The team focused on a type of structure that is deceptively common: a bridge pier founded on a group of piles, embedded in a slope affected by a slow-moving landslide. Unlike catastrophic, fast-moving slope failures that destroy bridges in seconds, slow-moving landslides creep at rates of millimeters to centimeters per year, often going unnoticed until cumulative deformation begins to distort the superstructure or crack the foundations. Yet these quiescent masses of soil are not necessarily benign. When an earthquake arrives, the weakened, sheared, and sometimes saturated landslide material can be reactivated, subjecting the piles to a combination of inertial forces from the shaking structure and kinematic forces from the moving ground. The study’s central question was deceptively simple: does the state of the slope before the earthquake matter for the pier’s seismic performance?

To answer it, the researchers built a nonlinear finite element model of the coupled soil-foundation-structure system, using a reference case study chosen precisely because it is paradigmatic of the numerous Italian bridges located in areas exposed to both seismic and hydrogeological hazards. Bridge piers, after all, may sit on the crest of a slope, along its face, or downstream of it, and the relative position of the bridge and the slope strongly influences the type and severity of the actions the structure must resist. The numerical model captured the essential mechanics of the problem: the nonlinear, strain-dependent behavior of the soil under cyclic loading, the interaction between the piles and the surrounding ground, and the dynamic response of the pier itself.

The analysis compared three distinct scenarios. In the first, the pier stands in a stable slope, representing the conventional design assumption in which the ground is competent and the only seismic demand comes from the shaking itself. In the second, the slope hosts a quiescent landslide that the earthquake reactivates, so the ground begins to move as the shaking progresses. In the third, the landslide is already active before the earthquake, meaning the piles have already accumulated deformation and stress from the creeping soil. This progression allowed the researchers to isolate the influence of pre-seismic slope conditions on the dynamic response of the pier, something that standard seismic assessment procedures, which typically assume stable ground, simply do not address.

The results, expressed in terms of maximum and residual displacements and rotations of the pier, show that the starting condition of the slope is far from a secondary detail. When the landslide is active before the earthquake, the piles enter the seismic event already stressed and deformed, and the ground movement during shaking adds kinematic demands on top of the inertial ones. The interaction between the two loading mechanisms can amplify displacements and, critically, leave the pier with larger residual deformations after the shaking stops. Residual displacement matters enormously for bridges, because permanent tilting or lateral shifting of a pier changes the geometry of the deck, alters load paths, and can compromise serviceability or trigger collapse even when the structure survives the earthquake itself.

Underpinning these findings is the physics of soil-structure interaction, a phenomenon that simplified design methods often reduce to a set of springs or, worse, ignore altogether. In reality, the piles, the surrounding soil and the pier form a single dynamic system whose response depends on the stiffness and damping of every component. Decades of research, from classical work on dynamic pile stiffness to modern studies of kinematic pile bending in layered soils, have shown that the ground is not a passive support but an active participant in the seismic response. The new study extends this understanding to the multi-hazard setting, demonstrating that the dynamic properties of a slope containing a landslide mass differ from those of a stable slope, and that these differences propagate directly into the demands on the foundation.

The Italian context gives the work particular urgency. The national landslide inventory compiled by the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research documents hundreds of thousands of landslide phenomena across the country, and recent research has catalogued extensive interactions between landslides and bridge foundations in Italian case studies. At the same time, Italy has endured repeated bridge failures, some linked to the degradation of structures subjected to unanticipated environmental actions. The national guidelines for classifying and managing the risk of existing bridges, introduced in 2020 and operationalized in subsequent years, pushed owners to assess their assets systematically, and recent technical guidance has begun to address landslide interaction explicitly. The new study provides a quantitative basis for that effort, showing what is at stake when a bridge pier’s foundation crosses a slowly moving mass of soil.

What makes the study especially valuable for practitioners is its methodological clarity. By using a nonlinear finite element approach within a single consistent model, the researchers could track the full path from static slope condition to dynamic seismic response, capturing the state of stress and strain in the soil at the moment the earthquake begins. This matters because the initial stress state governs how the soil stiffens or softens under cyclic loading, how pore pressures evolve, and how much permanent deformation accumulates. The approach also reflects the reality of earthquake-triggered landslide reactivation, a phenomenon documented in devastating detail after events such as the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China and the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes in Japan, where seismically induced slope failures destroyed bridges that had performed adequately under shaking alone.

The broader message is a call for multi-hazard thinking in the assessment and retrofit of existing infrastructure. A bridge evaluated only for seismic loads, assuming stable ground, may be far more vulnerable than its safety factor suggests if it stands in the path of a slow-moving landslide. Conversely, retrofit strategies designed for landslide stabilization alone may leave the structure exposed to seismic demands that the modified soil-foundation system now transmits differently. The authors argue that accounting for soil-foundation-structure interaction is essential when assessing the seismic response of bridge piers in the presence of slow-moving landslides, and that a multi-hazard approach is needed to enhance both the assessment of existing bridges and the sustainability of retrofit strategies. As climate change alters rainfall patterns and slope hydrology, and as seismic hazard remains a permanent feature of the Mediterranean landscape, the quiet creep of a hillside may prove to be the hidden variable that determines whether the next earthquake is survivable for the bridges that carry our lifelines.

Subject of Research: Seismic response of pile-supported bridge piers founded in slopes affected by slow-moving landslides

Article Title: Seismic response of a pile-supported bridge pier under multi-hazard conditions in slow-moving landslides: a numerical investigation

Article References: Ambrosino, A., Servodio, M., Sica, S., Losanno, D., Parisi, F., & Santolo, A. S. D. (2026). Seismic response of a pile-supported bridge pier under multi-hazard conditions in slow-moving landslides: a numerical investigation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-026-02678-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10518-026-02678-4

Keywords: soil-structure interaction, landslides, earthquake engineering, multi-hazard assessment, bridge piers, pile foundations, finite element analysis, slope stability, seismic retrofit, geotechnical engineering, infrastructure resilience, residual displacement