Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 279–287 | Cite as

A conception of casualty control based seismic design for buildings

  • Li-Li Xie
  • Yu-Hong Ma
  • Jin-Jun Hu
Research Article

Abstract

Earthquake disaster is still the number one among all natural disasters, particularly, in terms of destructive power in causing deaths. Can earthquake engineers control seismic casualties through the seismic design of buildings? For this purpose, a conception of casualty control based seismic design is presented and a “two-step decision-making” method is proposed for determining the optimum seismic design intensity (or ground-motion) for controlling both seismic death and economic losses. The key problems in establishing the model are to determine the appropriate socially acceptable level of earthquake mortality and establish the corresponding objective function and /or constraint conditions in determining the optimum seismic design intensity. Ten different grades of socially acceptable mortality are suggested and the final socially acceptable mortality level was proposed for seismic design based on a questionnaire that was distributed nationwide in China. Finally, the method was applied to eight cities with different seismic hazard in China and the effects of various grades of acceptable earthquake mortality on seismic design intensity are analyzed.

Keywords

Seismic death control Performance-based design Seismic design criterion Seismic vulnerability analysis Earthquake economic loss estimation Acceptable level for earthquake mortality Optimum seismic design load Decision-making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. China Seismological Bureau (1996) A compilation for earthquake losses evaluation in Chinese Mainland. Earthquake Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  2. Coburm AW, Spence RJS, Pomonis A (1992) Factors determining human casualty levels in earthquakes: mortality prediction in building collapse. In: Proceedings of the tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 10. Madrid, Spain, pp 5989–5994Google Scholar
  3. Cornell CA, Helmut K (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center Newslett 3(2):1–4Google Scholar
  4. Fu Z-X, Li G-P (1993) Studies on life losses from earthquake. Earthquake Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  5. Helmut K (1999) Progress and challenges in performance-based earthquake engineering, International seminar on seismic engineering for tomorrow – in honor of Professor Hiroshi Akiyama, Tokyo, Japan, November 1999Google Scholar
  6. Hiraishi H, Teshigawara M, Fukuyama H, Saito T, Gojo W, Fujitani H, Ohashi Y, Okawa I, Okada H (1998) New framework for performance based design of building structures design flow and social system. In: Proceedings of the 30th joint meeting of the US-Japan cooperative program in natural resources panel on wind and seismic effects, May 12–15, 1998, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp 234–247Google Scholar
  7. Ma Y-H (1996) Research on performance-based seismic design load. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, Harbin, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  8. Ma Y-H, Xie L-L (2001) Research on social acceptable earthquake mortality in China. J Nat Disasters 10(3):56–63Google Scholar
  9. Miyano M, Ikuta E, Nishimura A, et al. (2004) Study of casualties due to the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake based on a survey of wooden detached houses. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 602, August 1–6, 2004, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. Murakami HO (1992) A simulation model to estimate human loss for occupants of collapsed buildings in an earthquake. In: The tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 10. Madrid, Spain, pp 5969–5974Google Scholar
  11. Naoki T, Nobuo T, Shigeyuki O (2004) Casualty estimation model based on the mechanism of human injury in damaged buildings. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 729, August 1–6, 2004, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. Pai C-H, Tien Y-M, Juang D-S, Wang Y-L (2004) A study on near-fault mortality from the 1999 Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 2542, August 1–6, 2004, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. Rahimi M (1992) Classification and analysis of occupant behavior during earthquake shaking. In: The tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 10. Madrid, Spain, pp 6085–6090Google Scholar
  14. Riebsame WE (1989) Reducing hazards during the 1990s. Nat Hazards 1(4):387–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stojanovski P, Dong W (1994) Simulation model for earthquake casualty estimation. In: The 5th US national conference on earthquake engineering, EERI, vol 13. Chicago, Illinois, pp 1045–1054Google Scholar
  16. Sharpe RL (1992) Acceptable earthquake damage or desired performance. In: The tenth world Conference on earthquake engineering, vol 10. Madrid, Spain, pp 5891–5895Google Scholar
  17. Xie L-L (1996) On the design earthquake level for earthquake resistant works. In: Proceedings of the PRC-USA bilateral workshop on seismic codes, December 3–7, Guangzhou, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  18. Yozo G, Masakatsu M (2004) Preliminary Report on December 26, 2003 Iran Bam Earthquake. JSCE ReportGoogle Scholar
  19. Yozo G, Takashi T (2004) May 21, 2003 Algeria Boumerdes earthquake short report. JAEE ReportGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Engineering MechanicsChina Earthquake AdministrationHarbinChina
  2. 2.College of Civil EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  3. 3.Earthquake Engineering Research Test CenterGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations