Comparison of empirically-based and physically-based analyses of coseismic landslides: A case study of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake.

This study compares the performance of empirically- and physically-based methods for predicting coseismic landslides around Aso caldera during the 2016 M w 7.0 Kumamoto earthquake. The physically-based method couples a regional-scale wave propagation simulation with a site-scale Newmark-type sliding analysis, while the empirically-based method predicts sliding displacements based on seismic recordings and/or ground motion prediction equations. By using the well-documented landslide inventory, the predictive capacity of each method is quantitatively assessed. The case study demonstrates that the physically-based method has the advantage of simulating complicated near-fault and topographic effects. It captures around 44% of observed landslides at the caldera rim, which is significantly better than the 20% captured from the empirically-based prediction. Both methods have similar prediction performance, capturing around 56% actual landslides at the central cone region. The empirically-based method is simple to use and provides fast landslide prediction. It can be further improved by incorporating a simple prediction model for the topographic amplification effect, which increases the percentage of captured landslides by around 8% across the caldera rim. • Empirically- and physically-based methods are used to evaluate regional coseismic landslides in the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. • Predicted landslides are validated against the well-documented landslide inventory. • The topographic amplification of ground motions is incorporated to improve the empirically-based method for fast prediction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]