Comparative analysis of the earthquake disaster risk of cities in Eastern China based on lethal levels – a case study of Yancheng City, Suqian City and Guangzhou City

References

• Allali SA, Abed M, Mebarki A. 2018. Post-earthquake assessment of buildings damage using fuzzy logic. Eng Struct. 166:117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. 2014. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. 2nd ed. London (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burton C, Silva V. 2016. Assessing integrated earthquake risk in OpenQuake with an application to mainland Portugal. Earthquake Spectra. 32(3):1383–1403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyuksarac A, Isik E, Harirchian E. 2021. A case study for determination of seismic risk priorities in Van (Eastern Turkey). Earthquakes Struct. 20(4):445–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Q, Chen Y, Liu J, Chen L. 1997. Quick and approximate estimation of earthquake loss based on macroscopic index of exposure and population distribution. Nat Hazards. 15(2/3):215–229..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowley H, Despotaki V, Rodrigues D, Silva V, Toma-Danila D, Riga E, Karatzetzou A, Fotopoulou S, Zugic Z, Sousa L, et al. 2020. Exposure model for European seismic risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra. 36(1_suppl):252–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabbeek J, Silva V. 2020. Modeling the residential building stock in the Middle East for multi-hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards. 100(2):781–810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danciu L, Kale Ö, Akkar S. 2018. The 2014 Earthquake Model of the Middle East: ground motion model and uncertainties. Bull Earthquake Eng. 16(8):3497–3533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolce M, Prota A, Borzi B, da Porto F, Lagomarsino S, Magenes G, Zuccaro G. 2020. Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy. Bull Earthquake Eng.19(8):2999–3032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. HAZUS-MH Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM). Technical and User’s Manual. Washington (DC): FEMA; p. 33–90.
   Google Scholar
• Frolova NI, Larionov VI, Bonnin J, Sushchev SP, Ugarov AN, Kozlov MA. 2017. Seismic risk assessment and mapping at different levels. Nat Hazards. 88(S1):43–62.
   Google Scholar
• Giardini D, Danciu L, Erdik M, Şeşetyan K, Tümsa MBD, Akkar S, Gülen L, Zare M. 2018. Seismic hazard map of the Middle East. Bull Earthquake Eng. 16(8):3567–3570.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo Q, Guo L, Chen P. 2008. Assessment of urban seismogeologic disaster s in Guangzhou City. South China J Seismol. 28(2):85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Aghakouchaki Hosseini SE, Jadhav K, Kumari V, Rasulzade S, Işık E, Wasif M, Lahmer T. 2021a. A review on application of soft computing techniques for the rapid visual safety evaluation and damage classification of existing buildings. J Build Eng. 43:102536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Jadhav K, Kumari V, Lahmer T. 2021b. ML-EHSAPP: a prototype for machine learning-based earthquake hazard safety assessment of structures by using a smartphone app. Eur J Environ Civil Eng. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.1892829
   Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Kumari V, Jadhav K, Rasulzade S, Lahmer T, Raj Das RA. 2021c. Synthesized study based on machine learning approaches for rapid classifying earthquake damage grades to RC buildings. Appl Sci. 11(16):7540.
   Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Lahmer T. 2020b. Developing a hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic model to improve rapid evaluation of earthquake hazard safety of existing buildings. Structures. 28:1384–1399..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Lahmer T. 2020a. Improved rapid visual earthquake hazard safety evaluation of existing buildings using a type-2 fuzzy logic model. Appl Sci. 10(7):2375..
   Google Scholar
• Hassaballa AE, Adam FM, Ismaeil MA. 2017. Seismic analysis of a ten-storey reinforced concrete building in Jazan Area, KSA. OJCE. 07(02):252–266..
   Google Scholar
• He J, Lu Y, Dai B, Pang W, Suge H, Fei M. 2015. Analysis of difference of seismic capacity of buildings between Ludian m_s6.5 and Jinggu m_s6.6 earthquakes disaster areas in Yunnan. J Seismol Res. 38(1):137–142.
   Google Scholar
• Hong H, You J, Tao X, Wang H. 2015. Comparative study of seismic damage induced by 2014 Ludian M_S6.5 and Jinggu M_S6.6 earthquakes in Yunnan Province. China Earthquake Eng J. 37(4):1013–1022.
   Google Scholar
• Jayaram N, Shome N, Rahnama M. 2012. Development of earthquake vulnerability functions for tall buildings. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 41(11):1495–1514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ketsap A, Hansapinyo C, Kronprasert N, Limkatanyu S. 2019. Uncertainty and fuzzy decisions in earthquake risk evaluation of buildings. EJ. 23(5):89–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D. 2021. Seismic risk and loss estimation for the building stock in Isfahan: part II—hazard analysis and risk assessment. Bull Earthquake Eng. 19(4):1739–1763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lan Y, Huang D. 2012. Community-building in high density cities: a case study of Liwan District in Guangzhou. Urban Insight. 3:131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Li C, Li Z, Lyu H, Gao M. 2021. Probabilistic seismic risk assessment for the Eastern Himalayas. China. Earthquake Spectra. 37(4):2714-2736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin D, Tan M, Liu K, Liu L, Zhu Y. 2020. Accuracy comparison of four gridded population datasets in Guangdong Province, China. Tropical Geography. 40(2):346–356.
   Google Scholar
• Martins L, Silva V. 2018, June. A global database of vulnerability models for seismic risk assessment. In Proceeding of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Mulargia F, Stark PB, Geller RJ. 2017. Why is probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) still used? Phys Earth Planet Inter. 264:63–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie G, Gao J, Ma Z, Gao Q, Su G. 2002. On the risk of earthquake disaster in China in the coming 10～15 years. J Nat Disasters. 11(1):68–73.
   Google Scholar
• Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, et al. 2014. OpenQuake engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett. 85(3):692–702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos AN, Bazzurro P. 2021. Exploring probabilistic seismic risk assessment accounting for seismicity clustering and damage accumulation: part II. Risk analysis. Earthquake Spectra. 37(1):386–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradhan B, Moneir AAA, Jena R. 2018. Sand dune risk assessment in Sabha region, Libya using Landsat 8, MODIS, and Google Earth Engine images. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 9(1):1280–1305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RADIUS. 2012. Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), retrieved 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D. 2015. Existing empirical fragility and vulnerability functions: compendium and guide for selection. Global earthquake model (GEM) technical report. Pavia (Italy): GEM Foundation.. VULNSMOD.TR2015.01.
   Google Scholar
• Scawthorn C, Chen WF. 2002. Earthquake engineering handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; p. 327.
   Google Scholar
• Shah MA, Qaisar M, Iqbal J, Ahmed S. 2012. Deterministic seismic hazard assessment of Quetta, Pakistan. 15 WCEE. Lisboa, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Silva V. 2016. Critical issues in earthquake scenario loss modeling. J Earthquake Eng. 20(8):1322–1341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šipoš TK, Hadzima-Nyarko M. 2017. Rapid seismic risk assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 24:348–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith K. 2001. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• State Administration for Market Regulation. 2015. Seismic ground motion parameters zonation map of China: GB18306-2015:458 (in Chinese), http://www.gb18306.net/. Accessed 23rd November 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Sun BT, Zhang GX. 2017. Study on seismic disaster risk distribution of buildings in mainland China. China Civil Eng J. 50(9):1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai CH, Chen CW. 2010. An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry – a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management. 31(4):470–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang B, Lei L, Liang X, Zhou J. 2008a. Discussion on seismicity and measures for earthquake resistant in Yancheng area in Jiangsu Province. Plateau Earthquake Res. 20(03):53–57.
   Google Scholar
• Wang B, Liang X, Zhou J. 2008b. Seismicity characteristics and seismic disaster analyses in Yancheng Area, Jiangsu Province. South China J Seismol. 28(003):118–126.
   Google Scholar
• Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensise G, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Demircioglu MB, et al. 2015. The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthquake Eng. 13(12):3553–3596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia C. 2020. Research on lethal assessment technique of earthquake death based on field investigation. Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing.
   Google Scholar
• 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 Nat Hazards Risk. 11(1):377–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie S, Ning Y. 2006. Modeling the spatial distribution of urban population density and its evolution in Guangzhou. Appl Statist Manage. 25(5):518–522.
   Google Scholar
• Xin D, Daniell JE, Tsang HH, , Wenzel F. 2021. Residential building stock modelling for mainland China targeted for seismic risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 21(10):3031–3056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang W, Wang Z, Hu S. 2017. Research on the planning-making of earthquake resistance and disaster prevention in cities of high earthquake intensity – a case study of urban earthquake disaster prevention planning in Suqian City. Jiangsu Construction. (001):16–18.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L. 2014. Seimic risk analysis in Guangzhou and its neighboring area. Chinese J Eng Geophys. 11(004):568–574.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zheng S, Sun L, Long L, Yang W, Li L. 2021. Developing GIS-based earthquake loss model: a case study of Baqiao District. Bull Earthquake Eng. 19(5):2045–2079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar