleration is called the critical (or yield)
acceleration, the exceedance of which is defined as failure. This procedure is simple and
requires no more information than is needed for a static factor-of-safety analysis, although
the appropriate shear-strength characterization may be different. Pseudostatic analysis is
useful for identifying critical accelerations and, hence, peak ground accelerations (PGA)
below which no slope displacement will occur. In cases where the PGA does exceed the
critical acceleration, however, pseudostatic analysis predicts failure, although many slopes
1

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

experience transient earthquake accelerations well above their critical accelerations but
experience little or no permanent displacement (Newmark, 1965; Wilson and Keefer, 1983).
The utility of pseudostatic analysis is thus limited because it provides only a single
numerical threshold below which no displacement is predicted and above which total, but
undefined, failure is predicted. In fact, pseudostatic analysis tells the user nothing about
what will occur when the critical acceleration is exceeded.
On the other end of the spectrum, advances in finite-element and finite-difference
modeling have facilitated very accurate evaluation of strain potentials and permanent slope
deformation (Seed et al., 1975; Taniguchi et al., 1983; Prevost et al., 1985; Elgamal et al.,
1987). These highly sophisticated methods require a broad spectrum of data of high quality
and density, which, combined with the intensive computing capacity required, make their
general use time-consuming and thus prohibitively expensive (Chang et al., 1984).
Newmark (1965) proposed a method of analysis that bridges the gap between simplistic
pseudostatic analysis and sophisticated, but generally impractical, finite-element modeling.
Newmarks method models a landslide as a rigid-plastic friction block having a known
critical acceleration, the acceleration required to overcome frictional resistance and initiate
sliding on an inclined plane (Figure 1). The analysis calculates the permanent displacement
of the block as it is subjected to the effects of an earthquake acceleration-time history, and
the user judges the significance of the displacement. Laboratory model tests (Goodman and
Seed, 1966; Wartman et al., 2003, 2005) and analyses of earthquake-induced landslides in
natural slopes (Wilson and Keefer, 1983; Pradel et al., 2005) confirm that Newmarks
method can fairly accurately predict slope displacements if slope geometry, soil properties,
and earthquake ground motions are known. Newmarks method is simple to apply and
provides an estimate of the inertial landslide displacement resulting from a given level of
earthquake shaking. Additionally, even where an accurate prediction of ultimate field
displacement is impossible, Newmarks method provides a quantitative index of seismic
slope performance (Jibson et al., 1998, 2000; Rathje and Bray, 2000).
PAST APPLICATIONS OF NEWMARKS METHOD
Newmarks method has been applied in a variety of ways to slope-stability problems. Most
early applications dealt with the seismic performance of dams and embankments (Yegian et
al., 1991; Makdisi and Seed, 1978). Newmarks method also has been successfully applied
to landslides in natural slopes (Wilson and Keefer, 1983; Pradel et al., 2005). Newmarks
method is being used increasingly in the design of slopes, solid-waste landfills, and other
engineering works (e.g., Bray and Rathje, 1998; Blake et al., 2002).

Fig 1. Sliding-block model used for Newmark analysis. The potential landslide is modeled
as a block resting on a plane inclined at a known angle () from the horizontal.
The block has a known critical (yield) acceleration (ac), the base acceleration
required to overcome shear resistance and initiate sliding with respect to the base.
The block is subjected to a base acceleration (a) representing the earthquake
shaking.
2

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

Several simplified approaches have been proposed for applying Newmarks method;
these involve developing empirical relationships to predict slope displacement as a function
of critical acceleration and one or more measures of earthquake shaking. Many such
studies plot displacement against critical acceleration ratiothe ratio of critical
acceleration to PGA (Franklin and Chang, 1977; Makdisi and Seed, 1978; Ambraseys and
Menu, 1988; Jibson, 2007; Saygili and Rathje, 2008; Rathje and Saygili, 2009). Other
studies have related critical acceleration ratio to some normalized form of displacement
(Yegian et al., 1991; Lin and Whitman, 1986). Jibson (1993) and Jibson et al. (1998, 2000)
related Newmark displacement to critical acceleration and Arias (1970) intensity (Ia), the
integral over time of the squared accelerations in a strong-motion record. Miles and Ho
(1999) and Miles and Keefer (2000) compared results from these simplified methods with
their own method of rigorously integrating artificially generated strong-motion time
histories.
The commonest application of these simplified methods is in making seismic landslide
hazard maps, where regional estimation of Newmark displacment in the GIS model is
required. Wieczorek et al. (1985) were the first to use Newmark analysis as a basis for
seismic landslide microzonation, and methods for such applications have evolved steadily
since that first study (e.g., Jibson et al., 1998, 2000; Mankelow and Murphy, 1998; Luzi and
Pergalani, 1999; Miles and Ho, 1999; Miles and Keefer, 2000, 2001; Del Gaudio et al.,
2003; Rathje and Saygili, 2008; Jibson and Michael, 2009). Such applications generally
involve GIS modeling in which study areas are gridded, and discrete estimates of coseismic
displacement are generated for each grid cell using simplified regression equations.
TYPES OF SLIDING-BLOCK ANALYSIS CURRENTLY IN USE
Since Newmark first introduced his analytical method in 1965, several variations have
been proposed that are designed to yield more accurate estimates of slope displacement by
modeling the dynamic slope response more rigorously. This, of course, involves a tradeoff. One great advantage of Newmarks method is its theoretical and practical simplicity.
This simplicity, however, is the result of many assumptions that limit the accuracy of the
results in many cases. Chief among these limitations is the assumption of rigiditythat the
landslide block is perfectly rigid and experiences no internal deformation. This assumption
is reasonable for relatively thin landslides in stiff or brittle materials, but it introduces
significant errors as landslides become thicker and materials softer. More sophisticated
methods do a better job of modeling the dynamic elastic response of the landslide material
and thus yield more accurate displacement estimates, but again, there is a trade-off in the
complexity of the analysis and the difficulty in acquiring the needed input parameters.
At present, analytical procedures for estimating permanent co-seismic landslide
displacements can be grouped into three types: rigid-block, decoupled, and coupled.
Rigid-Block Analysis
Rigid-block analysis was first developed by Newmark (1965) and is described in detail
subsequently. It treats the potential landslide block as a rigid mass (no internal
deformation) that slides in a perfectly plastic manner on an inclined plane. Thus, the mass
experiences no relative displacement until the base acceleration exceeds the critical
acceleration of the block; when the base acceleration exceeds the critical acceleration, the
block begins to move downslope. Displacements are estimated by integrating the parts of
an acceleration-time history that lie above the critical acceleration to determine a velocity
time history, which, in turn, is integrated to yield the cumulative displacement. Sliding
continues until the relative velocity between the block and base reaches zero.
3

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

Decoupled Analysis
More sophisticated analyses were developed to account for the fact that landslide
masses are not rigid bodies but deform internally when subjected to seismic shaking (Seed
and Martin 1966, Lin and Whitman, 1983). The most commonly used of such analyses was
developed by Makdisi and Seed (1978) and estimates the effect of dynamic response on
permanent sliding in a two-step procedure: (1) Perform a dynamic analysis of the slope
(using programs such as QUAD4M or SHAKE) assuming no failure surface; estimate the
acceleration-time histories at several points within the slope and develop an average
acceleration-time history for the slope mass above the potential failure surface. (2) Input
this time history in a rigid-block analysis and estimate the permanent displacement. This
approach is commonly referred to as a decoupled analysis because the computation of the
dynamic response and the plastic displacement are performed independently. Decoupled
analysis thus does not account for the effects of sliding displacement on the ground motion.
Coupled Analysis
In a coupled analysis, the dynamic response of the slide mass and the permanent
displacement are modeled together so that the effect of plastic sliding displacement on the
ground motions is taken into accounted. Lin and Whitman (1983) pointed out that the
assumptions of the decoupled analysis introduce errors in the estimation of total slip and
compared results for coupled and decoupled analyses. They showed that, in general,
decoupled analysis yielded conservative results that were within about 20 percent of the
coupled results. More recently, Rathje and Bray (2000) compared results from rigid-block
analysis with linear and non-linear coupled and decoupled analyses.
WHICH ANALYSIS SHOULD BE USED?
Accurate estimation of displacement depends on selecting the appropriate analysis. The
current state of knowledge suggests that the best basis for this selection is the period ratio,
Ts/Tm, the ratio of the fundamental site period (Ts) to the mean period of the earthquake
motion (Tm) (Rathje and Bray, 1999; 2000). Ts can be estimated as
Ts = 4H/Vs

(1)

where H is the maximum vertical distance between the ground surface and slip surface used
to estimate the critical acceleration, and Vs is the shear-wave velocity of the material above
the slip surface. The mean period of the earthquake motion is defined as the average period
weighted by the Fourier amplitude coefficients over a frequency range of 0.25-20 Hz
(Rathje, Abrahamson, et al. 1998; Rathje, Faraj, et al., 2004). Mean period (Tm, in sec) can
be estimated for rock site conditions and no forward directivity as a function of earthquake
moment magnitude (Mw) and source distance (r, in km) as follows (Rathje et al., 2004):
ln(Tm) = 1.00 + 0.18(Mw 6) + 0.0038r

for Mw 7.25

(2a)

ln(Tm) = 0.775 + 0.0038r

for Mw > 7.25.

(2b)

Theoretically, coupled analysis should yield good results in all conditions, but it also is
the most complex. And coupled analysis can become numerically unstable for period ratios
below about 0.1, where landslide masses tend to act as rigid bodies. Table 1 provides
guidelines for selecting between rigid-block and decoupled analysis in the terms of the
period ratio. Rigid-block analysis is appropriate for analyzing thin, stiff landslides having a
period ratio of 0.1 or less. Between 0.1 and approximately 1.0, rigid-block analysis yields
unconservative results and should not be used. For period ratios between ~1.0 and ~2.0,
4

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

rigid-block analysis yields conservative results, but decoupled analysis give results closer to
results from coupled analysis, which is considered the most accurate result. For period
ratios greater than about 2.0, rigid-block analysis tends to yield highly over-conservative
results that significantly overestimate displacement, and decoupled analysis can be either
conservative or unconservative; therefore, in this range coupled analysis should be used.
As a general rule, rigid-block (Newmark) analysis should be used for period ratios less than
0.1, and coupled analysis will yield the best results for period ratios greater than 0.1.
Table 1. Guidelines for Selecting Appropriate Sliding-Block Analysis
Slide
Type
Stiff,
thin
slides

Soft,
thick
slides

Ts/Tm

Rigid-Block
Analysis

Decoupled
Analysis

0 0.1

Good results

Good results

0.1 1.0

Unconservative

Conservative to over-conservative

1.0 2.0

Conservative

Conservative

Over-conservative

Conservative to unconservative

> 2.0

CONDUCTING A NEWMARK ANALYSIS

Before describing how to apply Newmarks method, the limiting assumptions need to
be stated. Newmarks method treats a landslide as a rigid-plastic body; that is, the mass
does not deform internally, experiences no permanent displacement at accelerations below
the critical level, and deforms plastically along a discrete basal shear surface when the
critical acceleration is exceeded. Thus, Newmarks method is best applied to coherent
landslides such as translational block slides and rotational slumps. Other limiting
assumptions commonly are imposed for simplicity but are not required by the analysis:
1. The static and dynamic shearing resistance of the soil are taken to be the same
(Newmark, 1965; Chang et al., 1984).
2. The effects of dynamic pore pressure are neglected. This assumption generally is
valid for rock, compacted or overconsolidated clays, and very dense or dry sands
(Newmark, 1965; Makdisi and Seed, 1978).
3. The critical acceleration is not strain dependent and thus remains constant throughout
the analysis (Newmark, 1965; Makdisi and Seed, 1978; Chang et al., 1984; Ambraseys and
Menu, 1988). Jibson and Jibson (2003) do not require this assumption; their program
allows for displacement-dependent changes in critical acceleration.
4. The upslope resistance to sliding is taken to be infinitely large, such that upslope
displacement is prohibited (Newmark, 1965; Chang et al., 1984; Ambraseys and Menu,
1988). Again, Jibson and Jibson (2003) do not require this assumption and allow for
upslope displacement if the thrust angle is specified.
The following sections outline the procedures for conducting a Newmark analysis and
provide simple examples of its application.
Critical (Yield) Acceleration
The first step in the analysis is to determine the critical acceleration of the potential
landslide. One way to do this is to use pseudostatic analysis, where the critical acceleration
5

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

is determined by iteratively employing different permanent horizontal earthquake

accelerations in a static limit-equilibrium analysis until a factor of safety of 1.0 is achieved.
Newmark (1965) simplified this approach by showing that the critical acceleration is a
function of the static factor of safety and the landslide geometry; it can be expressed as
ac = (FS 1)g sin ,

(3)

where ac is the critical acceleration in terms of g, the acceleration of Earths gravity; FS is

the static factor of safety; and is the angle (herein called the thrust angle) from the
horizontal that the center of mass of the potential landslide block first moves. Thus,
determining the critical acceleration by this method requires knowing the static factor of
safety and the thrust angle.
Factor of Safety
As noted by Newmark (1965), modeling dynamic slope response requires undrained or
total shear-strength parameters. During earthquakes, slope materials behave in an
undrained manner because excess pore pressures induced by dynamic deformation of the
soil column cannot dissipate during the brief duration of the shaking. Undrained strength
also is called total strength because the contributions of friction, cohesion, and pore
pressure are not differentiated, and the total strength is expressed as a single quantity.
The factor of safety can be determined using any appropriate method that uses
undrained or total shear strength. In materials whose drained and undrained behaviors are
similar, drained or effective shear-strength parameters can be used if undrained strengths
are unavailable or difficult to measure. This allows great flexibility for users in terms of the
accuracy to which they choose to determine the factor of safety. Clearly, the accuracy of
the safety factor, and the resulting predicted displacement, depends on the quality of the
data and analysis, but the user determines what is appropriate.
Thrust Angle
The thrust angle is the direction the center of gravity of the slide mass moves when
displacement first occurs. For a planar slip surface parallel to the slope (an infinite slope),
this angle is the slope angle. For simple planar block sliding, the thrust angle is the
inclination of the basal shear surface. For circular rotational movement the thrust angle is
the angle between the vertical and a line segment connecting the center of gravity of the
slide mass and the center of the slip circle (Figure 2). For irregular shear surfaces, the
thrust angle can be approximated visually, by estimating an equivalent circular surface, or
by a weighted averaging of the inclinations of line segments approximating the surface.
Calculation of Critical Acceleration
Figure 2 illustrates a simple hypothetical slope and the critical failure surface having the
lowest factor of safety (1.4) in undrained conditions. Newmarks (1965) geometric
construction indicates a thrust angle of 30o. According to Eq. (3), a factor of safety of 1.4
and a thrust angle of 30o would yield a critical acceleration of 0.2 g.

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009
C e n te r o f s lip c irc le

30

C e n te r o f g ra v ity

FS= 1 .4

Fig 2. Model of hypothetical slope: heavy line is basal shear surface; FS is factor of
safety; thrust angle is 30.
Earthquake Acceleration-Time History
The most difficult aspect of conducting a Newmark analysis is selecting a suite of input
ground motions, and many ways of doing so have been proposed. Selecting time histories
requires knowing the shaking conditions or design requirements pertinent to the situation of
interest. Common design or hazard-assessment criteria include (1) a specified level of
ground shaking, (2) a design earthquake of specified magnitude and location, or (3) a
design level of allowable earthquake-triggered displacement. These approaches are
discussed in the following sections.
Selecting Time Histories for a Specified Level of Ground Shaking
Criterion (1) is by far the simplest; it requires only that a user locate a suite of
acceleration-time histories having the desired measure of earthquake shaking intensity near
the specified level. PGA is a common measure of ground-shaking intensity, and time
histories having a wide variety of PGAs, even approaching 2 g, currently are available.
Arias intensity (Ia) also correlates well with the distribution of earthquake-induced
landslides (Harp and Wilson, 1995; Jibson et al., 1998, 2000). Other useful ground-motion
parameters include peak ground velocity (PGV) and Tm (Saygili and Rathje 2008). Jibson
and Jibson (2003) allow searching a large set of strong-motion records based on any of
these parameters; the software also allows records to be scaled to any desired PGA. Note,
however, that scaling acceleration-time histories changes Ia and PGV, but not Tm.
Selecting Time Histories for a Specified Earthquake Magnitude and Location
Criterion (2) can be somewhat more difficult. If acceleration-time histories exist for
earthquakes of the desired magnitude and at appropriate distances, then they can be used.
Satisfying both magnitude and distance requirements can be difficult, however, and it might
be necessary to estimate shaking conditions at the site using published empirical or
theoretical relationships that predict PGA and PGV (Stewart et al., 2008), duration (Dobry
et al., 1978; Abrahamson and Silva, 1996), frequency content (Rathje et al. 2004), and Arias
intensity (Wilson and Keefer, 1985; Travasarou et al., 2003) as a function of earthquake
magnitude and source distance. Estimated shaking characteristics can then be compared
with those from existing time histories to provide a basis for selecting appropriate records.
Selecting Time Histories for a Specified Design Displacement
Criterion (3) differs from the first two in that a limiting damage level (landslide
displacement) is specified rather than the level of ground shaking. An example might be to
7

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

estimate the maximum level of ground shaking a slope having a critical acceleration of
0.2 g could experience without exceeding 10 cm of displacement.
One approach to this problem is simply to iteratively analyze several strong-motion
records to find those that yield about 10 cm of displacement at ac=0.2 g. The properties of
these records could then be examined to discern the range of conditions the slope could
withstand. Obviously, this approach could be time consuming, but it would produce a
variety of possible threshold ground-shaking scenarios. An easier approach to this type of
problem is to apply one of the simplified Newmark methods discussed previously.
Calculating Newmark Displacement

A c c e le ra tio n (g )

Once the critical acceleration of the landslide has been determined and the
acceleration-time histories have been selected, Newmark displacements can be calculated
by integrating those parts of each strong-motion record that lie above the critical
acceleration to determine the velocity-time history of the block, and then integrating the
velocity history to obtain the cumulative displacement. Several methods for doing this,
some rigorous and others highly simplified, have been proposed (Newmark, 1965; Makdisi
and Seed, 1978; Chang et al., 1984; Ambraseys and Menu, 1988). Perhaps the most useful
rigorous method was developed by Wilson and Keefer (1983). Figure 3A shows a
strong-motion record having a hypothetical ac of 0.2 g superimposed. To the left of point
X, accelerations are less than ac, and no displacement occurs. To the right of point X, those
parts of the strong-motion record lying above ac are integrated over time to derive the time
series of relative velocity between the block and the ground. Integration begins at point X
(Figure 3AB), and the relative velocity increases to point Y, the maximum relative velocity
for this pulse. Past point Y, the ground acceleration drops below ac, but the block continues
to move because of its inertia. Friction and ground motion in the opposite direction cause
the block to decelerate until it stops at point Z. All pulses of ground motion exceeding ac
are integrated to yield a time series of relative velocity (Figure 3B), which, in turn, is
integrated to yield a cumulative, relative displacement time series of the landslide block
(Figure 3C).
0 .5
a c= 0 .2 g

0 .5

V e lo c it y ( c m / s )

50
Y
0

D is p la c e m e n t ( c m )

50
10
Z
0

10

Y
5

Tim e (s )

Fig 3. Illustration of the Newmark algorithm, adapted from Wilson and Keefer (1983). A,
earthquake acceleration-time history with critical acceleration (dashed line) of 0.2 g
superimposed; B, velocity of the landslide versus time; C, displacement of landslide
versus time. Points X, Y, and Z are discussed in the text.
8

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

The algorithm of Wilson and Keefer (1983) permits both downslope and upslope
displacement by using the thrust angle to account for the asymmetrical sliding resistance.
Most earlier approaches (Newmark, 1965; Franklin and Chang, 1977; Chang et al., 1984;
Lin and Whitman, 1986; Ambraseys and Menu, 1988) simply prohibited upslope
displacement because ac in the upslope direction is generally so much greater than ac in the
downslope direction that it can be assumed to be infinitely large. In most cases, the upslope
ac is greater than the PGA, and no error is introduced by prohibiting upslope displacement.
Jibson and Jibson (2003) allow either one-way or two-way displacements to be calculated.
INTERPRETING NEWMARK DISPLACEMENTS
The significance of Newmark displacements must be judged by their probable effect on
a potential landslide. Wieczorek et al. (1985) used 5 cm as the critical displacement leading
to macroscopic ground cracking and failure of landslides in San Mateo County, California;
Keefer and Wilson (1989) used 10 cm as the critical displacement for coherent landslides in
southern California; and Jibson and Keefer (1993) used this 5-10 cm range as the critical
displacement for landslides in the Mississippi Valley. In most soils, displacements in this
range cause ground cracking, and previously undeformed soils can end up in a weakened or
residual-strength condition. In such a case, a static stability analysis in residual-strength
conditions can be performed to determine the stability after earthquake shaking ceases.
Blake et al. (2002) made the following recommendations for application of slidingblock analysis in southern California:
For slip surfaces intersecting stiff improvements (buildings, pools, etc.), median
Newmark displacements should be less than 5 cm.
For slip surfaces occurring in ductile (non-strain-softening) soil that do not intersect
engineered improvements (landscaped areas, patios, etc.), median Newmark
displacements should be less than 15 cm.
In soils with significant strain softening (sensitivity > 2), if ac was calculated from peak
strengths, displacements as large as 15 cm could trigger strength reductions, which in
turn could destabilize the slope. For such cases, the design should be performed either
using residual strengths allowing median displacements less than 15 cm, or using peak
strengths allowing median displacements less than 5 cm.
Any level of critical displacement can be used according to the parameters of the
problem under study and the characteristics of the landslide material. Highly ductile
materials might be able to accommodate more displacement without general failure; brittle
materials might accommodate less displacement. What constitutes failure differs
according to the needs of the user. Results of laboratory shear-strength tests can be
interpreted to estimate the strain necessary to reach residual strength.
Predicted Newmark displacements do not necessarily correspond directly to measurable
slope movements in the field; rather, modeled displacements provide an index to correlate
with field performance. For the Newmark method to be useful in a predictive sense,
modeled displacements must be quantitatively correlated with field performance. Jibson et
al. (1998, 2000) addressed this in a study of landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge,
California earthquake: predicted Newmark displacements were compared directly with an
inventory of landslides actually triggered. The results were then regressed using a Weibull
model, which yielded the following equation (Jibson et al., 2000):
P( f ) = 0.335[1 exp(0.048 Dn1.565)],

(4)

where P( f ) is probability of failure and Dn is Newmark displacement in centimeters. Eq.

(4) can be used in any ground-shaking conditions to predict probability of slope failure as a
9

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

function of Newmark displacement. This model was calibrated using data from southern
California, which included primarily shallow falls and slides in brittle rock and debris, and
so it is only rigorously applicable in similar conditions.
DISCUSSION
Any idealized model is limited by its simplifying assumptions. The main assumption of
Newmarks model is that landslides behave as rigid-plastic materials. This assumption is
reasonable for some types of landslides in some types of materials, but it certainly does not
apply universally. Many slope materials are at least slightly sensitivethey lose some of
their peak undrained shear strength as a function of strain. In such a case, Newmarks
method underestimates the actual displacement because the strength loss during shear
reduces the critical acceleration as displacement occurs. For such materials, the Newmark
displacement is a minimum displacement and so would be unconservative. In such a case,
using a variable critical-acceleration program (Jibson and Jibson, 2003), which allows for
decreasing critical acceleration as displacement accumulates, is recommended.
Some fine-grained soils behave as visco-plastic rather than rigid-plastic materials. The
viscous response of these soils results in part from low permeability and high cohesion,
which can significantly dampen seismic response. Some landslides having safety factors
near 1.0 experience negligible displacement even during large earthquakes (Jibson et al.,
1994) because of viscous energy dissipation. In Newmarks method, displacement depends
on critical acceleration, which, in turn, depends on the static factor of safety: a landslide
very near static equilibrium should have a very low critical acceleration (if FS=1, then
ac=0) and thus should undergo large displacements in almost any earthquake. Thus,
Newmarks method probably overestimates landslide displacements in visco-plastic
materials. In such cases, decoupled or coupled analysis are the more appropriate modeling
methods.
Generally, Newmarks method has considered static and dynamic shear strength to be
the same and has ignored dynamic pore-pressure response; this has permitted use of static
shear strengths, which are much more easily determined than dynamic strengths. For many
soils, this assumption introduces little error, but static and dynamic strengths differ
significantly for some soils. In such cases, dynamic shear-strength testing might be
required, or static strengths could be adjusted by an empirical correction factor (Makdisi
and Seed, 1978). Similarly, dynamic pore-pressure response, if considered significant,
could be measured in dynamic tests or accounted for empirically by reducing the static
shear strength.
Variability between individual strong-motion records, even those having similar PGAs,
can be large, and so the best approach for predicting the performance of a slope is to select
a suite of earthquake records that encompasses a reasonable range of properties of interest
and to then interpret the range of output displacements. Experience indicates that the
results tend to be log-normally distributed, with a few records yielding very high
displacements forming the right-hand tail of the distribution. Thus, mean displacements are
virtually always greater than median displacements, and standard deviations are fairly high.
CONCLUSION
Newmarks method is useful for characterizing seismic slope response. It presents a
viable compromise between simplistic pseudostatic analysis and sophisticated
finite-element modeling, and it can be applied to a variety of problems in seismic slope
stability. Rigid-block analysis is best suited for thinner landslides in stiffer materials;
decoupled or fully coupled approaches are best suited to larger, deeper landslides in softer
10

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

material. Several simplified methods have been developed and can be applied to problems
(such as regional seismic landslide hazard mapping) where rigorous analysis is impractical.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (1996). Empirical ground motion models,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, draft report dated May 6, 1996.
Ambraseys, N.N. and Menu, J.M. (1988). Earthquake-induced ground displacements,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 16, 985-1006.
Arias, A. (1970). A measure of earthquake intensity, in Hansen, R.J., ed., Seismic design
for nuclear power plants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 438-483.
Blake, T.F., Hollingsworth, R.A. and Stewart, J.P. (2002). Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center,
Los Angeles, 127 p.
Bray, J.D. and Rathje, E.M. (1998). Earthquake-induced displacements of solid-waste
fills, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124, 242-253.
Chang, C.J., Chen, W.F. and Yao, J.T.P. (1984). Seismic displacements in slopes by limit
analysis, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110, 860-874.
Del Gaudio, V., Pierri, P. and Wasowski, J. (2003). An approach to time-probabilistic
evaluation of seismically induced landslide hazard, Seismological Society of America
Bulletin, 93, 557-569.
Dobry, R., Idriss, I.M. and Ng, E. (1978). Duration characteristics of horizontal
components of strong-motion earthquake records, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 68, 1487-1520.
Elgamal, A.W., Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M. and Prevost, J.H. (1987). 2-D elastoplastic seismic
shear response of earth dams: Application, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113,
702-719.
Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K. (1977). Earthquake resistance of earth and rock-fill dams:
permanent displacements of earth embankments by Newmark sliding block analysis,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Misc. Paper S-71-17, Report 5.
Goodman, R.E. and Seed, H.B. (1966). Earthquake-induced displacements in sand
embankments, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 92, 125-146.
Harp, E.L. and Wilson, R.C. (1995). Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and slides:
Evidence from 1987 Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills strong-motion records,
Seismological Society of America Bulletin, 85, 1739-1757.
Jibson, R.W. (1993). Predicting earthquake-induced landslide displacements using
Newmarks sliding block analysis, Transportation Research Record, 1411, 9-17.
Jibson, R.W. (2007). Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement,
Engineering Geology, 91, 209-218.
Jibson, R.W. and Jibson, M.W. (2003). Java programs for using Newmarks method and
simplified decoupled analysis to model slope performance during earthquakes, U.S.
Geological Survey Open-file Report 03-005, version 1.1.
Jibson, R.W. and Michael, J.A. (2009). Maps showing seismic landslide hazards in
Anchorage, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 3077.
Jibson, R.W., Harp, E.L. and Michael, J.A. (1998). A method for producing digital
probabilistic seismic landslide hazard mapsAn example from the Los Angeles,
California, area, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-113, 17 p., 2 pl.
Jibson, R.W., Harp, E.L. and Michael, J.A. (2000). A method for producing digital
probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps, Engineering Geology, 58, 271-289.
Jibson, R.W. and Keefer, D.K. (1993). Analysis of the seismic origin of landslides:
Examples from the New Madrid seismic zone, Geological Society of America Bulletin,
105, 521-536.
11

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

Jibson, R.W., Prentice, C.S., Langer, C.J., Rogozhin, E.A. and Borissoff, B.A. (1994).
Some observations of Landslides triggered by the 29 April 1991 Racha earthquake,
Republic of Georgia, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 963-973.
Keefer, D.K. (1984). Landslides caused by earthquakes, Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 95, 406-421.
Keefer, D.K. and Wilson, R.C. (1989). Predicting earthquake-induced landslides, with
emphasis on arid and semi-arid environments, in Landslides in a Semi- arid
environment, Inland Geological Society, Riverside, California, 2, 118-149.
Lin, J.S. and Whitman, R.V. (1983). Decoupling approximation to the evaluation of
earthquake-induced plastic slip in earth dams, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 11, 667-678.
Lin, J.S. and Whitman, R.V. (1986). Earthquake induced displacements of sliding blocks,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 112, 44-59.
Luzi, L. and Pergalani, F. (1999). Slope instability in static and dynamic conditions for
urban planningThe Oltre Po Pavese case history (Regione Lombardia Italy),
Natural Hazards, 20, 57-82.
Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B. (1978). Simplified procedure for estimating dam and
embankment earthquake-induced deformations, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, 104, 849-867.
Mankelow, J.M. and Murphy, W. (1998). Using GIS in the probabilistic assessment of
earthquake triggered landslide hazards, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2, 593623.
Miles, S.B. and Ho, C.L. (1999). Rigorous landslide hazard zonation using Newmarks
method and stochastic ground motion simulation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 18, 305-323.
Miles, S.B. and Keefer, D.K. (2000). Evaluation of seismic slope-performance models
using a regional case study, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, 6, 25-39.
Miles, S.B. and Keefer, D.K. (2001). Seismic landslide hazard for the city of Berkeley,
California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2378.
Newmark, N.M. (1965). Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments,
Geotechnique, 15, 139-159.
Pradel, D., Smith, P.M., Stewart, J.P. and Raad, G. (2005). Case history of landslide
movement during the Northridge earthquake, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 1360-1369.
Prevost, J.H., Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M. and Lacy, S.J. (1985). Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
an earth dam, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111, 882-897.
Rathje, E.M. and Bray, J.D. (1999). An examination of simplified earthquake-induced
displacement procedures for earth structures, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 7287.
Rathje, E.M. and Bray, J.D. (2000). Nonlinear coupled seismic sliding analysis of earth
structures, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126, 10021014.
Rathje, E.M. and Saygili, G. (2008). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the sliding
displacement of slopes: Scalar and vector approaches, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134, 804-814.
Rathje, E.M. and Saygili, G. (2009). Probabilistic assessment of earthquake-induced
sliding displacements of natural slopes, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of
Earthquake Engineering, 41, 18-27.
Rathje, E.M., Abrahamson, N.A. and Bray, J.D. (1998). Simplified frequency content
estimates of earthquake ground motions, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 124,
150-159.
Rathje, E.M., Faraj, F., Russell, S. and Bray, J.D. (2004). Empirical relationships for
frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra, 20,
119-144.
12

The Next Generation of Research on Earthquake-induced Landslides:

An International Conference in Commemoration of 10th Anniversary of the Chi-Chi Earthquake, 2009

Saygili, G. and Rathje, E.M. (2008). Empirical predictive models for earthquake-induced
sliding displacements of slopes, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 134, 790-803.
Seed, H.B. and Martin, G.R. (1966). The seismic coefficient in earth dam design, Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 92, 25-58.
Seed, H.B., Lee, K.L., Idriss, I.M. and Makdisi, F.I. (1975). The slides in the San
Fernando Dams during the earthquake of February 9, 1971, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 101, 651-688.
Stewart, J.P., Archuleta, R.J. and Power, M.S., eds. (2008). Special Issue on the Next
Generation Attenuation Project, Earthquake Spectra, 24 (1), 341 p.
Taniguchi, E., Whitman, R.V. and Marr, W.A. (1983). Prediction of earthquake-induced
deformation of earth dams, Soils and Foundations, 23, 126-132.
Travasarou, T, Bray, J.D. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2003). Empirical attenuation
relationship for Arias intensity, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32,
1133-1155.
Wartman, J., Bray, J.D. and Seed, R.B. (2003). Inclined plane studies of the Newmark
sliding block procedure, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
129, 673-684.
Wartman, J., Seed, R.B. and Bray, J.D. (2005). Shaking table modeling of seismically
induced deformations in slopes, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 131, 610-622.
Wieczorek, G.F., Wilson, R.C. and Harp, E.L. (1985). Map showing slope stability during
earthquakes in San Mateo County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Map I-1257-E.
Wilson, R.C. and Keefer, D.K. (1983). Dynamic analysis of a slope failure from the 6
August 1979 Coyote Lake, California, earthquake, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 73, 863-877.
Wilson, R.C. and Keefer, D.K. (1985). Predicting areal limits of earthquake-induced
landsliding, in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles
region An earth-science perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1360, 316-345.
Yegian, M.K., Marciano, E.A. and Ghahraman, V.G. (1991). Earthquake-induced
permanent deformations: Probabilistic approach, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
117, 35-50.

13