Vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings exposed to landslides

  • O. MavrouliEmail author
  • S. Fotopoulou
  • K. Pitilakis
  • G. Zuccaro
  • J. CorominasEmail author
  • A. Santo
  • F. Cacace
  • D. De Gregorio
  • G. Di Crescenzo
  • E. Foerster
  • T. Ulrich
Original Paper


The methodologies available for the analytical quantification of the vulnerability of buildings which are subject to actions resulting from slope instabilities and landslides are relatively limited in comparison with other components of quantitative landslide risk assessment. This paper provides a general methodology for calculating the vulnerabilities of reinforced concrete frame structures that are subject to three types of slope instability: slow-moving landslides, rapid flow-type slides and rockfalls. The vulnerability is expressed using sets of fragility curves. A description of the general framework and of the specialised procedures employed is presented here, separately for each landslide mechanism, through the example of a single-bay one-storey reinforced concrete frame. The properties of the frame are taken into account as variables with associated uncertainties. The derived vulnerability curves presented here can be used directly by risk assessment practitioners without having to repeat the procedure, given the expected range of landslide intensities and for similar building typologies and ranges of structural characteristics. This permits the applicability of the calculated vulnerability to a wide variety of similar frames for a range of landslide intensity parameters.


Vulnerability Quantitative assessment Rockfalls Slow-moving landslides Flow-type landslides Fragility curves 



The authors are grateful for the support of the SAFELAND project (grant agreement 226479) funded by the European Commission within its Seventh Framework Programme, and the project Big Risk, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (contract number BIA2008-06614).


  1. ACI 214R-02 (2002) Evaluation of strength test results of concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. Agliardi F, Crosta GB, Frattini P (2009) Integrating rockfall risk assessment and countermeasure design by 3D modelling techniques. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1059–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arattano M, Marchi L (2005) Measurements of debris flow velocity through cross-correlation of instrumentation data. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell R, Glade T (2004) Quantitative risk analysis for landslides—examples from Bíldudalur, NW-Iceland. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 4(1):117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben Ftima M, Massicotte B (2012) Development of a reliability framework for the use of advanced nonlinear finite elements in the design of concrete structures. J Struct Eng 138(8):1054–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird JF, Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2005) Assessment of building response to liquefaction induced differential ground deformation. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 38(4):215–234Google Scholar
  7. Bird JF, Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R (2006) Modelling liquefaction-induced building damage in earthquake loss estimation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(1):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callerio A, Faccioli E, Kaynia A (2007) Deliverable 121: landslide risk assessment methods and applications (III)—application to real active landslides—phase II (68 pp). LESSLOSS integrated project: risk mitigation for earthquake and landslides, sub-project 4—landslide risk scenarios and loss modelling. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Cascini L, Cuomo S, Guida D (2008) Typical source areas of May 1998 flow-like mass movements in the Campania region, Southern Italy. Eng Geol 96:107–125Google Scholar
  10. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128:526–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2(2):173–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Falco M, Di Crescenzo G, Santo A (2012) Volume estimate of flow-type landslides along carbonate and volcanic slopes in Campania (Southern Italy). Nat Hazards 61:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Crescenzo G, Santo A (2005) Debris slides-rapid earth flows in the carbonate massifs of the Campania region (southern Italy): morphological and morphmetric data for evaluating triggering susceptibility. Geomorphology 66:255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan JM, Wright SG (2005) Soil strength and slope stability. Wiley, New York, p 312Google Scholar
  15. Ellingwood BR (2006) Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. J Perform Constr Facil 20(4):315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Committee for Standardization (2004) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1:2004. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Faella C, Nigro E (2003) Dynamic impact of the debris flows on the constructions during the hydrogeological disaster in Campania-1998: failure mechanical models and evaluation of the impact velocity. In: Proc IC-FSM2003, Napoli, Italy, 11–13 May 2003, 1:179–186Google Scholar
  18. Fotopoulou S (2012) Seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings in sliding slopes. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  19. Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K (2013a) Vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to seismically triggered slow-moving earth slides. Landslides 10(5):563–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K (2013b) Fragility curves for reinforced concrete buildings to seismically triggered slow-moving slides. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 48:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fotopoulou S, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K (2011) Physical vulnerability of RC buildings to seismically induced earth slides. In: Proc 2nd World Landslide Forum, Rome, Italy, 3–9 Oct 2011, p 7Google Scholar
  22. Fotopoulou S, Callerio A, Pitilakis K (2013) Vulnerability assessment of RC buildings to landslide displacements. Application to Corniglio case history, Italy. In: Proc COMPDYN 2013, 4th Int Conf on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos, Greece, 12–14 June 2013Google Scholar
  23. Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J (2007) Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haugen ED, Kaynia AM (2008) Vulnerability of structures impacted by debris flow. In: Chen Z, Zhang J-M, Ho K, Wu F-Q, Li Z-K (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 381–387Google Scholar
  25. Holub M, Suda J, Fuchs S (2012) Mountain hazards: reducing vulnerability by adapted building design. Environ Earth Sci 66:1853–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hungr O (1997) Some methods of landslide hazard intensity mapping. In: Cruden D, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk assessment. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 215–226Google Scholar
  27. Hungr O, Evans SG, Bovis M, Hutchinson JN (2001) Review of the classification of landslides of the flow type. Environ Eng Geosci VII:221–238Google Scholar
  28. Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M (2011) Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact. Nat Hazards 60:241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson AM, Rodine JR (1984) Debris flow. In: Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley, Chichester, pp 257–361Google Scholar
  30. Kappos AJ (2005) Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of concepts and procedures. Prog Struct Mat Eng 1(1):78–87Google Scholar
  31. Lagarias JC, Reeds JA, Wright NH, Wright PE (1998) Convergence properties of the Nelder–Mead simplex method in low dimensions. SIAM J Optim 9(1):112–147Google Scholar
  32. Leroueil S, Locat J, Vaunat J, Picarelli L, Faure R (1996) Geotechnical characterisation of slope movements. In: Proc VII Int Symp on Landslides, Trondheim, Norway, 17–21 June 1996, 1:53–74Google Scholar
  33. Low HY, Hao H (2001) Reliability analysis of reinforced concrete slabs under explosive loading. Struct Saf 23:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mansour MF, Morgenstern NI, Martin CD (2011) Expected damage from displacement of slow-moving slides. Landslides 8(1):117–131Google Scholar
  35. Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010a) Vulnerability of simple reinforced concrete buildings in front of the rockfall impact. Landslides 7(2):169–180Google Scholar
  36. Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010b) Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2055–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melchers RE (1999) Structural reliability analysis and prediction, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Mohamed OA (2006) Progressive collapse of structures: annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards. J Perform Constr Facil 20(4):418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Myung IJ (2003) Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 47:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Institute of Building Sciences—NIBS (2004) Chapter 5: Direct physical damage—general building stock. In: HAZUS-MH technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Negulescu C, Foerster E (2010) Parametric studies and quantitative assessment of the vulnerability of a RC frame building exposed to differential settlements. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:1781–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielson BG, Des Roches R (2007) Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the Central and Southeastern United States. Earthq Spectra 23(3):615–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papathoma-Köhle M, Keiler M, Totschnig R, Glade T (2012) Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: a debris-flow event in South Tyrol. Nat Hazards 64:2083–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paulay T (1979) A consideration of P-delta effects in ductile reinforced concrete frames. Bull NZ Natl Soc Earthq Eng 11:3Google Scholar
  45. Pinto PE (ed) (2007) Probabilistic methods for seismic assessment of existing structures. LESSLOSS report no 2007/06. IUSS Press (Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia), Pavia, ISBN 978-88-6198-010-5Google Scholar
  46. Porter K, Eeri M, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating vulnerability functions for performance-based earthquake engineering background and objectives. Engineering 23(2):471–489Google Scholar
  47. Quan Luna B, Blahut J, Van Westen CJ, Sterlacchini S, van Asch TWJ, Akbas SO (2011) The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2047–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scotto Di Santolo A (2002) Le colate rapide. Hevelius Edizioni srl, Benevento, ISBN 88-86977-42-5Google Scholar
  49. SeismoSoft (2010) SeismoStruct: a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures.
  50. Sezen H (2008) Shear deformation model for reinforced concrete columns. Struct Eng Mech 28(1):39–52Google Scholar
  51. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech ASCE 126(12):1224–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Uzawa T, Ueda T (2003) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Technical report MCEER-03-0002. State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  53. Spence RJS, Baxter PJ, Zuccaro G (2004a) Building vulnerability and human casualty estimation for a pyroclastic flow: a model and its application to Vesuvius. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 133:321–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spence RJS, Zuccaro G, Petrazzuoli S, Baxter PJ (2004b) The resistance of buildings to pyroclastic flows: analytical and experimental studies and their application to Vesuvius. Nat Hazards Rev 5:48–59Google Scholar
  55. Totschnig R, Fuchs S (2013) Mountain torrents: quantifying vulnerability and assessing uncertainties. Eng Geol 155:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Uzielli M, Lacasse S (2007) Probabilistic estimation of vulnerability to landslides. In: Proc 13th Panamerican Conf on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Isla de Margarita, Venezuela, 16–20 July 2007 (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  57. Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Valentine G (1998) Damage to structures by pyroclastic flows and surges, inferred from nuclear weapons effects. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 87:117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2005) Landslide hazard and risk zonation; why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang LM, Ng AMY (2005) Probabilistic limiting tolerable displacements for serviceability limit state design of foundations. Geotechnique 55(2):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zuccaro G et al (2000) Human and structural vulnerability assessment for emergency planning in future eruptions of Vesuvius using volcanic simulations and casualty modelling. Final report of European project ENV4-CT98 0699, Directorate XII Commission EU, June 2000. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Mavrouli
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Fotopoulou
    • 2
  • K. Pitilakis
    • 2
  • G. Zuccaro
    • 3
    • 4
    • 8
  • J. Corominas
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Santo
    • 3
    • 5
  • F. Cacace
    • 3
    • 4
    • 8
  • D. De Gregorio
    • 3
    • 4
    • 8
  • G. Di Crescenzo
    • 3
  • E. Foerster
    • 6
  • T. Ulrich
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering and GeosciencesTechnical University of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Research Unit of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloníkiGreece
  3. 3.Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (AMRA)University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of NaplesNaplesItaly
  5. 5.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  6. 6.Seismic Mechanical Study LaboratoryCEA/Nuclear Energy DivisionGif sur Yvette CEDEXFrance
  7. 7.Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM)OrléansFrance
  8. 8.PLINIVS Study CentreUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations