Proceedings of the Second World Landslide Forum – 3-7 October 2011, Rome

Roberto W. Romeo(1), Milena Mari(1), Giulio Pappafico(1), Pierpaolo

Tiberi(2), Umberto Gori(1), Francesco Veneri(1), Gianluigi Tonelli(1),
Carmela Paletta(1)

Hazard and risk scenarios of landslides triggered by

earthquakes
(1) University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Earth Sciences Life and Environment,
61029 Urbino (Italy), Scientific Campus, +39 0722 304 232, gislab@uniurb.it
(2) Marche Regional Government, Department of Civil Protection, Ancona (Italy)

Abstract This study shows, for a landslide prone
area, the assessment of the slopes capacity to withstand
earthquakes and how triggered mass movements can
threaten potentially exposed structures and facilities. As a
result a set of spatial representations (i.e., scenarios) of
slope performances in a variety of seismic and climatic
conditions is given and how they can induce damages or
interruptions of public services such as rescue activities,
communication roads, or the disruption of lifelines and
urban settlements is presented.
Keywords landslides, earthquakes, rainfall, scenarios
Introduction
Rainfall or earthquakes of significant intensity can lead to
the reactivation of landslide bodies apparently stable
under ordinary physical conditions, as well as trigger
first-time activation of new landslides. It is equally true
that in the event of natural disasters, the mobilization of
mass movements poses a serious drawback to the
operations of civil protection, besides being a direct cause
of damage to people and properties.
Simplified seismic analyses are performed to
evaluate the behaviour of slopes during and after seismic
shaking. They take into account the different hydraulic
conditions that can arise due to the relationships
between precipitation, saturation and seepage into the
landslide bodies. Specific matrices [shaking] [seepage]
define the different seismic and climatic conditions that
can occur under which different landslide scenarios may
arise.
These analyses represent a tool for the local
government: 1) to apply prevention planning policies; 2)
to adopt real-time decisions during an emergency to
minimize losses. Finally, since triggering events are
natural events that occur at specified recurrence
intervals, an assessment of the overall hazard is further
provided.
Hereinafter the adopted methodology and the first
results of a research study carried out in a training area
(the Cesano River basin, in Central Italy) are shown.
Methodology and data
The model
The procedure adopted to assess the response of slopes
against seismic forces is a seismo-geotechnical model,
namely, a model based on the assessment of the landslide
capability to withstand seismic forces ( resistance) whose
capacity (of resistance) is given by the following
expression:
Ac = (FS − 1)g tan (β ) [1]
where Ac is the horizontal acceleration (here termed
as critical acceleration) required to bring the safety factor
to the limit state condition (FS=1), whose equation is:
c tan (ϕ )  γ w i χ 
FS = + 1 −  ≤ 1 
γ h sin (β ) tan (β )  γ  k tan (β )  
[2]
which has been written so that the first right-hand
member is the adimensional contribution to resistance of
cohesion respect to the shear stress and the second
member is the adimensional frictional resistance by the
reduction factor taking into account seepage (the
argument of brackets). The slope angle β accounts for
slope-parallel movements (infinite slope model) for both
shallow and deep slides accounted, in turn, by the slope-
normal thickness h of the sliding mass and taken equal to
2.5 and 9.0 meters, respectively.
The argument of braces (truncated at the upper
limit of 1) is the proportion of the saturated soil’s
thickness (hw/h) that contributes to seepage (from
Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; reformulated), which is
made of two ratios: the first ratio represents the
adimensional contribution to infiltration, namely the
ratio of the effective average hourly intensity rainfall (i,
m/hr) to the soil’s permeability (i.e., hydraulic
conductivity, k in m/hr); the second ratio is the
adimensional contribution to the outflow, namely the
ratio of the potential infiltration coefficient χ (depending
 R.W. Romeo et alii – Hazard and risk scenarios of landslides triggered by earthquakes

on the lithology and the vegetation cover) to the slope This led to the identification of seven different
gradient tan(β). Rainfall intensity is taken as the net of lithological units whose relevant mechanical properties
the evapotranspiration (effective rainfall) averaged over are unit weight (dry and saturated), cohesion and angle
the time-span of the scenario. Effective rainfall is of internal friction (peak and residual) and undrained
computed by means of geospatial analyses of rainfall and shear resistance. An additional unit called coarse debris
temperature distributions (ordinary kriging). have been further identified mainly composed of loose
Once the seismic resistance (i.e., critical and weakly cemented rocks outcropping along the slopes
acceleration Ac) has been computed, the comparison with or at their toes.
the seismic demand (i.e., effective ground acceleration) In Tab. 1 the geomechanical properties of
gives a measure of the slope susceptibility to withstand lithological units are shown, whose spatial distribution is
earthquakes, here termed as seismic safety factor, FD. displayed in Fig. 1. The geomechanical properties shown
in Tab. 1 refer to the weathered soil’s cover and are in
Geomechanical properties terms of peak effective stresses. Only for the stability
At a basin scale a lot of geologic units outcrop, which analyses of shallow slides (h=2.5 m) or existing landslides,
may differ more or less from each other. The residual shear strengths were used with zero cohesion.
identification of some relevant common features may
help to reduce them to few lithological units, where the Seismic actions
main difference is in the mechanical properties. Features Seismic actions are determined according to the
that most contribute to the identification of lithological seismotectonic framework of the region. The Marche
units are joints (bedding and fractures as well), particle Region is characterized by two different seismic regimes:
size distribution (coarse or fine) and the results of in situ compressional on the outer side of the Apennine chain
and laboratory geomechanical tests. (parallel to the Adriatic Sea coastline) and extensional on
the inner side. According to this distinction, two sets of
Table 1 Geomechanical properties of lithological units shown in active faults are identified, whose relevant parameters for
Fig. 1. (U.W. is the saturated unit weight) the seismic hazard of the basin are shown in Tab. 2.
Lithology U.W. Friction Cohesion k χ
kN/m3 angle (°) kPa m/s % Table 2 Seismotectonic model. Provinces refer to different
RM seismic regimes (outer compressional and inner extensional).
70 Active faults belonging to each tectonic province are
Massive 26.5 -- -- --
100 parameterized by their characteristic magnitude derived from
Rocks
RS the Wells and Coppersmith’s (1994) relationships. The shortest
19.8 28 10 10 E-3 50
Layered distance between each fault area and the barycenter of the basin
21.0 32 20 10 E-5 80
Rocks is reported. Average return period (in years) of characteristic M w
ACM earthquakes and the last ones historically known that occurred
Alternating 18.0 24 10 10 E-6 20 on each fault are also reported in the last columns.
Limestones 19.0 26 24 10 E-9 30
Marlstones Tectonic Active Dist. Return Last
Mw
AAM province fault km period eqk.
Alternating 18.6 24 10 10 E-5 20 Fano- 1000
Sandstones 20.2 32 20 10 E-9 30 6.1 22 1,667
Ardizio A.D.
Marlstones Outer
Marotta-
AMC Apennine 5.6 20 556 1924
Mondolfo
Alternating 18.6 20 20 10 E-8 5
Senigallia 5.9 27 1,111 1930
Marlstones 19.6 25 40 10 E-9 15
Limestones Inner Cagli 6.2 37 500 1781
RTA Apennine Fabriano 6.2 27 550 1741
19.4 32 15 10 E-5 20
Weak
20.6 33 18 10 E-9 30
Sandstones The two provinces provide the rationale for far-
RTP strong (inner Apennine) and near-moderate (outer
Weak 19.6 23 10 10 E-8 5
Apennine) ground motion scenarios.
Pelitic 20.6 27 25 10 E-9 10
Rocks An ad-hoc attenuation relationship has been
DG derived from the strong motion records available for the
22.6 33 10 E-2 60
Coarse 0 Marche Region. The records span a magnitude range
24.5 38 10 E-3 80
Debris between 5 and 6.5 and distances within 100 km from the
epicenters. The attenuation relationship for peak ground
Following this procedure we identified three acceleration (in gal) is:
macroscopic units: massive versus layered rocks; rocks of
alternating lithology, such as limestone and or sandstone Log(A)= 2 +0.2Mw –log[√(R2+62)] +0.15SB,C +0.3SD,E ±0.3ε
and marl; soils (weak rocks) mainly coarse (sands) or fine [3]
(clays).

2
 Proceedings of the Second World Landslide Forum – 3-7 October 2011, Rome

where R is the Joyner-Boore (1981) distance, namely
the shortest distance from the surface projection of the
fault rupture; SB,C is a flag whose value is 1 when soil
category is B or C according to Eurocode 8, zero
otherwise; SD,E is a flag whose value is 1 when soil category
is D or E according to EC8, zero otherwise; ε is the
standard error (a random variable with zero mean and
unity standard deviation).

Figure 1 Lithological units (see Tab. 1 for the meaning of lithological abbreviations). White polygons are alluvial and beach deposits.

The distance coefficient (-1) is equal to the former from the activated fault. This is made in a consistent
Sabetta and Pugliese’s (1987) attenuation equation for the manner taking into account the earthquake occurrence
whole country, while the standard error is relatively on each fault (Tab. 2) and computing the corresponding
higher (about twice) due to the summation of inter- and peak ground accelerations (Eq. [3]) expected with a 2%
intra-events uncertainty. conditional probability in 50 years as shown in Fig. 2.
The lithological units shown in Fig. 1 have been
divided into three soil category classes, according to EC8,
based on an expert judgement about soils’ rigidity (VS
and/or G-modulus) integrated by some geophysical
survey. The seismic classes are: A (bedrock-like) which
encompasses massive and layered rocks and alternations
(abbreviations RM, RS, ACM, AAM, AMC); B-C (stiff
soils), which encompasses soils (fine and coarse as well,
abbreviations RTA, RTP); D-E (loose soils, abbreviation
DG plus alluvial and beach deposits). Loose soils show
the highest amplification (twice that of bedrock), Figure 2 Sketch of the computation of standard error in the
whereas stiff soils amplify the bedrock motion by a factor attenuation equation. Symbols explanation: νEQ is the
of √2. earthquake yearly frequency, the inverse of the average return
Seismic shaking for each scenario has been period; RP is the reference period (see text below); PGA is the
peak ground acceleration labelled as A in Eq. [3].
computed according to a probabilistically-based
deterministic hazard. In practice, each ground motion
scenario (far-strong and near-moderate) is given by the As an example we consider the Cagli active fault
largest ground motion values computed for each province (see Tab. 2) whose average return period of the
(inner and outer Apennines, respectively), independently characteristic Mw 6.2 earthquake is 500 years (νEQ=0.002).

3
 R.W. Romeo et alii – Hazard and risk scenarios of landslides triggered by earthquakes

The reference period (RP) for a 2% exceedance

probability within 50 years is 2,475 years approximated to
2,500 years for the sake of simplicity.

Figure 3 Shakemap for the outer Apennine seismic sources (near-moderate earthquake scenario). Ground accelerations (in gal)
expected to have a 2% chance to be exceeded in 50 years. Active faults are elongated parallel to the coastline, at the northeast end of
the basin. The ground motion takes into account the amplification effects due to local geology (soils’ amplification factors: see text).

Therefore the dashed area in Fig. 2 is 20% which

corresponds to 0.84ε (the value 0.84 comes from the
inverse of the complementary cumulative standard 3 Ac
normal distribution for an exceedance probability of 0.2). FD = [4]
A
Thus, applying Eq. [3] the acceleration for a bedrock-like
outcrop in the barycentre of the basin will be 83 gal,
Eq. [4] allows taking into account effective
versus 43 gal for the median and 93 gal for the mean plus
acceleration rather than peak acceleration, that means
one standard deviation adopting the standard
the acceleration acting as a static action during the
deterministic seismic hazard approach. This procedure
earthquake shaking. The approximate relation comes
allows computing deterministic ground motion values
from a relationship found by Paciello et al. (2000) who
from individual seismic sources each one at the same
regressed root mean square acceleration versus PGA and
occurrence probability.
found a linear relationship with a coefficient of 0.33.
In Fig. 3 the peak ground accelerations computed
for the near-moderate earthquake scenario (outer
Apennine, whose seismic sources are located NE parallel
First results
to the Adriatic sea coastline) are shown. Peak ground Landslide hazard
accelerations range between 50 and 700 gals, clearly Static and seismic safety factors are computed dividing
showing the amplification due to stiff soils in the middle the basin into cells 10x10 meters wide. Each landslide
and lower part of the basin and to soft soils along river shows therefore a distribution of safety factors depending
valleys and the beach strip, with respect to bedrock on the local slope, mechanical and hydraulic properties
which mainly outcrops in the upper part of the basin. and ground accelerations, for which a failure probability
Given the seismic shaking shown in Fig. 3 and the is computed applying the first-order second-moment
critical acceleration computed through Eq. [1], a seismic reliability method:
safety factor is defined as:

4
 Proceedings of the Second World Landslide Forum – 3-7 October 2011, Rome
1  µ −1 
Pf = ∫ f (FS ,D ) dF = Φ  − F 
−∞
 σF 
shallow deep
1000
800
600
400
200
0 0
<1 1-1.3 1.3-1.5 1.5-2 >2
Figure 4 Average seismic safety factor (left) and failure probability (right) distributions of seismically triggered shallow and deep
landslides (thickness 2.5 and 9.0 meters, respectively).
In Fig. 4-left the distribution of the average seismic
safety factors computed for shallow (2.5 m thick) and
deep (9.0 m thick) landslides potentially triggered by the
near-moderate earthquake scenario are shown. Clearly,
shallow landslides in dry conditions are more susceptible
to slide than deep landslides. Nevertheless, whilst the
average safety factor gives only an idea of the central
moment of the landslide behaviour (i.e., the overall mean
seismic safety condition), failure probability allows a
better discretization of the potential landslide behaviour
under the seismic shaking.
In fact, failure probabilities can be used to rank the
landslide susceptibility since it depends both on the
mean and standard deviation of the seismic safety factor
and failure probability increases as the standard deviation
increase in turn or if the mean-FD decreases. Fig. 4-right
is an example of the failure probability distribution using
quartiles as well as 5 and 95% confidence levels.
Conclusions
Preliminary results of a work still in progress regarding
the formulation of seismically-induced landslide
scenarios have been shown.
The work refers to scenarios at a basin scale, where
morphological and climatic conditions can be considered
to vary gradually and therefore geospatial analyses to
distribute environmental effects such as vibratory ground
motions and rainfall can be applied.
Earthquake scenarios are determined according to
the local seismotectonics, which implies two different
seismic regimes (compressional and extensional). More
specifically they refer to two typical seismic conditions
that can be easily observed in several active regions:
near-moderate earthquakes (M<6 at distances of some
kilometres) and far-strong earthquakes (M>6 at distances
of some tens kilometres). Here a procedure called
probabilistically-based deterministic seismic hazard
scenario has been adopted, where the scenario ground
where µF and σF are, respectively, the mean and
[5] standard deviation of the safety factor (both in static and
seismic conditions) of each landslide and Φ is the
cumulative standard normal distribution whose
argument is said ‘reliability index’.
shallow deep
1000
800
600
400
200
<5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-95% >95%
motion has been computed according to a selected
reference period taking into account the average activity
rate of each individual seismic source.
Hydraulic conditions are then taken according to
the average rainfall conditions that can be determined on
a yearly basis: they refer to wet and dry conditions that
are determined on the basis of a hydrologic balance
between the effective rainfall and the potential
infiltration.
Finally, landslide susceptibility is determined
according to failure probabilities in each earthquake-
hydraulic scenario based on the distribution of seismic
safety factors computed for each landslide. Nevertheless,
we anticipate that undergoing researches are focusing on
the potential for coseismic displacements (Romeo, 2000)
that may threaten exposed assets for the assessment of
the seismic landslide risk as a whole.
Acknowledgments
The Authors acknowledge the anonymous reviewer who
provided valuable comments and suggestions.
References
Joyner W B, Boore D M (1981) 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. 71: 2011-2038.
Montgomery D R, Dietrich W E (1994) A Physically Based Model for
the Topographic Control on Shallow Landsliding. Water
Resources Research. 30(4): 1153-1171.
Paciello A, Rinaldis D, Romeo R W (2000) Incorporating ground
motion parameters related to earthquake damage into seismic
hazard analysis. Proceedings VI International Conference on
Seismic Zonation, November 12-15. Palm Spring CA, USA.
Romeo R W (2000) Seismically-induced landslide displacements: a
predictive model. Engineering Geology. 58(3-4): 337-351.
Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1987) Attenuation of peak horizontal
acceleration and velocity from Italian strong motion records.
Bulletin Seismological Society of America. 77(5): 1491–1513.
5
 R.W. Romeo et alii – Hazard and risk scenarios of landslides triggered by earthquakes

Wells D L, Coppersmith K J (1994) New Empirical Relationships

among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture
Area, and Surface Displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America. 84(4): 974-1002.