4.5 Article

Probabilistic seismic risk assessment for the Eastern Himalayas, China

期刊

EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 2714-2736

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/8755293021999056

关键词

Seismic risk; seismic hazard; Tibet; building taxonomy; vulnerability model

资金

  1. Science and Technology Basic Resources Survey Fund [2018FY100504]
  2. Fundamental Research Specific Fund of Institute of Geophysics, CEA [DQJB19A0131, DQJB19B45]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed building taxonomy and vulnerability models for buildings in the Eastern Himalayas, estimating the distribution of building types and their potential losses in seismic scenarios. The findings indicate that the city center of Lhasa faces the highest risk, with reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry buildings contributing significantly to the economic losses.
We developed building taxonomy for the Eastern Himalayas and estimated the distribution of building types in each town based on a field survey and local census data. We built a structure vulnerability model and mortality vulnerability model for each building type and simulated the loss distribution based on an earthquake scenario and probabilistic seismic hazards. Our seismic risk model indicates that the Eastern Himalayas have a regional annual average loss (AAL) of approximately 19 million RMB, which accounts for 0.02% of the 2018 regional gross domestic product (GDP). The AAL of reconstruction area covers nearly 7000 m(2) and the AAL of casualty is approximately 60 people. The city center of Lhasa contributes more than one-fifth of the economic AAL and 18% of the AAL of reconstruction area among the towns in this area, and the casualty risk is also the highest. Reinforced concrete building classes with less than three stories and unreinforced masonry contribute to most of the AAL in the study area. The AAL of Cuona County accounts for more than 0.35% of its annual GDP, which implies that it faces the most serious risk of damage by seismic disasters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据