4.6 Article

Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings

Journal

NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages 2055-2066

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-10-2055-2010

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union [MRTN-CT-2006-035798, 226479]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [BIA2008-06614]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The vulnerability of buildings to the impact of rockfalls is a topic that has recently attracted increasing attention in the scientific literature. The quantification of the vulnerability, when based on empirical or heuristic approaches requires data recorded from historical rockfalls, which are not always available. This is the reason why appropriate alternatives are required. The use of analytical and numerical models can be one of them. In this paper, a methodology is proposed for the analytical evaluation of the vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings. The vulnerability is included in the risk equation by incorporating the uncertainty of the impact location of the rock block and the subsequent damage level. The output is a weighted vulnerability that ranges from 0 to 1 and expresses the potential damage that a rock block causes to a building in function of its velocity and size. The vulnerability is calculated by the sum of the products of the probability of block impact on each element of the building and its associated damage state, the latter expressed in relative recovery cost terms. The probability of exceeding a specific damage state such as non-structural, local, partial, extensive or total collapse is also important for the quantification of risk and to this purpose, several sets of fragility curves for various rock diameters and increasing velocities have been prepared. An example is shown for the case of a simple reinforced concrete building and impact energies from 0 to 4075 kJ.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available