2184
Proceedings of the 18
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013
lapse. Masonry and reinforced concrete, have different collapse
mechanisms and rubble characteristics. The total collapse of
masonry buildings provides smaller cavities than the collapse of
frame structures. Li (2010) proposed an exponential description
of the vulnerability of persons inside structures. Coburn (2002)
estimated the average percentage of occupants trapped in a col-
lapsed building to range between 30% and 70%, and estimated
the injured proportion of occupants at collapse (Table 15).
The four levels of casualty, i.e. fatalities, seriously injured,
moderately injured and lightly injured or uninjured, were de-
noted by vulnerability values of 1, 0.8, 0.5 and 0.2. The vulner-
ability of persons (
V
p
) in different structures is listed in Table 16
(
V
s
= 1 or collapse). Equation 13 quantifies the vulnerability of
persons
V
p
(index α for different structures is listed in Table 16).
V
p
=
0.001
exp
(
V
s
)
(13)
Table 15. Casualty distribution, collapsed buildings (Coburn 2002)
Class
Fatalities
Seriously
injured
Moderately
injured
Lightly injured
or uninjured
Masonry
17.5
10
17.5
55
RC frame
21
0.8
9.2
70
RC shear wall
10
0.7
9.3
80
Steel
16
0.6
9.4
75
Timber
0.6
0.2
10.2
89
Table 16. Vulnerability of persons and value of index α
Structure type
Masonry RC frame Steel RC shear wall Timber
V
p
(when V
s
= 1) 0.45
0.40
0.36
0.31
0.24
6.1
6
5.9
5.75
5.5
6 CONCLUSIONS
A model for the quantitative estimate of landslide vulnerability
is proposed with two parameters: landslide intensity and suscep-
tibility of the elements at risk. A reliable estimate of landslide
intensity should consider the relationship between landslide se-
verity and spatial dimensions. For the slow-moving landslides,
the quantitative relationships for three categories of ground de-
formation and structure response are considered in the assess-
ment of the landslide intensity. Based on empirical data, a func-
tion describing the ratio of landslide depth to foundation depth
can be used to estimate the effect of geometric intensity.
In the landslide failing stage, intensity models were estab-
lished for stationary and non-stationary vulnerable elements.
Impact pressure and landslide depth were included in the vul-
nerability assessment of structures. For persons in open space,
the parameters include landslide velocity, depth and width.
Functions of horizontal limit pressure versus the number of
storeys of different structures were proposed to quantify the
landslide impact intensity parameter of the moving mass. For
the human susceptibility, generic mitigation measures were pro-
posed to include a component of risk prevention and emergency
awareness. Further, collapse mechanisms and construction char-
acteristics of different construction types, the vulnerability func-
tions for persons in different structure categories were proposed.
The model has limitations and needs further research. Some
of the subjective and empirical parameters in the model should
be calibrated and gradually documented with the addition of ob-
jective data, experience, observations and expert judgment.
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by The National Natural Sciences
Foundation of China (40872176). The work described was done
while the first author was a guest researcher at the International
Centre for Geohazards (ICG) at NGI. The first author thanks the
China Scholarship Council, NGI and the Research Council of
Norway for funding her stay at ICG/NGI. The authors thank
also Prof. O. Hungr (University of British Columbia), who
kindly provided a beta version of DAN3D to NGI, and Drs.
J.M. Cepeda and D. Issler of NGI for their help and guidance.
8 REFERENCES
Alexander, D.E. 1984. Building damage by landslide: the case of An-
cona, Italy.
Ekistics-The Problems and Science of Human Settle-
ments
, 51:452-462.
Alexander, D.E. 2004.
Vulnerability to landslide. Landslide Hazard and
Risk
. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 175-198.
Amatruda, G., Bonnard, C., Castelli, M.
et al.
2004. A key approach:
the IMIRILAND project method. Identification and mitigation of
large landslide risks in Europe - advances in risk assessment. In:
Bonnard
et al
(Eds.),
European Commission, Fifth Framework
Program
. Balkema. 13–44.
Bell, S.E. 1978.
Successful design for mining subsidence. Large move-
ments and structures. New York: Acad. Press
562-578.
Crozier, M.J., Glade, T. 2004. Landslide hazard and risk: issues, con-
cepts and approach.
Landslide hazard and Risk
.John Wiley&Sons,
Ltd. 1-40.
Coburn, A., Spence, R. 2002.
Earthquake protection
. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex
PO19 8SQ, England.
Cruden, D.M., Varnes, D.J. 1996. Landslide types and processes. In:
Landslide investigation and mitigation
. National Academy Press,
Washington 36–75.
Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., Guzetti, F.
et al.
2002. A geomor-
phological approach to the estimation of landslide hazards and risks
in Umbria, Central Italy.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sci-
ences
2:57-72
Düzgün, HSB, Lacasse, S. 2005. Vulnerability and acceptable risk in in-
tegrated risk assessment framework. Hungr
et al
(eds)
Landslide
risk management
. Balkema, NL. 505–515.
Einstein, H.H. 1988. Special lecture - landslide risk assessment proce-
dure. In:
5
th
International Symposium on Landslides.
Landslides
2:1075-1090.
Fell, R. 1994. Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk.
Canadian
Geotechnical Journal
31:261-272
Glade, T. 2003. Vulnerability assessment in landslide risk analysis.
Erde
134(2):123–146.
Glade, T., Crozier, M.J. 2004. The Natural of Landslide Hazard Impact.
Landslide Hazard and Risk
. England: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd, 44-
74.
Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P. 1996. Land-
slide hazard evaluation: an aid to a sustainable development.
Geo-
morphol
31:181–216
Heinimann, H.R. 1999. Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren-
Fallbeispiele & Daten.
Umwelt-Materialen
107/I, Bern.
Leroi, E. 1996. Landslide hazard-risk maps at different scales: objec-
tives, tools and development.
Proc. of 7
th
international symposium
on landslides
, June 17–21, Trondheim, 35–51.
Leone, F., Ast´e, J.P., Leroi, E. 1996. Vulnerability assessment of ele-
ments exposed to mass moving: working towards a better risk per-
ception. In: Senneset K (ed)
Landslides
. Balkema, Rotterdam, 263–
269.
Li, Z, Nadim, F, Huang, HW, Uzielli, M, Lacasse, S. 2010. Quantitative
vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards,
Land-
slides
7:125–134.
Peng, S.S. 1992.
Surface subsidence engineering
. Colorado: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration 77-90.
Swami, V., Einon, D., Furnham, A. 2006. The leg-to-body ratio as a
human aesthetic criterion,
Body Image
3:317–323.
Ulusay, R., Aydan, Ö., Klc, R. 2007. Geotechnical assessment of the
2005 Kuzulu landslide
Engin. Geology
89:112–128.
Uzielli, M., Nadim, F., Lacasse, S., Kaynia, A.M. 2008. A conceptual
framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to
landslides.
Engin. Geology
102:251–256.
Varnes, D.J. 1984.
Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles
and practice
. UNESCO, France, 1–63.
Zheng, K.Z., Guo, G.L., Tan, Z.X. 2001. Analysis of Movement and
Deformation Characteristics of Buildings Above Mining Subsi-
dence Areas.
Journal of China University of Mining & Technology
30(4):354-358.
