Evaluation of CAMEL - comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides

Engineering Geology

Volumn 104, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 1-15

  Miles, Scott B ^a   Keefer, David K ^b  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Earthquake; Evaluation; Fuzzy logic; GIS; Landslide; Regional hazard zonation

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKES; FUZZY SETS; FUZZY SYSTEMS; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; LANDSLIDES; SEISMOLOGY;

EARTHQUAKE; EVALUATION; GIS; LANDSLIDE; REGIONAL HAZARD ZONATION;

FUZZY LOGIC;

DISPLACEMENT; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; FUZZY MATHEMATICS; GIS; LANDSLIDE; MODELING; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 59149090483     PISSN: 00137952     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bommer J.J., and Rodriguez C.E. Earthquake-induced landslides in Central America. Engineering Geology 63 3-4 (2002) 189-220
2. Cruden D., and Varnes D. Landslide types and processes. In: Turner A., and Schuster R. (Eds). Landslides: Investigations and mitigation (1996), National Academy Press, Washington, DC 36-75
3. Del Gaudio V., and Wasowski J. Directivity of slope dynamic response to seismic shaking. Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) L12301
4. Hancox G., Perrin N., and Dellow G. Recent studies of historical earthquake-induced landsliding, ground damage, and MM intensity in New Zealand. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 35 2 (2002) 59-95
5. Jibson R.W., Harp E.L., and Michael J.A. A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Engineering Geology 58 3-4 (2000) 271-289
6. Keefer D.K. Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological Society of America Bulletin 95 4 (1984) 406-421
7. Keefer D.K. The susceptibility of rock slopes to earthquake-induced failure. Association of Engineering Geologists Bulletin 30 3 (1993) 406-421
8. In: Keefer D.K. (Ed). The Loma Prieta, Californa earthquake of October 17, 1989 - Landslides. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1551-C (1998) 183 pp.
9. Keefer D.K. Earthquake-induced landslides and their effects on alluvial fans. Journal of Sedimentary Research 69 1 (1999) 84-104
10. Keefer D.K. Statistical analysis of an earthquake-induced landslide distribution - the 1989 Loma Prieta, California event. Engineering Geology 58 3-4 (2000) 231-249
11. Keefer D.K. Investigating landslides caused by earthquakes - a historical review. Surveys in Geophysics 23 6 (2002) 473-510
12. Lee C.T., et al. Statistical approach to earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility. Engineering Geology 100 1-2 (2008) 43-58
13. Liao C., Lee C., and Liao H. Statistical analysis of factors affecting landslides triggered by the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting vol. 83(47) (2002)
14. Mankelow J., and Murphy W. Using GIS in the probabilistic assessment of earthquake triggered landslide hazards. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2 4 (1998) 593-623
15. McCrink T., and Real C. Evaluation of the Newmark method for mapping earthquake-induced hazards in the Laurel 7.5' quadrangle, Santa Cruz County, California. Final Technical Report for U.S. Geological Survey Contract 143-93-G-2334 (1996)
16. McLaughlin R., Clark J., Brabb E., Helley E., and Colón C. Geologic maps and structure sections of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley and Southern Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2373 (2001)
17. Miles S.B., and Keefer D.K. Comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides: technical specification and user guide. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1072 (2007) 69 pp.
18. Miles, S.B., Keefer, D.K., in press. Towards a comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides (CAMEL). Natural Hazards Review.
19. Miles S.B., Keefer D.K., and Nyerges T. Case study of GIS-based environmental model validation using earthquake-induced landslide hazard. In: Heuvelink G.B.M. (Ed). International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences (2000), University of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam 405-416
20. Newmark N.M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 15 2 (1965) 139-160
21. Parise M., and Jibson R.W. A seismic landslide susceptibility rating of geologic units based on analysis of characteristics of landslides triggered by the 17 January, 1994 Northridge, California earthquake. Engineering Geology, 58 3-4 (2000) 251-270
22. Perkins J., and Boatwright J. On Shaky Ground. Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, CA (1995) 56 pp.
23. Rodriguez C.E., Bommer J.J., and Chandler R.J. Earthquake-induced landslides: 1980-1997. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 5 (1999) 325-346
24. Schuster R., and Highland L. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of landslides. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2001-276 (2001)
25. Wald D., Heaton T., Kanamori H., Scrivner C., and Worden C. TriNet "ShakeMaps": rapid generation of instrumental ground motion and intensity maps for earthquakes in Southern California. Earthquake Spectra 15 3 (1999) 537-556
26. Wang Y., Keefer D.K., and Wang Z. Seismic hazard mapping in Eugene-Springfield, Oregon. Oregon Geology 60 (1998) 31-41
27. Wilson R., and Keefer D.K. Predicting areal limits of earthquake-induced landsliding. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360 (1985) 317-345
28. Wu T., Tang W., and Einstein H. Landslide hazard and risk assessment. In: Turner A., and Schuster R. (Eds). Landslides: Investigations and mitigation (1996), National Academy Press, Washington, DC 12-35
29. Yesilnacar E., and Topal T. Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Engineering Geology 79 3-4 (2005) 251-266
30. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8 3 (1965) 338-353
31. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy logic equals computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 4 2 (1996) 103-111