International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 08 | Aug 2025
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Cost Efficiency of Monolithic Buildings vs Traditional Framed Structures for Landslide-Prone Areas Veeshal Rathod V1, Naveen R2, Vallabha C D3, Pavan4 1M Tech Scholar, Dr Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bengaluru
2Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dr Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bengaluru 3M Tech Scholar, Dr Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bengaluru 4M Tech Scholar, Dr Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bengaluru
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Monolithic construction systems cast-in-place
engineering (fragility/strength), and building economics (construction and life-cycle cost). This review collates reviewed journal findings to evaluate cost efficiency of monolithic vs framed systems in landslide contexts and to identify research gaps for future practice [1, 2].
concrete, tunnel formwork, insulating concrete forms (ICF) and related continuous wall–slab systems are increasingly promoted for rapid, durable housing in hazard-prone regions. This review synthesizes reviewed literature on the physical vulnerability of buildings to landslides, structural and lifecycle cost factors for monolithic and traditional framed systems, and practical implications for design, siting and post-event losses. Evidence shows that building vulnerability to landslides depends strongly on foundation depth, building footprint/orientation and soil–structure interaction; monolithic RC/ICF systems tend to provide superior continuity, higher out-of-plane strength and reduced maintenance demands compared with conventional framed or masonry stock, with life-cycle benefits in energy and durability reported in several journal studies. However, site-specific landslide mechanics, debris flow vs slow-moving slides, and local construction supply chains largely determine whether monolithic systems are cost-efficient. Gaps remain in quantitative, landslide-specific cost–benefit studies; we propose standardized assessment frameworks that integrate fragility functions with life-cycle cost modelling.
1.1 Scope and objectives The objectives of this review are to:
Key Words: Monolithic construction1, Landslide vulnerability2, cost analysis3, Framed structures4
2.
Synthesize journal evidence on construction, operational and life-cycle costs for monolithic systems and for conventional framed structures [3, 5, 6].
3.
Assess whether monolithic systems provide net cost advantages in landslide-prone areas, under what conditions, and where evidence is lacking.
4.
Propose a standardized methodology for comparative cost–vulnerability assessments to guide future studies and practitioners.
Databases and sources searched: ScienceDirect, MDPI, Copernicus (NHESS), Elsevier journals (Energy & Buildings), and multidisciplinary indexes via publisher pages and abstracts. Searches used keywords and combinations such as “monolithic structure cost”, “tunnel formwork cost framed vs monolithic”, “insulating concrete form life cycle assessment”, “building vulnerability landslides”, “fragility landslide buildings”, and “cost efficiency monolithic construction” [1, 3, 4].
Landslides and slope failures constitute a major driver of building damage in hilly and mountainous regions worldwide. Beyond immediate repair costs, repeated or progressive damage increases life-cycle costs, hinders recovery and shifts insurance and social burdens. Practitioners and policy makers therefore seek construction systems that minimize both expected direct losses (repair/replacement) and long-term ownership costs (maintenance, energy, insurance). Monolithic building systems—where walls, floors and structural elements are cast or constructed as continuous units—are frequently proposed as more robust, faster and sometimes cheaper alternatives to traditional reinforced-concrete (RC) framed structures or timber/steel framed houses in hazard zones. Yet, the comparative evidence specifically addressing landslide-prone contexts is fragmented across disciplines: geotechnical engineering (landslide mechanics), structural
|
Summarize the state of knowledge on building vulnerability to landslides and the structural behaviors that mediate damage [1, 2].
1.2 Methodology
1. INTRODUCTION
© 2025, IRJET
1.
Impact Factor value: 8.315
Inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed journal articles (not conference-only non-peer publications) addressing: building vulnerability to landslides; structural behavior of monolithic/ICF/continuous RC systems; comparative cost, life-cycle assessment (LCA) or energy-cost studies comparing monolithic systems and framed structures. Publications from 2000–2025 were prioritized; seminal earlier work was included where relevant.
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 219