Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Earth Science

ISSN 2095-0195

ISSN 2095-0209(Online)

CN 11-5982/P

Postal Subscription Code 80-963

2018 Impact Factor: 1.205

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Earth Sci.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (4) : 740-750    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-015-0547-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Newmark displacement model for landslides induced by the 2013 Ms 7.0 Lushan earthquake, China
Renmao YUAN1(),Qinghai DENG2,Dickson CUNNINGHAM3,Zhujun HAN1,Dongli ZHANG1,Bingliang ZHANG1
1. Key Laboratory of Active Tectonics and Volcano, Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing 100029, China
2. College of Earth Science and Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China
3. Department of Environmental Earth Science, Eastern Connecticut State University, Connecticut 06226, USA
 Download: PDF(2228 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Predicting approximate earthquake-induced landslide displacements is helpful for assessing earthquake hazards and designing slopes to withstand future earthquake shaking. In this work, the basic methodology outlined by Jibson (1993) is applied to derive the Newmark displacement of landslides based on strong ground-motion recordings during the 2013 Lushan Ms 7.0 earthquake. By analyzing the relationships between Arias intensity, Newmark displacement, and critical acceleration of the Lushan earthquake, formulas of the Jibson93 and its modified models are shown to be applicable to the Lushan earthquake dataset. Different empirical equations with new fitting coefficients for estimating Newmark displacement are then developed for comparative analysis. The results indicate that a modified model has a better goodness of fit and a smaller estimation error for the Jibson93 formula. It indicates that the modified model may be more reasonable for the dataset of the Lushan earthquake. The analysis of results also suggests that a global equation is not ideally suited to directly estimate the Newmark displacements of landslides induced by one specific earthquake. Rather it is empirically better to perform a new multivariate regression analysis to derive new coefficients for the global equation using the dataset of the specific earthquake. The results presented in this paper can be applied to a future co-seismic landslide hazard assessment to inform reconstruction efforts in the area affected by the 2013 Lushan Ms 7.0 earthquake, and for future disaster prevention and mitigation.
Keywords Newmark displacement of landslide      Arias intensity      critical acceleration      empirical relationship      the Lushan Ms 7.0 earthquake     
Corresponding Author(s): Renmao YUAN   
Just Accepted Date: 04 December 2015   Online First Date: 08 January 2016    Issue Date: 04 November 2016
 Cite this article:   
Renmao YUAN,Qinghai DENG,Dickson CUNNINGHAM, et al. Newmark displacement model for landslides induced by the 2013 Ms 7.0 Lushan earthquake, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2016, 10(4): 740-750.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-015-0547-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2016/V10/I4/740
Fig.1  Location of the Lushan earthquake and acceleration stations.
Fig.2  Calculation of earthquake-induced landslide displacements (from Newmark, 1965).
Data file Station code Longitude Latitude Site condition PGA(g)
1 51BXD 102.8 30.4 Soil 1.025
2 51BXD 102.8 30.4 Soil 0.39
3 51BXD 102.8 30.4 Soil 0.364
4 51BXY 102.9 30.5 Soil 0.394
7 51YAM 103.1 30.1 Soil 0.185
8 51YAM 103.1 30.1 Soil 0.149
10 51LSF 102.9 30.0 Soil 0.064
11 51LSF 102.9 30.0 Soil 0.032
13 51BXM 102.7 30.4 Soil 0.20
14 51BXM 102.7 30.4 Soil 0.269
16 51QLY 103.3 30.4 Soil 0.315
17 51QLY 103.3 30.4 Soil 0.165
19 51YAL 102.8 29.9 Soil 0.828
20 51YAL 102.8 29.9 Soil 0.254
22 51PJD 103.4 30.2 Soil 0.155
23 51PJD 103.4 30.2 Soil 0.188
130 51HYY 102.4 29.6 Soil 0.461
131 51HYY 102.4 29.6 Soil 0.372
133 51JYW 104.8 31.9 Soil 0.38
134 51JYW 104.8 31.9 Soil 0.357
Tab.1  Basic information on strong-motion data used in this study
Fig.3  Ia?Dn relationships with fixed Ac=0.01g: (a) Ia?Dn; (b) Ia?logDn; (c) logIa?Dn; (d) logIa?logDn.
Ac R2(Ia?Dn) R2(logIa?Dn) R2(Ia?logDn) R2(logIa?logDn)
0.01 0.55 0.28 0.61 0.85
0.05 0.89 0.41 0.59 0.90
0.1 0.91 0.66 0.42 0.92
0.15 0.87 0.56 0.33 0.83
0.2 0.73 0.78 0.25 0.86
Average 0.77 0.54 0.44 0.89
Tab.2  R2 values for linear relationships between Ia and Dn for different critical acceleration Ac values
Ac?Dn logAc?Dn Ac?logDn logAc?logDn
R2 0.18?0.79 0.371?0.925 0.928?0.996 0.74?0.94
Average 0.49 0.81 0.98 0.83
Tab.3  R2 values for different linear relationships between Ac and Dn for Ac values between 0.01g?0.2g
Fig.4  Relationships between Ac and Dn for recorded data of the Lushan earthquake: (a) Ac?Dn; (b) log Ac ?Dn; (c) Ac?logDn; (d) log Ac ?logDn.
Fig.5  Fit lines for each value of critical acceleration plotted (a) and multivariate regression models of the Lushan earthquake with the Jibson93 form and Jibson98 form (b).
Fig.6  Fitting results based on the modified formulas for the Lushan earthquake data (a, b) and for the Chi-Chi earthquake data set (c, d; revised from Hsieh and Lee, 2011).
Models Formula R2 Fitting data set Estimated Dn/cm
Jibson93 model logDn=1.460logIa-6.642Ac+1.546±0.409 0.87 Data Set from 7 earthquakes 7.62
Jibson98 model log Dn=1.521log Ia-1.993log Ac-1.546±0.37 0.83 Data Set from 13 earthquakes 2.08
Eq. (7) (New form I)
(Hsieh and Lee, 2011)		 logDn=11.287Aclog Ia-11.485Ac+1.948±0.357 0.84 Data Set from worldwide earthquake 6.3
Eq. (8) (New form II)
(Hsieh and Lee, 2011)		 logDn=0.847logIa-10.62Ac+6.587AclogIa+1.84±0.295 0.89 Data Set from worldwide earthquake 6.02
Eq. (7) (New form I)
(Hsieh and Lee, 2011)		 logDn=11.287Aclog Ia-11.485Ac+1.948±0.357 0.84 Data Set from the Chi-Chi earthquake 1.55
Eq. (8) (New form II)
(Hsieh and Lee, 2011)		 logDn=0.847logIa-10.62Ac+6.587AclogIa+1.84±0.295 0.89 Data Set from the Chi-Chi earthquake 1.59
Eq. (9)
based on New form I		 logDn=23.372AclogIa?13.278Ac+1.355±0.1831 0.866 Data Set from the Lushan earthquake 1.06
Eq. (10)
based on New form II		 logDn=1.147logIa?13.664Ac+9.673 AclogIa+1.396±0.1716 0.901 Data Set from the Lushan earthquake 1.07
Eq. (5) based on
Jibson93 model		 logDn=1.846logIa?13.86Ac+1.42±0.409 0.887 Data Set from the Lushan earthquake 1.08
Eq. (6) based on
Jbson98 model		 logDn=1.83logIa?1.997logAc?1.96±0.375 0.875 Data Set from the Lushan earthquake 1.09
Tab.4  Different empirical equations and estimated Dn based on checking point at Ia=1 m/s and Ac=0.1g
1 Ambraseys N N, Menu J M (1988). Earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam, 16(7): 985–1006
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290160704
2 Arias A (1970). A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen R J, ed. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 438–483
3 Bray J D, Rathje E M (1998). Earthquake-induced displacements of solid-waste landfills. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(3): 242–253
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:3(242)
4 Chen X L, Yu L, Wang M M, Li J Y (2013). Brief communication: landslides triggered by the Ms=7.0 Lushan earthquake, China. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 1(4): 3891–3918
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-1-3891-2013
5 Dai F C, Xu C, Yao X, Xu L, Tu X B, Gong Q M (2010). Spatial distribution of landslides triggered by the 2008 Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake, China. J Asian Earth Sci,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes. 2010.04.010
6 Del Gaudio V, Pierri P, Wasowski J (2003). An approach to time-probabilistic evaluation of seismically induced landslide hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 93(2): 557–569
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020016
7 Haneberg W C (2006). Effects of digital elevation model errors on spatially distributed seismic slope stability calculations: an example from Seattle, Washington. Environ Eng Geosci, 12(3): 247–260
https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.12.3.247
8 Hsieh S Y, Lee C T (2011). Empirical estimation of the Newmark displacement from the Arias intensity and critical acceleration. Eng Geol, 122(1‒2): 34–42
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.12.006
9 Jibson R W (1993). Predicting earthquake-induced landslide displacements using Newmark’s sliding block analysis. Transp Res Rec, 1411: 9–17
10 Jibson R W (2007). Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Eng Geol, 91(2‒4): 209–218
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.013
11 Jibson R W, Harp E L, Michael J M (1998). A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps: an example from the Los Angeles, California area. US Geological Survey Open-File Report98–113, 17
12 Jibson R W, Harp E L, Michael J M (2000). A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol, 58(3‒4): 271–289
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00039-9
13 Jibson R W, Keefer D K (1993). Analysis of the seismic origin of landslides: examples from the New Madrid seismic zone. Geol Soc Am Bull, 105(4): 521–536
https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1993)105<0521:AOTSOO>2.3.CO;2
14 Keefer D K, Wartman J, Ochoa C N, Rodriguez-Marek A, Wieczorek G F (2006). Landslides caused by the M 7.6 Tecomán, Mexico earthquake of January 21, 2003. Eng Geol, 86(2‒3): 183–197
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.02.017
15 Newmark N M (1965). Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 15(2): 139–160
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139
16 Pradel D, Smith P M, Stewart J P, Raad G (2005). Case history of landslide movement during the Northridge earthquake. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 131(11): 1360–1369
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1360)
17 Sarma S K (1981). Seismic displacement analysis of earth dams. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 107: 1735–1739
18 Saygili G, Rathje E M (2008). Empirical predictive models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of slopes. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 134(6): 790–803
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:6(790)
19 Wilson R C, Keefer D K (1983). Dynamic analysis of a slope failure from the 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 73: 863–877
20 Xu X W, Wen X Z, Han Z J, Chen G H, Li C Y, Zheng W J, Zhnag S M, Ren Z Q, Xu C, Tan X B, Wei Z Y, Wang M M, Ren J J, He Z T, Liang M J (2013). Lushan Ms 7.0 earthquake: a blind reserve-fault event. Chin Sci Bull, 58(28‒29): 3437–3443
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5999-4
21 Yin Y P (2009). Features of landslides triggered by the Wenchuan Earthquake, J Eng Geol,17: 29–38 (in Chinese)
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed