pp 1–14 | Cite as

Progressive failure of buildings under landslide impact

  • H. Y. Luo
  • L. L. Zhang
  • L. M. ZhangEmail author
Original Paper


Buildings are the most concerned element in landslide risk assessment. A weak link in landslide risk analysis is the evaluation of building response and vulnerability when impacted by a landslide. In this paper, failure mechanisms and processes of typical reinforced concrete buildings upon landslide impacts are discovered through an explicit time integration analysis in LS-DYNA. The Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian formulation, which allows automatic rezoning, is applied to simulate the landslide flow dynamics and the impact into the building. Three landslide intensity levels are considered. Progressive collapse of the building is observed in the high-impact intensity case. The frontal walls are firstly destroyed due to its low out-of-plane flexural capacity, followed by the progressive failure of columns at the ground floor. The collapse of building occurs when the remaining load-bearing components cannot resist the superstructure loadings. Two plastic hinge failure mechanisms are observed on the damaged columns when the ultimate bending moments of the columns are exceeded at both ends. Finally, a five-class classification system is proposed to evaluate building damage states based on field observations and the numerical simulation results. The analysis helps robust building design and assessment of building vulnerability to landslides.


Landslides Debris flow Buildings Vulnerability Impact analysis Progressive failure LS-DYNA 



The authors acknowledge the support from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR (Nos. T22-603/15N and C6012-15G).


  1. Akbas SO, Blahut J, Sterlacchini S (2009) Critical assessment of existing physical vulnerability estimation approaches for debris flows. In: Malet JP, Remaitre A, Bogaard T (eds) Proceedings of landslide processes: from geomorphologic mapping to dynamic modelling. Strasburg, France, 6–7 February 2009, pp 229–233Google Scholar
  2. Almusallam TH, Mendis P, Ngo T, Elsanadedy HM, Abbas H, Alsayed SH, Al-Salloum YA, Alhaddad MS (2010) Progressive collapse analysis of a typical RC building of Riyadh. IMPLAST 2010—SEM Fall Conference, University of Rhode Island, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Armanini A (1997) On the dynamic impact of debris flows. Recent developments on debris flows. In: Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 208–226Google Scholar
  4. Canelli L, Ferrero AM, Migliazza M, Segalini A (2012) Debris flow risk mitigation by the means of rigid and flexible barriers—experimental tests and impact analysis. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 12(5):1693–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corominas J, van Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet JP, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Mavrouli O, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Hervàs J, Smith JT (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. B Eng Geol Environ 73(2):209–263Google Scholar
  6. Cui P, Zeng C, Lei Y (2015) Experimental analysis on the impact force of viscous debris flow. Earth Surf Process Landf 40(12):1644–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eidsvig UMK, Papathoma-Köhle M, Du J, Glade T, Vangelsten BV (2014) Quantification of model uncertainty in debris flow vulnerability assessment. Eng Geol 181:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elsanadedy HM, Almusallam TH, Alharbi YR, Al-Salloum YA, Abbas H (2014) Progressive collapse potential of a typical steel building due to blast attacks. J Constr Steel Res 101:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faella C, Nigro E (2003a) 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. of the Int. Conf. on “Fast slope movements—prediction and prevention for risk mitigation”, Napoli, May 11–13, 2003, pp 179–186 (in Italy)Google Scholar
  10. Faella C, Nigro E (2003b) Dynamic impact of the debris flows on the constructions during the hydrogeological disaster in Campania—1998: description and analysis of the damages. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on “Fast slope movements—prediction and prevention for risk mitigation”, Napoli, May 11–13, 2003, pp 187–193 (in Italy)Google Scholar
  11. Federico F, Amoruso A (2008) Simulation of mechanical effects due to the impact of fluid-like debris flows on structures. Ital J Eng Geol Environ 1:5–24Google Scholar
  12. Fotopoulou SD, Pitilakis KD (2013) Vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to seismically triggered slow-moving earth slides. Landslides 10(5):563–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J (2007) Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 7(5):495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hallquist JO (2006) LS-DYNA theory manual. Version 971. Software Technology Corporation, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu KH, Cui P, Zhang JQ (2012) Characteristics of damage to buildings by debris flows on 7 August 2010 in Zhouqu, Western China. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 12(7):2209–2217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hübl J, Holzinger G (2003) Entwicklung von Grundlagen zur Dimensionierung kronenoffener Bauwerke für die Geschiebebewirtschaftung in Wildbächen: Kleinmaßstäbliche Modellversuche zur Wirkung von Murbrechern [Development of design basis for crest open structures for debris flow management in torrents: miniaturized tests for the efficiency estimation of debris flow breakers]. WLS report 50 band 3, Im Auftrag des BMLFUW VC 7a. University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna (in German)Google Scholar
  17. Hübl J, Suda J, Proske D, Kaitna R, Scheidl C (2009) Debris flow impact estimation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  18. Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21(4):663–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M (2012) Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact. Nat Hazards 60(2):241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kang HS, Kim YT (2016) The physical vulnerability of different types of building structure to debris flow events. Nat Hazards 80(3):1475–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koo RCH, Kwan JS, Lam C, Goodwin GR, Choi C, Ng CWW, Yiu J, Ho KKS, Pun WK (2017) Back-analysis of geophysical flows using 3-dimensional runout model. Can Geotech J 55(8):1081–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwan JSH, Koo RCH, Ng CWW (2015) Landslide mobility analysis for design of multiple debris-resisting barriers. Can Geotech J 52(9):1345–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leone F, Asté JP, Leroi E (1996) Vulnerability assessment of elements exposed to mass-movement: working toward a better risk perception. In: Senneset K (ed) VII International Symposium on Landslide. A.A. Balkema, Trondheim, Norway, 17–21 June 1996, pp 263–269Google Scholar
  24. Li Z, Nadim F, Huang H, Uzielli M, Lacasse S (2010) Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards. Landslides 7(2):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lichtenhahn C (1973) Die Bereclmung von Sperren in Beton und Eisenbeton, Kolloquium on Torrent Dams ODC 384.3. Mitteiltmgea der Forstlichen Bundes-Versuchsanstalt, pp 91–127Google Scholar
  26. Lin F, Ji H, Li Y, Zuo Z, Gu X, Li Y (2014) Prediction of ground motion due to the collapse of a large-scale cooling tower under strong earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lo DOK (2000) Review of natural terrain landslide debris-resisting barrier design. Special project report no. SPR 1/2000 (GEO report no. 104), Geotechnical Engineering Office of the Civil Engineering and Development Department, HKSARGoogle Scholar
  28. Lo WC, Tsao TC, Hsu CH (2012) Building vulnerability to debris flows in Taiwan: a preliminary study. Nat Hazards 64(3):2107–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010a) Vulnerability of simple reinforced concrete buildings to damage by rock falls. Landslides 7(2):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010b) Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 10(10):2055–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mavrouli O, Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K, Zuccaro G, Corominas J, Santo A, Cacace F, De Gregorio D, Di Crescenzo G, Foerster E, Ulrich T (2014) Vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings exposed to landslides. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(2):265–289Google Scholar
  32. MOHURD (2010) Code for design concrete structures (GB 50010–2010). Chinese Construction Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  33. MOHURD (2012) Load code for the design of building structures (GB 50009–2012). Chinese Construction Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  34. Murray YD (2007) Users’ manual for LS-DYNA concrete material model 159 (No. FHWA-HRT-05-062)Google Scholar
  35. Negulescu C, Foerster E (2010) Parametric studies and quantitative assessment of the vulnerability of a RC frame building exposed to differential settlements. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 10(9):1781–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orr TL (2017) Defining and selecting characteristic values of geotechnical parameters for designs to Eurocode 7. Georisk 11(1):103–115Google Scholar
  37. Parisi F, Sabella G (2017) Flow-type landslide fragility of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Eng Struct 131:28–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peduto D, Ferlisi S, Nicodemo G, Reale D, Pisciotta G, Gullà G (2017) Empirical fragility and vulnerability curves for buildings exposed to slow-moving landslides at medium and large scales. Landslides 14(6):1993–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quan Luna B, Blahut J, Van Westen CJ, Sterlacchini S, van Asch TW, Akbas SO (2011) The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves. Nat Hazards Earth Syst 11(7):2047–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiwari B, Marui H (1999) Landslide investigation and prevention practice in Nepal. 研究年報 20:37–55Google Scholar
  41. Totschnig R, Fuchs S (2013) Mountain torrents: quantifying vulnerability and assessing uncertainties. Eng Geol 155:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102(3):251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Uzielli M, Catani F, Tofani V, Casagli N (2015) Risk analysis for the Ancona landslide—II: estimation of risk to buildings. Landslides 12(1):83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vamvatsikos D, Kouris L, Panagopoulos G, Kappos A, Nigro E, Rossetto T, Lloyd TO, Stathopoulos T (2010) Structural vulnerability assessment under natural hazards: a review. Proceedings of COST action C26 final international conference on Urban habitat construction under catastrophic events, Naples, 17–18 Sep 2010, pp 711–723Google Scholar
  45. Wu JS, Tian LQ, Kang ZC, Zhang YF, Liu J (1993) Debris flow and its comprehensive control. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  46. Xiao T, Li DQ, Cao ZJ, Tang XS (2017) Full probabilistic design of slopes in spatially variable soils using simplified reliability analysis method. Georisk 11(1):146–159Google Scholar
  47. Yin Y, Li B, Wang W, Zhan L, Xue Q, Gao Y, Zhang N, Chen H, Liu T, Li A (2016) Mechanism of the December 2015 catastrophic landslide at the Shenzhen landfill and controlling geotechnical risks of urbanization. Engineering 2(2):230–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeng C, Cui P, Su Z, Lei Y, Chen R (2015) Failure modes of reinforced concrete columns of buildings under debris flow impact. Landslides 12(3):561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang S, Zhang LM, Li XY, Xu Q (2018) Physical vulnerability models for assessing building damage by debris flows. Eng Geol 247:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyKowloonHong Kong, China
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringShanghai Jiaotong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations