Study on the seismic lethal level of buildings and seismic disaster risk in Guangzhou, China

References

• Ademovi N, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Zagora N. 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings in Banja Luka and Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) using the macroseismic model. Bull Earthquake Eng. 18(8):3897–3933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmadzadeh S, Doloei GJ, Zafarani H. 2020. Ground motion to intensity conversion equations for Iran. Pure Appl Geophys. 177(11):5435–5449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexandru B, Lucian R, Ionel M, Adrian G. 2017. Towards urban resilience: a multi-criteria analysis of seismic vulnerability in Iasi city (Romania). Sustainability. 9(2):270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badal J, Vzquez-Prada M, Gonzlez L. 2005. Preliminary quantitative assessment of earthquake casualties and damages. Nat Hazards. 34(3):353–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker J, Bradley B, Stafford P. 2021. Seismic hazard and risk analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baorong D, Jingjiang S, Ke D, Huan L. 2017. Study on relationships between seismic intensity and peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity. Earthquake Eng Eng Dyn. (02):26–36.
   Google Scholar
• Bessason B, Bjarnason JÖ. 2016. Seismic vulnerability of low-rise residential buildings based on damage data from three earthquakes (Mw6.5, 6.5 and 6.3). Eng Struct. 111:64–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessason B, Bjarnason JÖ, Gudmundsson A, Sólnes J, Steedman S. 2012. Probabilistic earthquake damage curves for low-rise buildings based on field data. Earthquake Spectra. 28(4):1353–1378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessason B, Bjarnason JÖ, Rupakhety R. 2020. Statistical modelling of seismic vulnerability of RC, timber and masonry buildings from complete empirical loss data. Eng Struct. 209:109969..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessason B, Rupakhety R, Bjarnason JÖ. 2022. Comparison and modelling of building losses in South Iceland caused by different size earthquakes. J Build Eng. 46:103806..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondarenko M, Kerr D, Sorichetta A, Tatem AJ. 2020. Census/projection-disaggregated gridded population datasets, adjusted to match the corresponding UNPD 2020 estimates, for 183 countries in 2020 using Built-Settlement Growth Model (BSGM) outputs. World Pop, University of Southampton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Bühlmann H. 1996. Mathematical methods in risk theory. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chettri N, Gautam D, Rupakhety R. 2021. Seismic vulnerability of vernacular residential buildings in Bhutan. J Earthquake Eng.:1–16.doi:10.1080/13632469.2020.1868362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chieffo N, Formisano A. 2019. Geo-hazard-based approach for the estimation of seismic vulnerability and damage scenarios of the old city of Senerchia (Avellino, Italy). Geosciences (Switzerland). 9(2):59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ongkowijoyo C, Doloi H and Gurmu A. 2020. Hybrid risk analysis model for analyzing the urban infrastructure risk – ScienceDirect. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 48:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Gaudio C, Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. 2017. Urban-scale seismic fragility assessment of RC buildings subjected to L'Aquila earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 96:49–63..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elefante L, Jalayer F, Iervolino I, , Manfredi G. 2010. Disaggregation-based response weighting scheme for seismic risk assessment of structures. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 30(12):1513–1527..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam D, Adhikari R, Rupakhety R. 2021. Seismic fragility of structural and non-structural elements of Nepali RC buildings. Eng Struct. 232:111879..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam D, Adhikari R, Rupakhety R, Koirala P. 2020. An empirical method for seismic vulnerability assessment of Nepali school buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng. 18(13):5965–5982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hershberger J. 1956. A comparison of earthquake accelerations with intensity ratings. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 46(4):317–320.
   Google Scholar
• Jaiswal K, Wald DJ. 2008. Creating a global building inventory for earthquake loss assessment and risk management. US geological survey open-file report-1160. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey; p. 103.
   Google Scholar
• Jaiswal K, Wald D, D'Ayala D. 2011. Developing empirical collapse fragility functions for global building types. Earthquake Spectra. 27(3):775–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Nizamuddin A, Sofyan H, Affan M. 2020a. Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh Province, Indonesia. Geosci Front. 11(2): 613–634. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Al-Amri A, , Sofyan H. 2020b. Seismic hazard and risk assessment: a review of state-of-the-art traditional and GIS models. Arab J Geosci. 13(2):50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Hong M, Ren Z. 2018. Improved Bayesian network-based risk model and its application in disaster risk assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 9(2):237–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Chen H. 2019. Integrated assessment of ecological risk for multi-hazards in Guangdong province in Southeastern China. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 10(1):2069–2093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Zhenhua Z, Peijun S, Jingai W. 2015. World earthquake disaster risk assessment. J Nat Disasters. 24(05):1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Maqsood T, Edwards M, Ioannou I, Kosmidis I, Rossetto T, Corby N. 2016. Seismic vulnerability functions for Australian buildings by using GEM empirical vulnerability assessment guidelines. Nat Hazards. 80(3):1625–1650..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall T. 2020. Risk perception and safety culture: Tools for improving the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 47:101557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milad R, van de Lindt JW, Rosenheim N, Hu Y, Cutler H. 2021. Implication of building inventory accuracy on physical and socio-economic resilience metrics for informed decision-making in natural hazards. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 17(4):534–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milad R. 2020. Performance-based seismic monitoring of instrumented buildings [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Vermont, Vermont. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/1140.
   Google Scholar
• Miles SB, Chang SE. 2011. ResilUS: A community-based disaster resilience model. Cartograph Geograph Inf Sci. 38(1):36–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie G, Chaoxu X, Xiwei F. 2020. Grading of anti-lethal level based on historical earthquake mortality data. Chin J Geol. 55(4):1298–1314.
   Google Scholar
• Pavic G, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Bulajić B. 2020. A contribution to a UHS-based seismic risk assessment in Croatia – a case study for the city of Osijek. Sustainability. 12(5):1796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter KA, Farokhnia K, Cho IH, Grant D, Jaiswal K, Wald D, Noh H. 2012, September. Global vulnerability estimation methods for the global earthquake model. In 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal; p. 24–28.
   Google Scholar
• Smith K. 2013. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. London: Routledge; p. 148.
   Google Scholar
• Sweny A. 2012. Relationships between earthquake ground motions and modified Mercalli intensity. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 368. London, Ontario, Canada. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/368
   Google Scholar
• Tian X, Zengping W, Weidong Z, Jie Y. 2021. New ground motion to intensity conversion equations for china. Shock Vib. 2021(1):1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Tsang HH, Daniell JE, Wenzel F, Wilson JL. 2020. A universal approach for evaluating earthquake safety level based on societal fatality risk. Bull Earthquake Eng. 18(1):273–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNDP. 2010. Human development report. New York: New York Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verderame GM, Ricci P, De Luca F, Del Gaudio C, De Risi MT. 2014. Damage scenarios for RC buildings during the 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 66:385–400..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu YM, Teng TL, Shin TC. 2003. Relationship between peak ground acceleration peak ground velocity, and intensity in Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 93(1):386–396.
   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, Gaozhong N, Xiwei F, Junxue Z, Huayue L, Xiaoke P. 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
• Yu LY. 2017. Discussion of uncertainty risk theory. Mod Occup Saf. 3:75–77. in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zheng H, Guo L, Liu J, Zheng T, , Deng Z. 2020. Evaluating seismic risk in small and medium-sized cities with the modified vulnerability index method, a case study in Jiangyou City, China. Bull Earthquake Eng. 18(4):1303–1319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar