Earthquake-triggered landslides are one of the most significant hazards worldwide. These landslides, involving small or large volumes, can develop debris flows or avalanches with high mobility and long runout distances. The motion processes of this type of landslide are also quite complicated. This study reproduced the motion processes of two landslides using the LS-RAPID program. The Aso-Bridge landslide occurred on April 16, 2016, and it featured rapid movement and a long runout distance. The Kataragai landslide occurred on April 9, 2018, and it traveled with a flow-like behavior. This work presents the features and mechanical parameters of these two landslides by means of survey investigations and laboratory experiments. We established pre-failure models and reproduced motion processes of these two landslides using the LS-PAPID program. Two indicators, consisting of the sliding speed and traveling morphology at different intervals, were considered to describe the motion processes. Results indicated that the resultant maximum sliding speeds of these two landslides were approximately 297.1 and 43.6 m/s, respectively, and that post-failure morphologies were consistent with those observed in field investigations.

Earthquake-triggered landslides are one of the most significant hazards worldwide. These landslides, involving small or large volumes, can develop in debris flow or avalanche with high mobility and long-runout distance. The motion processes of this kind of landslide also quite complicated. This study reproduced the motion processes of two landslides using the LS-RAPID program. The Aso Bridge landslide occurred on April 16, 2016, with rapid and long-runout distance characteristics. The Kataragai landslide occurred on April 9, 2018, travelling with flow-like behavior. Through field investigations and laboratory experiments, features and mechanical parameters of these two landslides were obtained. In the LS-RAPID program, the pre-failure models and motion processes of these two landslides were established and reproduced. Results indicated that sliding speed and travelling morphology at different intervals were considered as two indicators to describe their motion process. However, while sliding speed of these two landslides have significant differences with sliding speeds of actual landslides, the final morphologies after failure were consistent with those observed in the field investigation.