TXT-tool 0.081-1.1: Landslide Dynamics for Risk Assessment

  • Kyoji Sassa
  • Khang Dang


The study of landslide dynamics is a fundamental tool to aid in proactive responses to reduce landslide disaster risk, which has become intensified by the increasing development of mountain slopes due to economic and population growth in many developing countries Landslide risk is also increasing due to extreme rainfalls caused by changing climate in many landslide-prone areas in the world. Natural landslide phenomena would have initially attracted attention through the observation of ground deformation/movement which changed the natural scenery in the mountains and sometimes affected people’s living areas before the era of industrialization. Geological and geomorphic studies started at this stage. Civil engineering works to construct roads, bridges, dams and river banks, and engineering works to mine hard rocks, limestones, coals, valuable metal and minerals developed during the industrialization of human society. They caused artificial geomorphic changes and often triggered landslides. To avoid triggering landslides due to human activities and to stabilize landslide slopes, industry-centered landslide studies were developed. The main tool was slope stability analysis based on soil and rock mechanics. In the post-industrialization period, people-centered disaster risk reduction studies integrating natural sciences, social sciences and engineering to save people’s lives have developed. The initial global scale initiative was the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) from 1st January 1990 to the end of 1999. Peoples are rarely killed by either slow-speed or short-distance landslides. The landslides affecting people’s lives are rapid and long-runout landslides, which they cannot escape from. Landslide studies to assess the velocity and travel distance of landslides must be developed. This is topic is landslide dynamics. This paper describes the core concepts and the important aspects of landslide dynamics as the fundamentals of ISDR-ICL Landslide Teaching Tools, which aim to support landslide risk reduction efforts through reliable landslide risk assessment and the early warning and land-use changes.


Landslide dynamics Undrained ring shear test Simulation model Hazard assessment 


  1. Abe I, Goto K, Imamura F, Shimizu K (2008) Numerical simulation of the tsunami generated by the 2007 Noto Hanto earthquake and implications for unusual tidal surges observed in Toyama Bay. Earth Planets Space 60:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoi S, Enescu B, Suzuki W, Asano Y, Obara K, Kunugi T, Shiomi K (2010) Stress transfer in the Tokai subduction zone from the 2009 Suruga Bay earthquake in Japan. Nat Geosci 3:496–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Yavari-Ramshe S (2011) Numerical simulation of wave generated by landslide incidents in dam reservoirs. Landslides 8(4):417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baba T, Matsumoto H, Kashiwase K, Hyakudome T, Kaneda Y, Sano M (2012) Microbathymetric evidence for the effect of submarine mass movement on tsunami generation during the 2009 Suruga Bay earthquake, Japan. In: Yamada Y et al (eds) Submarine mass movements and their consequences. Advances in natural and technological hazards research, vol 31. Springer, Berlin, pp 485–494Google Scholar
  5. Biscarini C (2010) Computational fluid dynamics modelling of landslide-generated water waves. Landslides 7(2):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop AW, Henkel DJ (1962) The measurement of soil properties in the triaxial test. English Language Book Society and Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop AW, Green GE, Garga VK, Andersen A, Brown JD (1971) A new ring-shear apparatus and its application to the measurement of residual strength. Geotechnique 21(1):273–328Google Scholar
  8. Dang K, Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Sakai N, Sato Y, Takara K, Quang L, Doan L, Pham T, Nguyen H (2016) Mechanism of two rapid and long-runout landslides in the 16 April 2016 Kumamoto earthquake using a ring-shear apparatus and computer simulation (LS-RAPID). Published online first (doi: 10.1007/s10346-016-0748-9)
  9. Glimsdal S, L’Heureus JS, Harbitz CB, Pedersen GK (2013) Modelling of the 1888 landslide tsunami, Trondheim, Norway. In: Proceeding of the second world landslide forum “landslide science and practice”, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–79Google Scholar
  10. Imamura F (2009) Tsunami modeling: calculating inundation and hazard maps (chapter 10). In: Bernard EN, Robinson AR (eds) The sea tsunamis. Harvard University Press, London, pp 321–332Google Scholar
  11. Inoue K (1999) Shimabara-Shigatusaku earthquake and topographic changes by Shimabara catastrophe. J Jpn Soc Eros Control Eng 52(4):45–54Google Scholar
  12. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) (1997) Numerical method of tsunami simulation with the leap-frog scheme. In: IUGG/IOC time project IOC manuals and guides, No. 3. UNESCO. 126 pGoogle Scholar
  13. Körner H (1980) Model conception for the rock slide and avalanche movement. In: Proceedings of international symposium “INTEPRAEVENT” 1980, vol 2, pp 15–55Google Scholar
  14. Liao Z, Hong Y, Wang J, Fukuoka H, Sassa K, Karnawati D, Fathani F (2010) Prototyping an experimental early warning system for rainfall-induced landslides in Indonesia using satellite remote sensing and geospatial datasets. Landslides 7(3):317–324Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) Water and Disaster Management Bureau, Coastal management office (2012) Guideline for the assessment for Tsunami inundation area. Ver. 1.00,
  16. Montarasio L, Valentino R (2008) A model for triggering mechanisms of shallow landslides. Nat Hazards Earth Sci 8:1149–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Okada Y, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2000) Liquefaction and the steady state of weathered granite sands obtained by undrained ring shear tests: a fundamental study on the mechanism of liquidized landslides. J Nat Disaster Sci 22(2):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sassa K (1984) The mechanism starting liquefied landslides and debris flows. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on landslides, vol 2. pp 349–354Google Scholar
  19. Sassa K (1988a) Geotechnical model for the motion of landslides. In: Proceedings of 5th ISL, pp 37–55Google Scholar
  20. Sassa K (1988b) Geotechnical model for the motion of landslides. In: Proceeding of 5th international symposium on landslides, “landslides”, Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 1. pp 37–56Google Scholar
  21. Sassa K (1992) Access to the dynamics of landslides during earthquakes by a new cyclic loading high-speed ring shear apparatus. In: Proceedings of 6th international symposium on landslides, pp 1919–1937Google Scholar
  22. Sassa K (1995) Access to the dynamics of landslides during earthquakes by a new cyclic loading high-speed ring shear apparatus. In: Proceedings of 6th ISL, pp 1919–1937Google Scholar
  23. Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Wang G, Ishikawa N (2004) Undrained dynamic-loading ring-shear apparatus and its application to landslide dynamics. Landslides 1(1):7–19Google Scholar
  24. Sassa K, Nagai O, Solidum R, Yamazaki Y, Ohta H (2010) An integrated model simulating the initiation and motion of earthquake and rain induced rapid landslides and its application to the 2006 Leyte landslide. Landslides 7(3):219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sassa K, He B, Miyagi T, Strasser M, Konagai K, Ostric M, Setiawan H, Takara K, Nagai O, Yamashiki Y, Tutumi S (2012) A hypothesis of the Senoumi submarine megaslide in Suruga Bay in Japan—based on the undrained dynamic-loading ring shear tests and computer simulation. Landslides 9(4):439–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sassa K, He B, Dang K, Nagai O, Takara K (2014a) Plenary: progress in landslide dynamics. In: Landslide science for a safer geoenvironment, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–67Google Scholar
  27. Sassa K, Dang K, He B, Takara K, Inoue K, Nagai O (2014b) A new high-stress undrained ring-shear apparatus and its application to the 1792 Unzen-Mayuyama megaslide in Japan. Landslides 11(5):827–842Google Scholar
  28. Sassa K, Fukuoka H, Sato Y, Takara K, Huy L, Setiawan H, Pham T, Dang K (2014c) Initiation mechanism of rapid and long runout landslides and simulation of Hiroshima landslide disasters using the integrated simulation model (LS-RAPID). In: Proceedings of the international forum “urbanization and landslide disaster”, pp 85–112 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  29. Sassa K, Dang K, Yanagisawa H et al (2016) A new landslide-induced tsunami simulation model and its application to the 1792 Unzen-Mayuyama landslide-and-tsunami disaster. Landslides 13(6):1405–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Satake K (2001) Tsunami modeling from submarine landslides. In: Proceedings of the international tsunami symposium, pp 665–674Google Scholar
  31. Tinti S, Tonini R (2013) The UBO-TSUFD tsunami inundation model: valiation and application to a tsunami case study focused on the city of Catania, Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:1795–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trandafir A, Sassa K (2006) Performance-based assessment of earthquake induced catastrophic landslide hazard in liquefiable soils. Geotech Geol Eng 24:1627–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsuji Y, Hino T (1993) Damage and Inundation height of the 1792 Shimabara landslide tsunami along the coast of Kumamoto prefecture. Bull Earthquake Res Inst 68:91–176 (University of Tokyo, in Japanese)Google Scholar
  34. Tsuji Y, Murakami Y (1997): Inundation height of the 1792 Mayuyama landslide tsunami in the Shimabara Peninsula side. In: Historical earthquake, No. 13. Society of Historical Earthquake Studies, pp 135–197Google Scholar
  35. Unzen Restoration Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan (2002) The Catastrophe in Shimabara: 1791–92 eruption of Unzen-Fugendake and the sector collapse of Mayu-Yama. An english leaflet (23 p)Google Scholar
  36. Unzen Restoration Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan (2003) The Catastrophe in Shimabara: 1791–92 eruption of Unzen-Fugendake and the sector collapse of Mayu-Yama. A Japanese leaflet (44 p)Google Scholar
  37. Usami T (1996) Materials for comprehensive list of destructive earthquakes in Japan. University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  38. Varnes D (1978) Slope movement types and processes (Fig. 2.1 types of slope movement), landslides-analysis and control. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Science, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Consortium on LandslidesUjiJapan
  2. 2.VNU University of ScienceHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations