4.6 Article

Mexico City during and after the September 19, 2017 earthquake: Assessment of seismic resilience and ongoing recovery process

期刊

JOURNAL OF CIVIL STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 1275-1299

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13349-021-00511-x

关键词

September 19; 2017 earthquake; Seismic resilience; Seismic recovery; Reconstruction; Adaptive resilience

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on quantifying the resilience of the built environment in Mexico City during the September 19, 2017 earthquake, using global statistics. It also provides updates on the seismic reconstruction and recovery processes after the earthquake. Implementing structural health monitoring programs for buildings in the city can help improve seismic resilience.
Mexico City was severely affected by the September 19, 2017 Puebla-Morelos earthquake (M-w = 7.1). City authorities confirmed that more than 12,000 structures for all uses were damaged as a consequence of this earthquake. In this paper, the focus of attention is devoted to trying to quantify in a simple manner how resilient the built environment in Mexico City was during the September 19, 2017 earthquake. Global statistics compiled for the severity of damage observed during this seismic event from detailed information gathered from well-documented and detailed damage surveys were used for this purpose. Also, an update is provided on how the seismic reconstruction and recovery processes of the built environment in Mexico City have been after this earthquake. This adaptive resilience has been assessed from reliable information and statistics of the ongoing reconstruction process of the affected built environment in Mexico City. The implementation of structural health monitoring programs for typical, representative buildings within the city would be germane to detect and correct potential structural deficiencies on time before the next strong earthquake may strike, then helping to improve the seismic resilience of the built environment.

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

4.6
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