Bulletin of Volcanology

, 77:75 | Cite as

Developing building-damage scales for lahars: application to Merapi volcano, Indonesia

  • Susanna F. Jenkins
  • Jeremy C. Phillips
  • Rebecca Price
  • Kate Feloy
  • Peter J. Baxter
  • Danang Sri Hadmoko
  • Edouard de Bélizal
Research Article


Lahar damage to buildings can include burial by sediment and/or failure of walls, infiltration into the building and subsequent damage to contents. The extent to which a building is damaged will be dictated by the dynamic characteristics of the lahar, i.e. the velocity, depth, sediment concentration and grain size, as well as the structural characteristics and setting of the building in question. The focus of this paper is on quantifying how buildings may respond to impact by lahar. We consider the potential for lahar damage to buildings on Merapi volcano, Indonesia, as a result of the voluminous deposits produced during the large (VEI 4) eruption in 2010. A building-damage scale has been developed that categorises likely lahar damage levels and, through theoretical calculations of expected building resistance to impact, approximate ranges of impact pressures. We found that most weak masonry buildings on Merapi would be destroyed by dilute lahars with relatively low velocities (ca. 3 m/s) and pressures (ca. 5 kPa); however, the majority of stronger rubble stone buildings may be expected to withstand higher velocities (to 6 m/s) and pressures (to 20 kPa). We applied this preliminary damage scale to a large lahar in the Putih River on 9 January 2011, which inundated and caused extensive building damage in the village of Gempol, 16 km southwest of Merapi. The scale was applied remotely through the use of public satellite images and through field studies to categorise damage and estimate impact pressures and velocities within the village. Results were compared with those calculated independently from Manning’s calculations for flow velocity and depth within Gempol village using an estimate of flow velocity at one upstream site as input. The results of this calculation showed reasonable agreement with an average channel velocity derived from travel time observations. The calculated distribution of flow velocities across the area of damaged buildings was consistent with building damage as classified by the new damage scale. The complementary results, even given the basic nature of the tools and data, suggest that the damage scale provides a valid representation of the failure mode that is consistent with estimates of the flow conditions. The use of open-source simplified tools and data in producing these consistent findings is very promising.


Lahars Volcanic hazard and risk assessment Damage scales Merapi volcano One-dimensional hydraulic flow simulation Physical vulnerability functions 



We are indebted to Indonesian and French colleagues of the SEDIMER research project who supported our studies at Gempol, in particular, the Village Chief and colleagues in Gempol, Annabelle Moatty (Université Montpellier 3) and Julie Morin (Laboratoire de Geographie Physique Meudon). We are also very grateful to an anonymous reviewer and the editor Gert Lube, who provided thorough and insightful comments and edits that greatly improved the manuscript. Our thanks to Robin Spence (Cambridge Architectural Research) and Ilan Kelman (University College London) who provided support and advice with regard the engineering calculations. Finally, we would like to thank the funding sources that allowed us to carry out this study: an AXA research fellowship, SEDIMER (funded by AXA) and STREVA (NERC/ESRC contract NE/J019984/1).


  1. Alexander D (1986) Landslide damage to buildings. Environ Geol Water Sci 8(3):147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcement GJ, Schneider VR (1989) Guide for selecting Manning’s roughness coefficients for natural channels and flood plains. US Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 2339Google Scholar
  3. Baxter PJ, Boyle R, Cole P, Neri A, Spence R, Zuccaro G (2005) The impacts of pyroclastic surges on buildings at the eruption of the Soufrière Hills volcano, Montserrat. Bull Volcanol 67(4):292–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blong RJ (1984) Volcanic hazards: a sourcebook on the effects of eruptions. Academic Press Australia, Australia, 424 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Boen T, Suprobo P, Sarwidi, Pribadi KS, Irmawan A, Satyarno I, Saputra A (2009) Persyaratan Poko Rumah Yang Lebih Aman (Essential requirements for safer homes). The Project on Building Administration and Enforcement Capacity Development for Seismic Resilience. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum Republik Indonesia, JICA, Pemerintahan Propinsi Sumatera BaratGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunner G (2010) HEC-RAS, River Analysis System hydraulic reference manual, US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 411 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. BS 5628-1 (2005) Code of practice for the use of masonry—part 1: structural use of unreinforced masonry. British Standard Institutions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Capra L, Borselli L, Varley N, Gavilanes-Ruiz JC, Norini G, Sarocchi D, Caballero L, Cortes A (2010) Rainfall-triggered lahars at Volcán de Colima, Mexico: surface hydro-repellency as initiation process. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 189(1–2):105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrivick J, Manville V, Cronin S (2009) A fluid dynamics approach to modelling the 18th March 2007 lahar at Mt. Ruapehu, New Zealand. Bull Volcanol 71(2):153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charbonnier SJ, Germa A, Connor CB, Gertisser R, Preece K, Komorowski J-C, Lavigne F, Dixon T, Connor L (2013) Evaluation of the impact of the 2010 pyroclastic density currents at Merapi volcano from high-resolution satellite imagery, field investigations and numerical simulations. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 261:295–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darnell AR, Phillips JC, Barclay J, Herd RA, Lovett AA, Cole PD (2013) Developing a simplified geographical information system approach to dilute lahar modelling for rapid hazard assessment. Bull Volcanol 75:713, 16 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Bélizal E, Lavigne F, Hadmoko DS, Degeai J-P, Dipayana GA, Mutaqin BW, Marfai MA, Coquet M, Mauff BL, Robin A-K, Vidal C, Cholik N, Aisyah N (2013) Rain-triggered lahars following the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano, Indonesia: a major risk. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 261:330–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donovan KHM (2010) Cultural responses to volcanic hazards on Mt Merapi. University of Plymouth, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas J (2007) Physical vulnerability modelling in natural hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EERI (2006) The Mw 6.3 Java, Indonesia, earthquake of May 27, 2006. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Special Earthquake Report, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujita T (1971) Proposed characterization of tornadoes and hurricanes by area and intensity. University of Chicago, Chicago, p 42Google Scholar
  17. Gioia G, Bombardelli FA (2002) Scaling and similarity in rough channel flows. Phys Rev Lett 88(1):014501-1–014501-4Google Scholar
  18. Glasstone S, Dolan PJ (1977) The effects of nuclear weapons. United States Department of Defence and the United States Department of Energy, Third editionGoogle Scholar
  19. Grünthal G (ed) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). In: Grünthal G (ed) Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg (99 pp)Google Scholar
  20. Hu KH, Cui P, Zhang JQ (2012) Characteristics of damage to buildings by debris flows on 7 August 2010 in Zhouqu, Western China. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2209–2217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M (2012) Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact. Nat Hazards 60(2):241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkins S, Komorowski JC, Baxter P, Spence R, Picquout A, Lavigne F, Surono (2013) The Merapi 2010 eruption: an interdisciplinary impact assessment methodology for studying pyroclastic density current dynamics. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 261:316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins SF, Spence RJS, Fonseca JFBD, Solidum RU, Wilson TM (2014) Volcanic risk assessment: quantifying physical vulnerability in the built environment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 276:105–120Google Scholar
  24. Kelman I, Spence R (2003) A limit analysis of unreinforced masonry failing under flood water pressures. Masonry Int 16:51–61Google Scholar
  25. Kelman I, Spence R (2004) An overview of flood actions on buildings. Eng Geol 73(3–4):297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Komorowski J-C, Jenkins S, Baxter PJ, Picquout A, Lavigne F, Charbonnier S, Gertisser R, Cholik N, Budi-Santoso A, Surono (2013) Paroxysmal dome explosion during the Merapi 2010 eruption: processes and facies relationships of associated high-energy pyroclastic density currents. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 261:260–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Künzler M, Huggel C, Ramírez J (2012) A risk analysis for floods and lahars: case study in the Cordillera Central of Colombia. Nat Hazards 64:767–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavigne F, Thouret J-C (2003) Sediment transportation and deposition by rain-triggered lahars at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. Geomorphology 49(1–2):45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavigne F, Thouret JC, Voight B, Suwa H, Sumaryono A (2000a) Lahars at Merapi volcano: an overview. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100:423–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lavigne F, Thouret JC, Suwa H, Voight B, Young K, Lahusen R, Marso J, Sumaryono A, Sayudi DS, Dejean M (2000b) Instrumental lahar monitoring at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100:457–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lube G, Cronin SJ, Manville V, Procter JN, Cole SE, Freundt A (2012) Energy growth in laharic mass flows. Geology 40(5):475–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macedonio G, Pareschi MT (1992) Numerical simulation of some lahars from Mount St. Helens. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 54(1):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Major JJ, Janda RJ, Daag AS (1996) Watershed disturbance and lahars on the east side of Mount Pinatubo during the mid-June 1991 eruptions. In: Newhall CG, Punungbayan RS (eds) Fire and mud: eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and University of Washington Press, Quezon City, pp 895–919Google Scholar
  34. Manville V, Major JJ, Fagents SA (2013) Modeling lahar behavior and hazards. In: Fagents SA, Gregg TKP, Lopes RMC (eds) Modeling volcanic processes: the physics and mathematics of volcanism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 315–330Google Scholar
  35. McKee KE, Sevin E (1959) Design of masonry walls for blast loading. Trans Am Soc Civil Eng 124:457–471Google Scholar
  36. Morton J (1986) The design of laterally loaded walls, BS 5628: the structural use of masonry, part 1: unreinforced masonryGoogle Scholar
  37. Pierson TC, Janda RJ, Thouret J-C, Borrero CA (1990) Perturbation and melting of snow and ice by the 13 November 1985 eruption of Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia, and consequent mobilization, flow and deposition of lahars. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 41(1–4):17–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pierson TC, Major JJ, Amigo A, Moreno H (2013) Acute sedimentation response to rainfall following the explosive phase of the 2008–2009 eruption of Chaitén volcano, Chile. Bull Volcanol 75:723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pierson TC, Wood NJ, Driedger CL (2014) Reducing risk from lahar hazards: concepts, case studies, and roles for scientists. J Appl Volcanol 3:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Potter S (2011) Lahar dingin Gunung Merapi, photograph uploaded to Panoramio 17 September 2011. Accessed 30 May 2015
  41. Rodolfo KS, Umbal JV, Alonso RA, Remotigue CT, Paladio-Melosantos ML, Salvador JHG, Evangelista D, Miller Y (1996) Two years of lahars on the western flank of Mount Pinatubo: initiation, flow processes, deposits, and attendant geomorphic and hydraulic changes. In: Newhall CG, Punungbayan RS (eds) Fire and mud: eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and University of Washington Press, Quezon City, pp 989–1013Google Scholar
  42. Sinha BP (1978) A simplified ultimate load analysis of laterally loaded model orthotropic brickwork panels of low tensile strength. Struct Eng 56B:81–84Google Scholar
  43. Spence R, Baxter PJ, Zuccaro G (2004) Building vulnerability and human casualty estimation for a pyroclastic flow: a model and its application to Vesuvius. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 133(1–4):321–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Surjono S, Yufianto A (2011) Geo-disaster laharic flow along Putih River, Central Java, Indonesia. J SE Asian Appl Geol 3:103–110Google Scholar
  45. Thouret J-C, Lavigne F, Kelfoun K, Bronto S (2000) Toward a revised hazard assessment at Merapi volcano, Central Java. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100(1–4):479–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thouret J-C, Ettinger S, Guitton ., Santoni O, Magill C, Martelli K, Zuccaro G, Revilla V, Charca J, Arguedas A (2014) Assessing physical vulnerability in large cities exposed to flash floods and debris flows: the case of Arequipa (Peru). Nat Hazards 1–45Google Scholar
  47. Toyos G, Oppenheimer C, Pareschi MT, Sulpizio R, Zanchetta G, Zuccaro G, (2003) Building damage by debris flows in the Sarno area, southern Italy. In: Rickenmann D, Chenglung C (eds) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment, Davos, Switzerland, 2:1209–1220Google Scholar
  48. US Army Corps of Hydraulic Engineers (2001) HEC-RAS, River Analysis System user’s manual. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, 320 pp.
  49. USACE (1984) Shore protection manual, vol 2, 4th edn. United States Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Centre, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallance JW (2000) Lahars. In: Sigurdsson H, Houghton BF, McNutt SR, Rymer H, Stix J (eds) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 601–616Google Scholar
  51. Williams R, Stinton AJ, Sheridan MF (2008) Evaluation of the Titan2D two-phase flow model using an actual event: case study of the 2005 Vazcún Valley Lahar. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 177(4):760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Worni R, Huggel C, Stoffel M, Pulgarín B (2012) Challenges of modeling current very large lahars at Nevado del Huila Volcano, Colombia. Bull Volcanol 74(2):309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zanchetta G, Sulpizio R, Pareschi MT, Leoni FM, Santacroce R (2004) Characteristics of May 5–6, 1998 volcaniclastic debris flows in the Sarno area (Campania, southern Italy): relationships to structural damage and hazard zonation. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 133(1–4):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zuccaro G (ed) (2000) Structural vulnerability to possible pyroclastic flows consequent to the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius. Final Report Vesuvius ProjectGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuccaro G, De Gregorio D (2013) Time and space dependency in impact damage evaluation of a sub-Plinian eruption at Mount Vesuvius. Nat Hazards 68(3):1399–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanna F. Jenkins
    • 1
  • Jeremy C. Phillips
    • 1
  • Rebecca Price
    • 1
  • Kate Feloy
    • 1
  • Peter J. Baxter
    • 2
  • Danang Sri Hadmoko
    • 3
  • Edouard de Bélizal
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Institute of Public HealthUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of Physical GeographyUniversitas Gadjah MadahYogyakartaIndonesia
  4. 4.Laboratoire de Géographie PhysiqueUniversité Paris 1ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations