Research on the rapid assessment of earthquake casualties based on the anti-lethal levels of buildings

16Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This article focuses on the rapid assessment of possible numbers of casualties after an earthquake. We use data on earthquake casualties to study and verify the relationship between casualties and building types, building anti-lethal levels, seismic intensity and other influencing factors. A rapid assessment method for casualties based on buildings’ anti-lethal level is proposed. The method first uses the anti-lethal level and proportions of various types of buildings to obtain the overall anti-lethal level of the study area. Second, according to historical casualty data, the casualty rate of each intensity in the study area is obtained. On this basis, a rapid assessment matrix of casualties is constructed based on the overall anti-lethal level of the study area and the casualty rate of each intensity. Finally, we make a rapid assessment of casualties based on a matrix model. Through the verification of 7 selected historical earthquakes, we find that the data on casualties obtained based on this method are close to the actual number of casualties. The resulting casualty parameters are described against the overall casualty data from several historical earthquakes in China, and the error rates of earthquakes in Lancang-Gengma, Yushu, Lushan Min county-Zhang county and Changning are 4.1%, 25.27%, 12.75%, 2% and 7.69%, respectively. The error is relatively small, within 50%, and a more accurate evaluation result is obtained. Our findings illustrate the effectiveness and practicability of a rapid assessment method for casualties based on anti-lethal levels.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xia, C., Nie, G., Fan, X., Zhou, J., Li, H., & Pang, X. (2020). Research on the rapid assessment of earthquake casualties based on the anti-lethal levels of buildings. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2019.1710581

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free