The quantitative estimation of the vulnerability of brick and concrete wall impacted by an experimental boulder

Zhang, J.; Guo, Zhixue; Wang, Deren; Qian, Haoran

doi:10.5194/nhess-16-299-2016

Cited by 19 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2012). Last but not least, it is worth mentioning that a number of studies focus on laboratory experiments in order to determine the interaction between the flow and the structural components of the buildings (Gems et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2016).…”

Section: Methods For Assessing Physical Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is an essential aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and, if possible, quantifying physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators; however, in most of the cases, these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss, considering, in individual cases only, some structural characteristics of the affected buildings. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based methodology (IBM) for mountain hazards including debris flow ) is applied to a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol, where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results is challenging since both methodological approaches deal with vulnerability in a different way. However, it is still possible to highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and provide a preliminary "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment showing how the two approaches may be used in combination in the future.

show abstract

Section: Methods For Assessing Physical Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methods For Assessing Physical Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability curves versus vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle¹

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is a very important aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and quantifying, if possible, physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators, however, in most of the cases these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: the vulnerability curves and the vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based vulnerability methodology for mountain hazards including debris flow (2012) is applied in a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and emphasise the need for a "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment.

show abstract

“…The quantification of these processes, both with respect to space and time, is an essential requirement for subsequent risk mitigation since they may result in highly destructive mechanisms on exposed building structures (Jakob et al, 2012;Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013;Mazzorana et al, 2014Mazzorana et al, , 2015Zhang et al, 2016;Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2017;Simoni et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the impacts to the built environment caused by floods in a river heavily perturbed by volcanic eruptions

Basso-Báez

Mazzorana

Ulloa

et al. 2020

Journal of South American Earth Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantitative estimation of the vulnerability of brick and concrete wall impacted by an experimental boulder

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Vulnerability curves versus vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Unravelling the impacts to the built environment caused by floods in a river heavily perturbed by volcanic eruptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About