Risk assessment of seismic landslides based on analysis of historical earthquake disaster characteristics

  • Yin Tang
  • Ailan CheEmail author
  • Yanbo Cao
  • Fanghao Zhang
Original Paper


Risk assessment of seismic landslides in potential earthquake zones is important for construction in mountainous areas. To present a new method for conducting risk assessment of landslides, data of 720 landslides caused by the Ludian Ms6.5 earthquake, which occurred in 2014, are taken as a sample, and five impact factors are selected as risk assessment indexes; these factors include the slope, slope direction, elevation, strata lithology, and peak ground acceleration. Fractal theory and the result of the landslide distribution analysis of the Ludian earthquake are adopted to calculate the weight of each impact factor. The proposed risk assessment method is established by calculating the landslide distribution density. Under an assumed earthquake, the method is used for conducting risk assessment in the Dayong Expressway region; the topography and geology of this region are very similar to those of the Ludian County. The landslide risk zoning in the region can be obtained using the K-means cluster method to classify the risk level after the assignment of the landslide risk index. The result shows that a 2.25-km route of the Dayong Expressway has the highest risk of geological disasters with an occurrence probability of 1.1% considering the influence of the Chenghai fault. The assessment results can provide a scientific basis for disaster prevention in the Dayong Expressway area.


Ludian earthquake Analysis of landslide distribution characteristics Fractal theory K-means cluster Risk assessment model Dayong Expressway 



The landslide data in the Ludian earthquake and regional seismic information in the Dayong Expressway area are provided by the Earthquake Administration of Yunnan Province.

Funding information

This work is financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC1504504).


  1. Ayalew L, Kasahara M, Yamagishi H (2011) The spatial correlation between earthquakes and landslides in Hokkaido (Japan), a GIS-based analysis of the past and the future. Landslides 8(4):433–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barella CF, Sobreira FG, Zêzere JL (2019) A comparative analysis of statistical landslide susceptibility mapping in the southeast region of Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(5):3205–3221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batac RC (2016) Statistical properties of the immediate aftershocks of the 15 October 2013 magnitude 7.1 earthquake in Bohol, Philippines. Acta Geophys 64(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chase JG, Boyer F, Rodgers GW et al (2014) Probabilistic risk analysis of structural impact in seismic events for linear and nonlinear systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(10):1565–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen K, Yu YX, Gao MT et al (2015) ShakeMap of peak ground acceleration for 2014 Ludian, Yunnan, Ms6.5 earthquake. Acta Seismol Sin 37(3):429–436Google Scholar
  6. Chen X, Zhang L, Chen L et al (2019) Slope stability analysis based on the coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian finite element method. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(6):4451–4463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cui P, Zhu Y Y, Han Y S et al (2009) The 12 May Wenchuan earthquake-induced landslide lakes: distribution and preliminary risk evaluation. Landslides 6 (3):209-223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devkota K C, Regmi A D, Pourghasemi H R et al (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using certainty factor, index of entropy and logistic regression models in GIS and their comparison at Mugling–Narayanghat road section in Nepal Himalaya. Natural Hazards 65 (1):135-165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dieterich J (1994) A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 99(B2):2601-2618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ding M , Hu K , Ding M et al (2014) Susceptibility mapping of landslides in Beichuan County using cluster and MLC methods. Natural Hazards 70(1):755-766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du G, Zhang Y, Yang Z et al (2019) Landslide susceptibility mapping in the region of eastern Himalayan syntaxis, Tibetan Plateau, China: a comparison between analytical hierarchy process information value and logistic regression-information value methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(6):4201–4215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferraro A., Grasso S., Maugeri M. (2009) Seismic vulnerability of a slope in Central Italy. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Disaster Management and Human Health. New Forest, UK, pp 245-255Google Scholar
  13. Ferraro A, Grasso S, Massimino MR, Maugeri M (2015) Influence of geotechnical parameters and numerical modelling on local seismic response analysis. Proceedings of the XVI European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development. ICE, UK, pp 2183–2188.Google Scholar
  14. Firomsa M, Abay A (2019) Landslide assessment and susceptibility zonation in Ebantu district of Oromia region, western Ethiopia. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(6):4229–4239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flentje PN, Miner A, Whitt G et al (2007) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102(3):85–98Google Scholar
  16. Fu YH (2000) Transform-formed fractals and analyses and forecast of marine environment data. Mar Sci Bull 19(1):79–88Google Scholar
  17. Gallen SF, Clark MK, Godt JW et al (2017) Application and evaluation of a rapid response earthquake-triggered landslide model to the 25 April 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal. Tectonophysics 714-715:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaudio VD, Wasowski J (2004) Time probabilistic evaluation of seismically induced landslide hazard in Irpinia (Southern Italy). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(12):915–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang RQ, Pei XJ, Fan XM et al (2012) The characteristics and failure mechanism of the largest landslide triggered by the Wenchuan earthquake, May 12, 2008, China. Landslides 9(1):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang XL, Wu ZH et al (2016) The main active faults and tectonic system in Yongsheng area, northwestern Yunnan. J Geom 22(3):531–547Google Scholar
  21. Jibson RW, Harp EL, Michael JA (2000) A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol 58(3):271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kayastha P, Dhital MR, Smedt F (2013) Evaluation of the consistency of landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study from the Kankai watershed in east Nepal. Landslides 10(6):785–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keefer DK (1984) Landslides caused by earthquake. Geol Soc Am Bull 95(4):406–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin HM, Chang SK, Wu JH et al (2009) Neural network-based model for assessing failure potential of highway slopes in the Alishan, Taiwan area: pre- and post-earthquake investigation. Eng Geol 104(3–4):280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martha TR, Roy P, Mazumdar R et al (2017) Spatial characteristics of landslides triggered by the 2015 Mw 7.8 (Gorkha) and Mw 7.3 (Dolakha) earthquakes in Nepal. Landslides 14(2):697–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Massey C, Pasqua FD, Holden C et al (2016) Rock slope response to strong earthquake shaking. Landslides 14(1):249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meng Q, Miao F, Zhen J et al (2016) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping with logistic regression, analytical hierarchy process, and combined fuzzy and support vector machine methods: a case study from Wolong Giant Panda Natural Reserve, China. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75(3):923–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qin YQ, Tang H, Deng QY et al (2019) Regional seismic slope assessment improvements considering slope aspect and vertical ground motion. Eng Geol 259Google Scholar
  29. Qing W (2012) Statistical feature of epicenter accuracy of historical strong earthquakes and its effect on seismic hazard study. Acta Seismol Sin 34(4):537–536Google Scholar
  30. Ryu JH, Lee S, Won JS et al (2004) Determination and application of the weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71(3):289–302Google Scholar
  31. Sun JJ, Wang LM, Long PW (2011) An assessment method for regional susceptibility of landslides under coupling condition of earthquake and rainfall. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 30(4):752–760Google Scholar
  32. Tian YY, Xu C, Xu XW et al (2015) Comparative analysis of spatial distribution of pre-earthquake and co-seismic landslides in Ludian Ms6.5 earthquake in 2014. Seismol Geol 37(1):291–306Google Scholar
  33. Tsai HY, Tsai CC, Chang WC (2019) Slope unit-based approach for assessing regional seismic landslide displacement for deep and shallow failure. Eng Geol 248:124–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang S, Xu Q, Luo BY et al (2017) Vulnerability analysis and susceptibility evaluation of landslides based on fractal theory in Nanjiang County. Hydrogeol Eng Geol 44(3):119–126Google Scholar
  35. Xu C, Xu XW, Shen LL et al (2014) Inventory of landslides triggered by the 2014 Ms 6.5 Ludian earthquake and its implications on several earthquake parameters. Seismol Geol 36(4):1186–1203Google Scholar
  36. Yamagishi H, Yamazaki F (2018) Landslides by the 2018 Hokkaido Iburi-Tobu earthquake on September 6. Landslides 15(12):2521–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yuan RM, Deng QH, Cunningham D et al (2013) Density distribution of landslides triggered by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and their relationships to peak ground acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(4):2344–2355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou GQ, Su YJ, Wang SJ (2003) Study on the cause of the YongSheng earthquake with M6.0 on Oct.27, 2001. Earthq Res China 19(2):166–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2. Yunnan Earthquake AgencyKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations