Site-Specific Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings Exposed to Rockfalls

  • Aditi Singh
  • Shilpa Pal
  • D. P. Kanungo
Conference paper


A landslide is one of the most common hazards occurring in mountainous region in response to a number of natural and anthropogenic processes. In particular, South Asian nation including India is the worst hit by landslides. Thus the vulnerability assessment towards landslides becomes an important aspect, as it pose risk to human life, environment, buildings, and infrastructures. From the perspective of natural and engineering sciences, vulnerability is defined as the degree of loss, or damage to a set of element at risk within the affected area due to landslides. It acts as a primary component in the evaluation of landslide risk, and its accurate estimation is necessary in making a reasonable prediction of the landslide consequences. The present paper aims to produce a framework for assessing the physical vulnerability of building exposed to rockfall using the empirical formula proposed by Li et al. (Landslides 7(2):125–134, 2010 [3]) in terms of resistance offered by building and the intensity of rockfall. The proposed methodology permits to obtain an estimate of vulnerability of buildings when hit by three different intensities (low, medium and high) of rockfall. Finally, application of this proposed framework is illustrated through a case study from Chamoli district, Uttarakhand (India).


Landslide Rockfall intensity Resistance factor Physical vulnerability 


  1. 1.
    Glade T, Crozier M (2005) The nature of landslide hazard impact. In: Glade T, Anderson M, Crozier M (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 43–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mansour MF, Morgenstern NR, Martin CD (2011) Expected damage from displacement of slow-moving slides. Landslides 7:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation (Special Report 247). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Transportation and Research Board, pp 36–75Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corominas J, Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet J-P, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Eeckhaut O, Mavrouli M, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Hervás J, Smith T (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull EngGeol Environ 73(2):209–263Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papathoma-Köhle M, Neuhaüser B, Ratzinger K, Wenzel H, Dominey-Howes D (2007) Elements at risk as a framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities to landslides. Nat Hazards Earth SystSci 7:765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agliardi F, Crosta GB, Frattini P (2009) Integrating rockfall risk scenario assessment and countermeasure design by 3D modelling techniques. Nat Hazard Earth Sys 9:1059–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010) Vulnerability of simple reinforced concrete buildings in front of the rockfall impact. Landslides 7(2):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010) Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 10:2055–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mavrouli O, Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K, Zuccaro G, Foerster E, Corominas J (2014) Analytical methodologies for the quantification of the vulnerability of buildings to landslides using fragility curves. Bull EngGeol Environ 73:265–289Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heinimann HR (1999) Risiko analyse beigravitativen Naturgefahren – Fallbeispiele und Daten. Umwelt-Materialen 107/I, BernGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. EngGeol 102:251–256Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dai FC, Lee CF, Nagi YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol 64:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corominas J, Westen C, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet J-P, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, Eeckhaut O, Mavrouli M, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Hervás J, Smith T (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(2):209–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corominas J, Copons R, Moya J, Vilaplana JM, Altimir J, Amigó J (2005) Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rock fall protected area. Landslides 2:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romana M (2009) Clasificaci´on de losTaludes y LaderasInestablesen Roca enFunci´on de susDimensiones. In: Proceedings of Simposio de taludes, vol 2. Barcelona, Spain, pp 968–979Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lateltin O, Hemi C, Raetzo H, Bonnard C (2005) Landslide risk management in Switzerland. Landslides 2:313–320. Scholar
  18. 18.
    EPFL (2002) EcolePolytechnique de Lausanne: relevant criteria to assess vulnerability and risk. Unpublished Deliverable (D16) of project IMIRILAND: impact of large landslides in the mountain environmentGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Castleton J (2009) Rock-fall hazards in Utah, USGS Publications, PI-94Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wieczorek GF, Snyder JB (2004) Historical rock falls in Yosemite National Park, US Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-491, (last access: September 2010)
  21. 21.
    UNDP/UNESCO Vulnerability and Seismic Hazard (1982) Vulnerability analysis in the Balkan region. Project RER/79/014 WG.B Final reportGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amatruda G, Bonnard C, Castelli M, Forlati F, Giacomelli M, Morelli M, Paro L, Piana F, Pirulli M, Polino R, Prat P, Ramasco M, Scavia C, Bellardone G, Campus S, Durville JL, Poisel R, Preh A, Roth W, Tentschert EH (2004) A key approach: the IMIRILAND project method. In: Bonnard C, Forlati F, Scavia C (eds) Identification and mitigation of large landslide risks in Europe—advances in risk assessment. European Commission Fifth Framework Program. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 13–44Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spence RJS, Kelman I, Calogero E, Toyos G, Baxter PJ, Komorowski JC (2005) Modelling expected physical impacts and human casualties from explosive volcanic eruptions. Nat Hazards Earth SystSci 5:1003–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zêzere JL, Garcia RAC, Oliveira SC, Reis E (2008) Probabilistic landslide risk analysis considering direct costs in the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Geomorphology 94:467–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silva M, Pereira S (2014) Assessment of physical vulnerability and potential losses of buildings due to shallow slides. Nat Hazards 72:1029–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentGautam Buddha UniversityGreater NoidaIndia
  2. 2.Geotechnical Engineering GroupCSIR—Central Building Research Institute (CBRI)RoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations