Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346

Earthquake-induced landslides: 1980–1997

C.E. Rodrı́guez a,1, J.J. Bommer b,*, R.J. Chandler b
a
Facultad de Ingenierı́a, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia
b
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;95:406–421) who covered the period 1811–1980 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 influence the
outliers. The correlations between earthquake magnitude and total landslide area, however, differ somewhat from Keefer’s. For the inter-
mediate magnitude range 5.3–7.0, a modified 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. q 1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Landslides; Earthquakes; Seismic hazards

1. Introduction geotechnical investigations and stability calculations. On a

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
northern peak of Nevado Huascarán, burying the villages of
Yungay and Ranrahirca in the Santa Valley [2,3].
Any comprehensive assessment of seismic hazard and risk
therefore must include the hazard associated with earthquake-
induced landslides. For an individual slope, the assessment
of landslide potential can be carried out using detailed
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 171-594-5984; fax: 1 171-225-2716.
E-mail address: j.bommer@ic.ac.uk (J.J. Bommer)
1
Currently at Imperial College.
0267-7261/99/$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0267-726 1(99)00012-3
larger scale, however, such methods are not generally applic-
able, 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 seis-
mic ground shaking and landslides in different geological,
topographical and climatic conditions. As a contribution to
this assessment, this article presents data from 36 earth-
quakes 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 modifications 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 correla-
tions 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
Table 1 326
Earthquakes responsible for triggering landslides, 1980–1997

Earthquake Country Date Magnitude Focal Maximum Area Number References b

depth intensity affected by of
landslides slides a
Year Month Day Ms Mw km MMI km 2

1 Irpinia Italy 1980 XI 23 6.9 6.9 0 X 13000 2 [1–12]

2 Coalinga USA 1983 V 02 6.7 6.2 7 VIII 650 4–5 [13]
1983 V 09 4.7 5.1 13
3 Borah Peak USA 1983 X 28 7.3 6.9 10 IX 4200 2 [14–17]
4 Nagoken–Seibu Japan 1984 IX 14 6.4 6.2 18 VIII 3500 2 [18–27]
5 Valparaiso Chile 1985 III 03 7.8 8.1 43 VIII 17000 [28–32]
1985 III 03 6.4 5.9 33
1985 IV 09 7.2 7.1 49
6 Kalamata Greece 1986 IX 13 5.8 6.0 28 VIII 70 2 [1,2,33–35]
7 San Salvador El Salvador 1986 X 10 5.4 5.7 12 VIII 380 4 [36–38]
8 Diebu China 1987 I 07 5.4 5.3 15 VII 280 [39]
9 Edgecumbe New Zealand 1987 III 02 6.6 6.5 20 IX 380 2 [40–43]
10 El Napo Ecuador 1987 III 06 6.0 7.1 5 IX 2500 [44–47]
1987 III 06 6.9 6.8 15
11 Whittier Narrows USA 1987 X 01 5.8 6.1 17 VIII 4200 [48–53]
1987 X 04 4.8 3.9 13
12 Superstition Hills USA 1987 XI 24 6.2 6.2 5 3300 [54–58]
1987 XI 24 6.6 6.6 1.9
13 Nepal Nepal 1988 VIII 21 6.6 6.8 65 VIII 90 [59–60]
14 Killini Greece 1988 X 16 5.6 5.9 25 VIII 40 2 [1,2,61]
15 Saguenay Canada 1988 XI 25 5.8 5.8 28 VIII 45000 2 [62–67]
16 Spitak Armenia 1988 XII 07 6.8 6.7 5 IX 2200 4 [1,2,68–73]
1988 XII 07 5.8 11
17 Soviet Tajik Tajikistan 1989 I 23 5.5 10 VII 12 2 [74]
18 Loma Prieta USA 1989 X 17 7.1 6.9 8 VIII 14000 4 [41,75–80]
19 Manjil Iran 1990 VI 20 7.3 7.4 19 X 1000 3 [2,81–91]
20 Luzon Philippines 1990 VII 16 7.8 7.7 25 VIII 3000 3 [92–98]
21 Valle de la Estrella Costa Rica 1991 IV 22 7.6 7.5 21.5 IX 2000 4 [111,99–104]
22 Erzincan Turkey 1992 III 13 6.8 6.7 27 IX 150 2 [2,83,105–107]
1992 III 15 5.8 10
23 Cape Mendocino USA 1992 IV 25 7.1 7.0 15 VIII 625 [108–112]
C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346

1992 IV 26 6.6 7.0 20

1992 IV 25 6.6 6.6 22
24 Suusamyr Kyrgytzstan 1992 VIII 19 7.3 7.0 16.5 X 2500 [113–115]
25 Murindo Colombia 1992 X 17 6.7 6.7 14 X 9700 [116]
1992 X 18 7.3 7.4 10?
26 Hokkaido–Nansei Japan 1993 VII 12 7.6 7.8 17 X 100 2 [125,117–120]
27 Ormond New Zealand 1993 VIII 10 6.0 6.2 39 VII 5 2 [125,121–123]
28 Fiorland New Zealand 1993 VIII 10 7.0 6.8 22 VIII 500 2 [124–125]
29 Klamath Falls USA 1993 IX 21 5.8 5.9 11 VII 420 [126–127]
1993 IX 21 5.8 5.9 5 VII
30 Northridge USA 1994 I 17 6.8 6.7 18 IX 10000 4–5 [125,128–134]
Table 1 (continued)

Earthquake Country Date Magnitude Focal Maximum Area Number References b

depth intensity affected by of
landslides slides a
Year Month Day Ms Mw km MMI km 2

31 Paez Colombia 1994 VI 06 6.6 6.8 12 X 250 4 [135–137]

32 Arthur’s Pass New Zealand 1994 VI 18 7.1 6.8 14 VII 85 2 [125,138–139]
33 Hyogu–ken Nanbu Japan 1995 I 17 6.8 6.9 22 X 910 3 [125,140–154]
34 Tauramena Colombia 1995 I 19 6.6 6.5 20 VIII 4550 [155–157]
35 Arthur’s Pass New Zealand 1995 V 29 6.5 85 2 [158]
36 Umbria–Marche Italy 1997 IX 26 5.5 5.7 7 VIII [159–168]
1997 IX 26 5.9 6.0 3
1997 X 14 5.5
a
2 ˆ 10–100 landslides; 3 ˆ 100–1000 landslides; 4 ˆ 1000–10,000 landslides; 4–5 ˆ 10,000–100,000 landslides; 5 ˆ over 100,000 landslides.
b
References numbers refer to list in Appendix A
C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
327
 328

Table 2
Types of landslides observed in earthquakes during 1980–1997

Earthquake Landslides in rock Landslides in soils

Disrupted slides and falls Coherent slides Disrupted slides and falls Coherent slides Lateral spreads and flows

MS MW Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Soil Disrupted Soil Soil Soil Slow Soil Rapid Subaqueous
falls slides avalanches slumps block falls soil slides avalanches slumps block earth lateral soil landslides
slides slides flows spreads flows

1 Irpinia 6.9 6.9 × × × × ×

2 Borah Peak 7.3 6.9 × × × × × × × × ×
3 Coalinga 6.7 6.2 × × × × × × ×
4 Nagoken–seuvy 6.4 6.2 × × × ×
5 Valparaiso 7.8 8.1 × × × ×
6 Kalamata 5.8 6.0 × × ×
7 San Salvador 5.4 5.7 × × × × × ×
8 Diebu 5.4 5.3 × ×
9 Edgecumbe 6.6 6.5 × × × × ×
10 El Napo 6.0 7.1 × × × × × ×
11 Whittier Narrows 5.8 6.1 × × × ×
12 Superstition Hills 6.2 6.2 × × × × × ×
13 Nepal 6.6 6.8 × × × ×
14 Killini 5.6 5.9 × × ×
15 Saguenay 5.8 5.8 × ×
16 Spitak 6.8 6.7 × × × × × ×
17 Soviet Tajik 5.5 × × ×
18 Loma Prieta 7.1 6.9 × × × × × × ×
19 Manjil 7.3 7.4 × × × × × × × × ×
20 Luzon 7.8 7.7 × × × × × × ×
21 Valle de la Estrella 7.6 7.5 × × × × × × ×
22 Erzincan 6.8 6.7 × × ×
23 Cape Mendocino 7.1 7.0 × × × × ×
24 Suusamyr 7.3 7.0 × × × ×
25 Murindo 6.7 6.7 × × ×
26 Hokkaido–nansei 7.6 7.8 × × × × × ×
27 Ormond 6.0 6.2 × × × ×
C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346

28 Fiorland 7.0 6.8 × ×

29 Klamath Falls 5.8 5.9 × × × ×
30 Northridge 6.8 6.7 × × × × × × ×
31 Paez 6.6 6.8 × × × × ×
32 Arthur’s Pass 7.1 6.8 × × × × × ×
33 Hyogu–ken Nanbu 6.8 6.9 × × × × × × × ×
34 Tauramena 6.6 6.5 × × × × × × ×
35 Arthur’s Pass 6.5 × × × × ×
36 Umbria–marche 5.9 6.0 × ×
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
Fig. 1. Relative frequency of each type of landslide during the earthquakes included in each database. p Relative percentage is defined as the ratio between the
number of earthquakes in which each type occurred and the total number of earthquakes studied in each database.
findings are discussed in the final 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, identify-
ing seismic events that have caused slope instability. A list
of references is included in Appendix A. A total of 36 earth-
quakes are identified, 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 informa-
tion 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
329
particular earthquake. In the absence of such studies, the
source parameters were obtained from the Regional Catalo-
gue of Earthquakes of the International Seismological
Centre (ISC). For events during 1991–1997, earthquake
source parameters have been extracted from the Seismicity
Catalogues published on CD-ROM by the National Geophy-
sical Data Center (NGDC). Earthquake size is quantified 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 epicen-
tral 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 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346

Table 3
Geometric characteristics of earthquake-induced landslides

Slide type Slide depth (m) Slide shape factor (d/L) a Slip surface shape

Rock falls
Disrupted rock slides
Coherent rock slides
Disrupted soil slides
Coherent soil slides
Soil spreads and flows
a
(d/L ˆ depth/length ratio)
3–5, depending on
discontinuities spacing
(No representative data)
20–50, given by geological
features, such as weakness zones
3–100, depending on geological
setting
6–50, apparently dependent on
ground shaking
6–40, depending on the ground
shaking
ˆ 0.15, only one data reported
(No representative data)
0.08–0.10, apparent
relationship with ground
shaking
0.005–0.3, apparently
dependent on ground shaking
0.04–0.3, apparently dependent
on ground shaking
0.007–0.20, depending on
geological setting
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

been measured from the closest point on the surface projec-
tion 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 indivi-
dual studies; in other cases, it is defined on the basis of
surface ruptures, aftershock locations and focal mechanism
solutions. The definition 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 maxi-
mum 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 fluctuations 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 observa-
tions 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 Modified Mercalli
(MM) scale; where the isoseismal maps are drawn on the
Mercalli–Cancani–Sieberg (MCS), Medvedev–Sponheuer–
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 clas-
sified according to the categories defined by Varnes [10].
The types of slides associated with each of the earthquakes
in the database are indicated in Table 2. The basic classifi-
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 flows. 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 landslides—as an order of magnitude—that
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 classification, 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 land-
slide within the new database, Keefer’s database and the
combined database. The percentages refer to the relative
frequency of each type of landslides generated by the earth-
quakes. 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 flows, 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
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346 331

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 358 and 558, respectively.
Coherent rock slides occur on much shallower slopes, with
inclinations of 158 or greater. The lower limit for slopes on
which soil slides occur is about 88, 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 pre-
dominantly in transported deposits, of which alluvial and
colluvial deposits are the most common. Failure mechan-
isms in these cases are mainly disrupted slides and lateral
flows, and during the movement a high internal disaggrega-
tion 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 preferen-
tially 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
confined 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, wher-
ever 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 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
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 para-
meters and landslide characteristics in a manner very similar
to that of Keefer. One of the main objectives was to deter-
mine whether the correlations determined by Keefer are
applicable to the new database.
3.1. Smallest earthquakes to cause landslides
The first correlation made by Keefer was to identify
thresholds of minimum earthquake magnitude that triggered
landslides so as to find a lower bound. Such lower bounds
can also be identified 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 flows, soil lateral
spreads and rapid soil flows
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 seis-
mic 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 ˆ 2:9. For this earth-
quake, Feng and Guo [12] reported the collapse of an
aeolian deposit cliff with a slope of 50–608, and suggested
that the collapse was triggered due to the shallow earth-
quake source.
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
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 inten-
sity 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 significance 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 kilo-
metres 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
333
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 significantly above
Keefer’s 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 significant element contributing to the
scatter is likely to be the variation in the geographical
334 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346

Fig. 5. Maximum epicentral distance to spreads and flows 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 flat areas with isolated slopes. Alterna-
tively, 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
Keefer’s line.
Others have attempted to improve these relations, mainly
by considering the relationship between epicentral distance
and specific 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, Keefer’s upper bound is shown. On
the lower plot in Fig. 5, Keefer’s limit is confirmed by the
new dataset, and also agrees well with the limit for liquefac-
tion 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 definition 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
Keefer’s envelope in Fig. 2, on the plots of maximum fault
distance (Figs. 6–8) only a single earthquake lies above his
upper bound, the 1988 Saguenay earthquake.
Comparison of Figs. 2, 6–8 reveals apparent incongru-
ence as there are a number of cases in the new dataset that
lie above Keefer’s upper bound in terms of area affected by
landslides, but not in terms of the maximum distance of
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
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 corre-
spond 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 earth-
quake 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
335
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 100–500
[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 fine 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 reflections 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 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
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
defined by this distance. Clearly, the possibility of landslid-
ing 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 flexible 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 Keefer’s
database. These plots are subject to the same qualifications
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 significance 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 flows, though
the new database suggests that the modal value for the
disrupted slides may be slightly higher at VI1.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from these obser-
vations is that the triggering of landslides during earth-
quakes 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 modified version of
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
Fig. 8. Maximum fault distance to spreads and flows 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 Seismo-
logical Commission [20] omits many of the former refer-
ences to the effects on nature, including landslides, noting
that “evidence is insufficient to establish good correlation
between these effects and particular intensity grades”. The
resulting European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) recom-
mends 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 distribu-
tion 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
337
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 significant extension of the data-
base 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 confirms the findings 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 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
Fig. 9. The minimum MM intensity that triggered landslides in each earth-
quake in the new database (white) and Keefer’s database (1984) (black) for
(top) disrupted landslides, (middle) coherent landslides, and (bottom)
lateral spreads and flows.
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 contribut-
ing 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
Fig. 10. Total numbers of documented slides triggered at different MM
intensities in the new database.
post-1980 database. Many of the earthquakes were exten-
sively 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
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
landslide hazard potential (Sergio Mora, Rolando Mora and
Wilhelm–Ghünther Vahrson) [5].
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 ˆ
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 Keefer’s [1] database, the 1976 earth-
quake 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
help in collecting the data. Mr. A Martı́nez–Pereira
enriched the seismic data and its analysis, and his helpful
contributions are also acknowledged with thanks. The first
author would also like to thank COLFUTURO for support-
ing him as research student at Imperial College, and is
particularly grateful to the Universidad Nacional de Colom-
bia for its unconditional support.
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;19:1–20.
2. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction
of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:371–400.
3. Cotecchia V, Del Prete M. The reactivation of large
flows in the parts of southern Italy affected by the earth-
quake of November 1980, with reference to the evolutive
mechanism. Fourth International Symposium on Land-
slides, vol. 2. Toronto: 1985. p. 33–38.
4. Crosson RS, Martin M, Scarpa R, Key SC. The South-
ern Italy earthquake of 23 November 1980: an unusual
339
pattern of faulting. Bulletin of Seismological Society of
America 1986;76(2):381–394.
5. D’Elia 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
seismic areas. Ouest Éditions, 1992. p. 25–32.
6. D’Elia 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. 1943–1949.
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):187–200.
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.
Ouest Éditions, 1992. p. 33–45.
9. Deschamps A, King GCP. The Campania-Lucania
(Southern Italy) earthquake of 23 November 1980.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 1983;62:296–304.
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:19–38.
11. Simonelli AL, Viggiani C. Effects of seismic motion
characteristics on earth slope behaviour. In: Ishihara K,
editor. Earthquake geotechnical engineering. 1985. p.
1097–1102.
12. Westaway R, Jackson J. Surface faulting in the South-
ern Italian Campania-Basilicata earthquake of 23 Novem-
ber 1980. Nature 1984;312:436–438.
Coalinga
13. Rymer MJ, Ellsworth WL. The Coalinga, California,
earthquake of May 2 1983. USGS Prof. Paper.
1990;1487:1–417.
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 segmenta-
tion 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):1–237.
16. Jackson SM, Boatwright J. Strong ground motion in
the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake and its after-
shocks. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America
1987;77(3):724–738.
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 Seismo-
logical Society of America 1987;77(3):694–723.
340 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346

Nagoken earthquake, possible terrain amplification. Proceedings

of the Third US National Conference on Earthquake
18. Inokuchi T. The Ontake rock slide and debris
Engineering 1996;1:125–136.
avalanche caused by the Nagoken-Seibu earthquake,
31. EERI. The Chile earthquake of March 3, 1985. Earth-
1984. In: Proceedings of the IV International Conference
quake Spectra 1986;2(2):249–508.
and Field Workshop on Landslides, Tokyo: 1985, p. 329–
32. Troncoso JH. The Chilean earthquake of 3 March
338.
1985. Effects on soil structures. In: Earthquake Geotech-
19. Ishihara K, Yoshida Y, Nakamura S, Tsujino S,
nical Engineering, Proceedings of the Twelfth Interna-
Sakuuchi H. Stability of natural slopes during the 1984
tional Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1986. p.
Nagano-Seibu earthquake. Proceedings of the Eighth
1–10.
Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering 1987;1:237–240. Kalamata
20. Morikawi H, Yazaki S, Oyagi N. A gigantic debris
33. Anagnostopolous SA, Rinaldis D, Lekidis VA,
avalanche and its dynamics at Mount Ontake caused by
Morgaris VN, Theodulidis NP. The Kalamata, Greece,
the Naganoken-Seibu earthquake, 1984. In: Proceedings
earthquake of September 13, 1986. Earthquake Spectra
of the IV International Conference and Field Workshop
1987;3(2):365–402.
on Landslides. 1985. p. 359–364.
34. Elnashai AS, Pilakoutas K. The Kalamata, Greece
21. Ohmachi T, Midorikawa S. Ground-motion intensity
earthquake of 13 September 1986, ESEE Report 86.9,
inferred from upthrow of boulders during the 1984
1986, Imperial College, London.
Western Nagano prefecture, Japan, earthquake. Bulletin
35. Tselentis GA, Drokopoulos J, Makropoulos K. Short
of Seismological Society of America1992;82(1):44–60.
Note: site effects on seismograms of local earthquakes in
22. Sassa K. Keynote Paper: Access to the dynamics of
the Kalamata region, Southern Greece. Bulletin of Seis-
landslides during earthquakes by a new cyclic loading
mological Society of America 1988;78(4):1597–1602.
high-speed ring shear apparatus. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Symposium on Landslides El Salvador
1985;3:1919–1939.
36. EERI. The San Salvador earthquake of October 10,
23. Sassa K. The mechanisms of high mobility in the
1986. Earthquake Spectra 1987;3(3):00.
Ontake Debris Avalanche. Proceedings of the Eighth
37. Harlow D, White RA, Rymer MJ. The San Salvador
Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
earthquake of 10 October 1986 and its historical context.
dation Engineering 1987;1:487–490.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
24. Sassa K. Special Lecture: Geotechnical model for the
1993;83(4):1143–1154.
motion of landslides. In: Proceedings of the fifth
38. Rymer MJ, White RA. Hazards in El Salvador from
International Symposium on Landslides. 1988. p. 37–
earthquake-induced landslides. In: Brabb, Harrod,
55.
editors. Landslides: extent and economic significance.
25. Takeo M, Mikami N. Inversion of strong motion
1989. p. 105–109.
seismograms for the source process of the Naganoken-
Seibu earthquake of 1984. Tectonophysics Diebu
1987;144:271–285.
39. Zhenging H. The MS ˆ 5.9 Diebu earthquake, Gansu
26. Tanaka K. Some earthquake induced landslides in
Province, January 8, 1987. Earthquake Research in China
Japan. In: Proceedings of the IV International Conference
1990;4(2):163–171.
and Field Workshop on Landslides. 1985. p. 347–350.
27. Yanase H. Ochiai H, Matsuura S. A large-scale land- Edgecumbe
slide on Mt. Ontake due to the Nagoken-Seibu earth-
40. Dowrick DJ. Edgecumbe earthquake—some notes on
quake, 1984. In: Proceedings of the IV International
its source, ground motions, and damage in relation to
Conference and Field Workshop on Landslides. 1985.
safety. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society
p. 323–328.
for Earthquake Engineering 1988;21:198–203.
41. Dowrick DJ. Magnitude reassessment of New Zeal-
Valparaiso
and earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
28. Barrientos SE. Slip distribution of the Central Chile Dynamics 1991;20:577–996.
earthquake. Tectonophysics 1988;145:225–241. 42. Franks CAM. Engineering geological aspects of the
29. Celebi M. Topographical and geological applications Edgecumbe, New Zealand. Earthquake of 2 March 1987.
determined from strong-motion and aftershocks Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 1988;21:337–
records of the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake. Bulletin 345.
of Seismological Society of America 1987;77(4):1147– 43. Pender MJ, Robertson TW. Edgecumbe earthquake:
1167. reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra 1987;
30. Celebi M. A feature of the 3 March 1985 Chile 3(4):659–745.
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
El Napo
44. Lara O. Effects of earthquakes on lifelines: case
history—the El Napo 1987 earthquake. Tenth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid. Spain,
1994.
45. Nieto AS, Schuster RL. Mass wasting and flooding
induced by the 5 March 1987 Ecuador earthquake. Land-
slides News 1988;2:5–8.
46. Schuster RL, Nieto AS, O’Rourke TD, Crespo E,
Plaza-Nieto G. Mass wasting triggered by the 5 March
1987 Ecuador earthquakes. Engineering Geology
1996;42:1–23.
47. Tibaldi A, Ferrari L, Pesquarè G. Landslides triggered
by earthquakes and their relations with faults and moun-
tain slope geometry: an example from Ecuador. Geomor-
phology 1995;11:215–226.
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):1739–1757.
49. Jones L, Hauksson E. The Whittier Narrows, Califor-
nia earthquake of October 1, 1987 seismology. Earth-
quake Spectra 1988;4(1):43–53.
50. Leyendecker EV, Highland LM, Hopper M, Arnold
EP, Thenhaus P, Powers P. The Whittier Narrows, Cali-
fornia earthquake of October 1, 1987—early results of
isoseismal studies and damage surveys. Earthquake Spec-
tra 1988;4(1):1–10.
51. Linde AT, Johnson MJS. Source parameters of the
October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake from crus-
tal deformation data. Journal of Geophysical Research
1989;94(B7):9633–9643.
52. Trifunac MD. The Whittier Narrows, California
earthquake of October 1, 1987—note on peak accelera-
tions during the 1 and 4 October earthquakes. Earthquake
Spectra 1988;4(1):101–111.
53. Weber FH. Whittier Narrows earthquakes—Los
Angeles County, October 1 and 4, 1987. California Geol-
ogy 1987;40(12):1987.
Superstition Hill
54. Hanks TC, Allen CR. The Elmore Ranch and Super-
stition Hills earthquakes of 24 November 1987: introduc-
tion to the special issue. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1989;79(2):231–238.
55. Holzer TL, Youd TL, Hanks TC. Dynamics of lique-
faction during the 1987 Superstition Hills, California,
earthquake. Science 1989;244:56–59.
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):252–281.
341
57. Sharp RV, Budding KE, Bootwright J, Ader MJ,
Bonilla MG, Clark MM, Fumal, TE, Harms KK, Lien-
kaemper JJ, Monton DM, O’Neill BJ, Ostergren CL,
Ponti DJ, Rymer MJ, Saxton JL, Sims JD. Surface fault-
ing 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):252–281.
58. Sipkin S. Moment-tensor solutions for 24 November
Superstition Hills, California, earthquakes. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 1989;79(2):493–499.
Nepal
59. Boyce JR. Earthquake damage to a low cost road in
Nepal. VI International Symposium on Landslides. 1985.
p. 43–50.
60. EOS News. Nepal quake doesn’t fit. EOS
1988;69(38):860.
Killini
61. MSc/EFTU Group, The Killini, Elias, Greece Earth-
quake 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 Seismo-
logical Society of America 1992;82(2):638–719.
63. Cajka M, Drysdale J. Intensity report of the Novem-
ber 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):720–754.
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, earth-
quake: source parameters and the attenuation of strong
ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 1990;80(5):1118–1143.
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 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
engineering seismology report. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1989;18:921–925.
70. EERI, Armenia earthquake reconnaissance report,
Earthquake Spectra, Special Supplement, August, 1989.
p. 1–175.
71. Hadjian AH. The Spitak, Armenia earthquake of 7
December 1988—why so much destruction. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1993;12:1–24.
72. Ishihara K. Earthquake-induced landslides near
Spitak, Armenia, USSR. Landslide News 1991;5:25–26.
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 Zeal-
and National Society of Earthquake Engineering
1993;26(3):253–283.
Soviet Tajik
74. Ishihara K, Okusa S, Oyagi N, Ischuk A. Liquefac-
tion-induced flow slide in the collapsible loess deposit in
Soviet Tajik. Soils and Foundations 1990;30(4):73–89.
Loma Prieta
75. Clough GW, Martin JR, Chameau JL. The geotechni-
cal aspects. Practical Lessons from the Loma Prieta earth-
quake. Washington: National Academic Press, 1994. p.
29–67.
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 field
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 trig-
gered by the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
earthquake. Landslide News 1991;5:18–22.
79. Plakfer G, Galloway JP. Lessons learned from the
Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17,
1989. United States Geological Survey (circular)
1989;1045:1–48.
80. Seed RB, Dickenson SE, Idriss IM. Principal geotech-
nical aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Soils
and Foundations 1991;31(1):1–26.
Manjil
81. Astarch-Asl A. Lessons of the 1990 Manjil-Iran earth-
quake. Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing 1994;11:6997–7000.
82. Berberian M, Qorashi M, Jackson JA, Priestley K,
Wallace T. The Rudbar-Tarom earthquake of 20 June
1990 in NW Persia: preliminary field and seismological
observations, and its tectonic significance. 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. 1031–1036.
85. Haeri SM. Liquefaction associated with Manjil earth-
quake of June 20 1990, Iran. Fifth International Confer-
ence on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
1991;325–339.
86. Haeri SM, Zolfaghary MR. On the earthquake
induced liquefaction in Astaneh, Iran earthquake. Tenth
World Conference 1992;11:6997–7000.
87. Astarch-Asl A. Lessons of the 1990 Manjil-Iran earth-
quake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World Confer-
ence) 1994;1:129–134.
88. Ishihara K. Manjil earthquake of 21 June 1990, Iran.
Landslide News 1991;5:2–4.
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):61–78.
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):254–283.
Philippines
92. Arboleda RA, Punongbayan RS. Landslides induced
by the 16 July 1990 Luzon, Philippines, earthquake.
Landslide News 1991;5:5–7.
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
field visit. Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 1991;24(1):3–95.
96. Ishihara K, Acacio AA, Towhata I. Liquefaction-
induced ground damage in Dagupan in the July 16,
1990. Luzon earthquake. Soils and Foundations
1993;33(1):133–154.
97. Kojima H, Tokimatsu K. Liquefaction-induced
damage, and geological and geophysical conditions
during the 1990 Luzon earthquake. Earthquake Engineer-
ing (Tenth World Conference) 1992;8:135–140.
98. Sharpe RL. July 16, 1990 Luzon, Philippines, earth-
quake. Tenth World Conference 1992;11:7027–7031.
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
Valle de la Estrella
99. EERI. Costa Rica earthquake. Reconnaissance report.
Earthquake Spectra (special suppl.) 1991;7:1–127.
100. EQE International, The April 22, 1991. Valle de la
Estrella, Costa Rica Earthquake. A Quick Look Report,
1991.
101. Mora S. Licuefacción de suelos y fenómenos asocia-
dos duarnte el Sismo de Telire-Limón, Costa Rica, (MS ˆ
7.6; 22 April 1991). Segundo Seminario Colombiano de
Ingeniería Sismológica y Geotecnia, Bogota, Colombia,
1997.
102. Mora S. Los Deslizamientos causados por el terre-
moto de Telire-Limón del 22 de Abril de 1991, factores
de control y comparació con otros eventos en Costa Rica.
Segundo Seminario Colombiano de Ingeniería Sismoló-
gica y Geotecnia, Bogotá, Colombia, 1997.
103. Santana G. The April 22, 1991. Limon (Costa Rica)
earthquake. Earthquake Engineering (Tenth World
Conference) 1994;8:7033–7038.
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;8:153–158.
Erzincan
105. Hencher SR, Acar IA. The Erzincan earthquake,
Friday, 13 March 1992. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology 1995;28:313–316.
106. EERI. Erzincan, Turkey Earthquake of March 13,
1992. Reconnaissance Report. Earthquake Spectra,
Supplement to vol. 9, 1993.
107. Erdik M, Yüzügüllü O, Yilmaz C, Akkas N. 13
March, 1992 (MS ˆ 6.8) Erzincan earthquake: a prelimin-
ary report. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
1992;11:279–310.
Cape Mendocino
108. Earthquakes and volcanoes (special issue). Cape
Mendocino Earthquake, California, on April 25-26,
1992. Earthquakes and Volcanoes 1992;23(3):92–134.
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, Roma-
nowicz B, Sotake K, Simpson R, Somerville P, Stein R,
Valentine D. The Cape Mendocino, California, earth-
quakes of April 1992: subduction of triple junction.
Science 1993;261:433–438.
110. Person WJ. Seismological notes—March–April
1992. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
1993;83(1):295–302.
111. Schwartz SY. Source parameters of aftershocks of
the 1991 Costa Rica and 1992 Cape Mendocino, Califor-
nia, earthquakes from inversion of local amplitude ratios
and broadband waveforms. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1995;85(6):1566–1575.
343
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):711–728.
Suusamyr
113. Dziewonski AM, Ekström G, Salganik MP.
Centroid-moment tensor solutions for July–September
1992. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
1993;79:287–297.
114. Ghose S, Mellors RJ, Korjenkov AM, Hamburger
HW, Poulos GL, Omuraliev M, Mamirov E, Muraliev
AR. The MS ˆ 7.3 1992 Suusamyr, Kyrgyzstan, earth-
quake: 2. Aftershocks focal mechanisms and surface
deformation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 1997;87(1):23–38.
115. Mellors RJ, Vernon FL, Poulos GL, Abers GA,
Hamburger MW, Ghose S, Iliasov B. The MS ˆ 7.3
1992 Suusamyr, Kyrgyzstan, earthquake: 1. Constraints
on fault geometry and source parameters based on after-
shocks and body-wave modeling. Bulletin of the Seismo-
logical Society of America 1997;87(1):11–22.
Murindo
116. INGEOMINAS. Los sismos del Atrato Medio, 17 y
18 de Octubre de 1992. Noroccidente de Colombia,
Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia. 1993. p. 1–45.
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):2–54.
118. EERI. Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake and
tsunami of July 12, 1993. Reconnaissance report. Earth-
quake Spectra, Supplement A to vol. 11, 1995:1–166.
119. Yamagishi H, Amamiya K, Kurosawa K. Landslides
induced by the Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake, Japan,
12 July 1993. Landslide News 1994;8:10–12.
120. Yasuda T, Hosuda H. A discussion on the mechanics
of a fillback failure caused by the Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki
earthquake. In: Ishihara K, editor. Earthquake Geotech-
nical Engineering. Balkema, 1995. p. 1063–1067.
Ormond
121. Chapman HE. Ormond earthquake—10 August
1993: report on visit to examine the effects on bridging.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earth-
quake Engineering 1993;26(3):309–311.
122. Christensen SA. Ormond Earthquake. Liquefaction
reconnaissance report. Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering
1993;26(3):312–328.
123. Read SAL, Sritharan S. Reconnaissance report on
344 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
the Ormond Earthquake—10 August 1993. Bulletin of
the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engi-
neering 1993;26(3):292–308.
Fiorland
124. Van Dissen R, Cousins J, Robinson R, Reyners M.
The Fiorland Earthquake of 10 August, 1993: a recon-
naissance report covering tectonic setting, peak ground
acceleration, and landslide damage. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
1994;27(2):147–154.
125. Zhao JX, Dowrick DJ, McVerry GH. Attenuation of
peak ground accelerations in New Zealand earthquakes.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earth-
quake Engineering 1997;30(2):133–158.
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):104–146.
127. Person WJ. Seismological notes—September–
October 1993. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 1995;84(4):1284–1290.
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 trig-
gered by the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake.
United States Geological Survey (Open-File Report).
1995:95–213.
130. Jibson RW, Harp EL, Keefer DK, Wilson RC. Land-
slides triggered by the 17 January 1994 Northridge, Cali-
fornia, earthquake. Landslide News 1994;8:7–10.
131. NZNSEE. Brief report on the 17 January 1994,
Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineer-
ing 1994;27(1):55–65.
132. Seismological Society of America. The Northridge
M ˆ 6.7 earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1996;86(1B):S1–S361.
133. US Geological Survey. Northridge, California,
Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Earthquakes and Volca-
noes 1994;25(1,2):4–47, 60–106.
134. US Geological Survey and Southern California
Earthquake Center. The Magnitude 6.7 Northridge, Cali-
fornia, earthquake of 17 January 1994. Science
1994;266:389–397.
Paez
135. Avila GE, Caro PE, Cepeda H, Moreno M, Torres P,
Agudelo A. Zonificación para uso del suelo en la cuenca
del Río Páez. VIII Jornadas Geotecnicas de la Ingeniería
Colombiana, Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia, 1995.
136. INGEOMINAS. El Sismo de Páez-Cauca del 6 de
Junio de 1994. Evaluación de Emergencia. Informe a la
Comisión Accidental del Congreso Nacional, Santafé de
Bogotá, Colombia, 1994.
137. Martı́nez JM, Avila G, Agudelo A, Schuster RL,
Casadevall TJ, Scott KM. Landslides and debris flows
triggered by the 6 June 1994 Paez earthquake, Southwes-
tern Colombia. Landslide News 1995;9:13–15.
Arthur Pass (1994)
138. Berril JB, McManus KJ, Clarke GH. A note on the
Arthur’s Pass earthquake 18 June 1994. Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineer-
ing 1995;28(4):294–299.
139. Paterson BR, Bourne-Webb PJ. Reconnaissance
report on highway damage from the 18 June 1994,
Arthur’s Pass earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering
1994;27(3):222–226.
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;2:989–994.
141. Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Baron I. Selected engi-
neering seismology and structural studies of the Hyogo-
ken-, Kobe, Japan earthquake 17th January, 1995. ESEE
Research Report 1995;95.2:1–46.
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 Seis-
mological Society of America 1996;86(3):547–566.
143. Ishihara K, Yasuda S. Ground damage in coastal
areas. In: Preliminary report on the great Hanshin earth-
quake, January 17, 1995. Japan Society of Civil Engi-
neers. 1995. p. 11–17.
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 Founda-
tions, 1996.
146. Kamai T. Landslides in the Hanshin urban region
caused by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Japan.
Landslide News 1995;9:121–13.
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. 165–187.
148. Ochiai H, Kitahara H, Sammori T, Kazutoki A.
Landslides triggered by the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu
 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
earthquake in Rokko mountains. Seventh Symposium on
Landslides. 1996. p. 1007–1012.
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. 340–346.
150. Okimura T, Yamagami T, Ugai K. Slope failures
during the 1995 Southern Hyogo earthquake in Japan.
7th. 1996. p. 1013–1018.
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;9:9–11.
153. Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Irikura
K, Okimura T. Landslides triggered by the Hyogoken-
Nanbu earthquake. Landslide News 1995;9:2–5.
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. 270–281.
Tauramena
155. Ingenierı́a y Geotecnia LTDA. Estudio de Riesgo
Sismico y estabilidad geotécnica Monte 907 y la Torre
de Telecomunicaciones. Informe ECOPETROL, Santafé
de Bogotá, Colombia. 1995. p. 1–16.
156. Ingenierı́a y Geotecnia LTDA. Efectos del sismo de
Tauramena (Enero 19/95) sobre la carretera de acceso a la
estación de bombeo de El Porvenir y los oleoductos
Araguaney/Apiay—El Porvenir. Informe ECOPETROL,
Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia. 1996. p. 1–44.
157. INGEOMINAS. Informe Tauramena, Santafé de
Bogotá, Colombia. 1995. p. 1–40.
Arthur’s Pass
158. Paterson B.R, Berril J.B. Damage to state highway
73 from the 29 May 1995, Arthur’s Pass earthquake.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earth-
quake Engineering 1999;28(4):300–310.
Umbria-Marche
159. Basili R, Bosi V, Galadini F, Galli P, Meghraoui M,
Messina P, Moro M, Sposato A. The Colfiorito earth-
quake sequence of September–October 1997. Surface
breaks and seismotectonic implications for the Central
Appenines (Italy). Journal of Earthquake Engineering
1998;2(2):291–302.
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.
345
162. EFTU. Field observations of the Italian earthquakes
of September–October 1997. Reconnaissance Report,
1997.
163. Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Allmark TB, Martinez A,
Orlando A. The Umbria-Marche earthquake sequence of
September–October 1997, (submitted for publishing as a
Quick-look Report to EQE, 1998).
164. Politecnico de Milano. I Terremoti Umbrio-March-
igiani dei Settembre/Ottobre 1997: esperienze sul campo
dei Dottorado di Ingegneria Sismica, 1997.
165. Universitá de Camerino. Preliminary Report on the
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,
Colfiorito (Central Italy) earthquakes. Journal of Earth-
quake Engineering 1998;2(2):303–324.
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 Geolo-
gical Society of America 1984;95:406–421.
[2] Lomnitz C. The Peru earthquake of May 31, 1970. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 1970;60:1413–1416.
[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:447–457.
[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 Engi-
neering, 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;71:2011–2038.
[7] Ambraseys NN, Bommer JJ. The attenuation of ground accelerations
in Europe. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1991;20:1179–1202.
[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. 213–226.
[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. Landslides—analysis and control, National Acad-
emy of Sciences Transportation Research Board Special Report 176.
1978. p. 12–33.
[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;339–346.
[13] Scholz CH. The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, London:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
346 C.E. Rodrı́guez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 325–346
[14] Perkins DM. Landslide hazard maps analogues to probabilistic earth-
quake ground motion hazard maps. In: Cruden DM, Fell R, editors.
Landslide risk assessment, Balkema, 1997 p. 327–332.
[15] Ambraseys NN. Engineering seismology. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1988;17:1–105.
[16] Mora S. Los deslizamientos causados por el terremoto de Telire-
Limón del 22 de Abril de 1991, factores de control y comparación
con otros eventos en Costa Rica. Segundo Seminario Colombiano de
Ingenierı́a Sismológica y Geotecnia, Bogotá, Colombia 1997.
[17] Lefebvre G, Leboeuf D, Hornych P. Slope failures associated with the
Saguenay earthquake, Quebec, Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal 1992;29:117–130.
[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;80:1118–1143.
[19] Burger RW, Somerville PG, Barker JS, Herrmann RB, Helmberger
DV. The effect of crustal structure on strong ground motion attenua-
tion relations in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1987;77:420–439.
[20] Günthal G, editor. European macroseismic scale 1992 Luxembourg:
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. 317–345.
[22] Harp EL, Wilson RC. Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and
slides: evidence from Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills earth-
quake strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 1995;85:1739–1757.
[23] Rymer MJ. The San Salvador earthquake of October 10, 1986—
geologic aspects. Earthquake Spectra 1987;3:435–463.
[24] Rymer MJ, White RA. Hazards in El Salvador from earthquake-
induced landslides. In: Brabb EE, Harrod BL, editors. Landslides:
extent and economic significance, Balkema, 1989 p. 105–109.
[25] Rolo R. Elements of seismic hazard in El Salvador and Central Amer-
ica, MSc Dissertation, Imperial College, University of London, 1998.
[26] Bommer J, Rolo R, Mendez P. Propiedades mecánicas de la tierra
blanca y la inestabilidad de taludes. Revista ASIA, El Salvador
1998;129:15–21.