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

• Published in: Engineering geology 2009-02, Vol.104 (1), p.1-15
• Main Authors: Miles, Scott B., Keefer, David K.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Applied sciences; Buildings. Public works; Computation methods. Tables. Charts; Earth sciences; Earth, ocean, space; Earthquake; Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics; Evaluation; Exact sciences and technology; Fuzzy logic; Geotechnics; GIS; Landslide; Natural hazards: prediction, damages, etc; Regional hazard zonation; Soil mechanics. Rocks mechanics; Structural analysis. Stresses
• ISSN: 0013-7952; 1872-6917
• DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.08.004

A new comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides (CAMEL) has been developed to assist in planning decisions related to disaster risk reduction. CAMEL provides an integrated framework for modeling all types of earthquake-induced landslides using fuzzy logic systems and geographic information systems. CAMEL is designed to facilitate quantitative and qualitative representation of terrain conditions and knowledge about these conditions on the likely areal concentration of each landslide type. CAMEL has been empirically evaluated with respect to disrupted landslides (Category I) using a case study of the 1989 M = 6.9 Loma Prieta, CA earthquake. In this case, CAMEL performs best in comparison to disrupted slides and falls in soil. For disrupted rock fall and slides, CAMEL's performance was slightly poorer. The model predicted a low occurrence of rock avalanches, when none in fact occurred. A similar comparison with the Loma Prieta case study was also conducted using a simplified Newmark displacement model. The area under the curve method of evaluation was used in order to draw comparisons between both models, revealing improved performance with CAMEL. CAMEL should not however be viewed as a strict alternative to Newmark displacement models. CAMEL can be used to integrate Newmark displacements with other, previously incompatible, types of knowledge.