4.6 Article

Risk assessment of people trapped in earthquake based on km grid: a case study of the 2014 Ludian earthquake, China

Journal

GEOMATICS NATURAL HAZARDS & RISK
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 1289-1305

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19475705.2017.1318795

Keywords

Earthquake; casualty; km grid; risk assessment; Ludian

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41601567]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Institute of Geology, China Earthquake Administration [IGCEA1406]
  3. Key Special Fund for the Earthquake Disaster Scenario Construction of Large and Medium-Sized Cities [2016QJGJ13]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

China is one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the world. The highest-priority mission after an earthquake is to rapidly save lives, and to minimize the loss of life. Rapid judgment of the trapped personnel location is the important basis to identify the emergency supply demands and carry out the search and rescue work after the earthquake. Through analyzing the main influencing factors, we constructed an assessment model of people trapped in collapsed buildings caused by the earthquakes. The accuracy of the estimation results from the model was then tested against the actual investigation data in 2014 Ludian earthquake-hit area. Results showed that, the trapped personnel distribution assessed by this model is generally concordant with that obtained by the actual survey in Ludian earthquake. The grid-based assessment of people trapped in earthquakes can meet the requirements of key search and rescue zone identification and rescue forces allocation in the early stage of earthquake emergency. Although there were some limitations in the study, it offers a simple and rapid approach for assessing the trapped people losses based on basic empirical data. The approach can be further improved to provide more information and suggestions for earthquake emergency search and rescue.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available