Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70186720

Some observations of landslides triggered by the 29 April 1991 Racha earthquake, Republic of Georgia

Abstract

On 29 April 1991 an M s 7.0 earthquake occurred in the Racha region of the Great Caucasus Mountains in north-central Republic of Georgia. The earthquake occurred on a thrust fault striking roughly east-west and dipping about 20° to 45° northward; focal depth was 17 ± 2 km. We observed no surface fault rupture, but the earthquake caused extensive structural damage to the many unreinforced stone buildings in the area, and at least 114 people were killed. Many landslides were triggered in a 2500-km 2 epicentral area, and they caused much of the structural damage and at least half the fatalities. We observed the following six types of landslides (in order of decreasing abundance): rock falls, debris slides, slumps, earth slides, rock block slides, and rock avalanches. The types of landslides triggered by the earthquake are controlled primarily by lithology and geologic structure. Enigmatic landslide processes associated with this earthquake include (1) delays of several days between earthquake shaking and significant landslide movement, probably caused by changes in groundwater conditions; (2) small co-seismic displacement of landslides active at the time of the earthquake, a possible result of viscoplastic damping of the seismic shaking; and (3) somewhat unusual failure geometries related to local topography and geologic structure.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 41.06444° to 43.5531° latitude; 39.95501° to 46.63791° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R.W. Jibson, C.S. Prentice, B.A. Borissoff, E.A. Rogozhin, C.J. Langer. 1994. Some observations of landslides triggered by the 29 April 1991 Racha earthquake, Republic of Georgia. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0840040963

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗