排序方式： 共有12条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Saving lives in earthquakes: successes and failures in seismic protection since 1960 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
Robin Spence 《Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering》2007,5(2):139-251
This paper will look at what we have and have not achieved in reducing the risks to human life from earthquakes in the last
50 years. It will review how success has been achieved in a few parts of the world, and consider what needs to be done by
the scientific and engineering community globally to assist in the future task of bringing earthquake risks under control.
The first part of the talk will re-examine what we know about the casualties from earthquakes in the last 50 years. Almost
80% of about 1 million deaths turn out to have been caused by just ten great earthquakes, together affecting a tiny proportion
of the territory at risk from heavy ground shaking. The disparity between richer and poorer countries is also evident, not
only in fatality rates, but also in their rates of change. But the existing casualty database turns out to be a very poor
basis for observing such differences, not only because of the small number of lethal events, but also because of the very
limited data on causes of death, types and causes of injury. These have been examined in detail in only a few, recent events.
All that can be said with certainty is that a few wealthier earthquake-prone countries or regions have made impressive progress
in reducing the risk of death from earthquakes, while most of the rest of the world has achieved comparatively little, and
in some areas the problem has become much worse. The second part of the paper looks in more detail at what has been achieved
country-by-country. Based on a new expert-group survey of key individuals involved in earthquake risk mitigation, it will
examine what are perceived to be the successes and failures of risk mitigation in each country or group of countries. This
survey will be used to highlight the achievements of those countries which have successfully tackled their earthquake risk;
it will examine the processes of earthquake risk mitigation, from campaigning to retrofitting, and it will consider to what
extent the achievement is the result of affluence, scientific and technical activity, political advocacy, public awareness,
or the experience of destructive events. It will ask to what extent the approaches pioneered by the global leaders can be
adopted by the rest. The final section of the talk will argue that it can be useful to view earthquake protection activity
as a public health matter to be advanced in a manner similar to globally successful disease-control measures: it will be argued
that the key components of such programmes—building in protection; harnessing new technology and creating a safety culture—must
be the key components of earthquake protection strategies also. It will consider the contribution which the scientific and
engineering community can make to bringing down today’s unacceptably high global earthquake risk. It will be suggested that
this role is wider than commonly understood and needs to include:
Building-in protection
Harnessing new technologies
Creating a safety culture
Examples of some of these actions will be given. International collaboration is essential to ensure that the resources and
expertise available in the richer countries is shared with those most in need of help. And perhaps the most important single
task for the engineering community is work to counter the widespread fatalistic attitude that future earthquakes are bound
to be at least as destructive as those of the past. 相似文献
| • | Improving and simplifying information available for designers and self-builders of homes and infrastructure. |
| • | Devising and running “building for safety” programmes to support local builders. |
| • | Developing and testing cost-effective techniques for new construction and retrofit. |
| • | Involvement in raising public awareness. |
| • | Political advocacy to support new legislation and other actions. |
| • | Prioritising action on public buildings, especially schools and hospitals. |
2.
3.
在对忻州市现有房屋建筑进行调查研究的基础上，对房屋建筑按结构进行了分类，并对各类房屋进行了抗震分析，进而建立了相应的易损性矩阵，最终结果得到以小区为单元遭遇不同强度地震作用的地震损失和人员伤亡，以及50年地震期望损失。 相似文献
4.
基于建筑物破坏的地震人员伤亡快速评估方法是一种静态评估方法,具有较大的局限性,因此迫切需要建立地震人员伤亡动态评估方法以提高评估结果的有效性。以川滇地区为例,基于历史震例人员伤亡资料和相关科研成果,利用统计分析、案例对比法以及大数据分析等方法,从影响人员易损性因素的地区差异性角度研究地震人员伤亡动态修正方法。为此提出了人口动态分布、建筑物抗震能力及其致死率、地震地质灾害致死率等3类地区差异性因子,并建立了川滇地区的人员伤亡动态评估修正因子表。通过对川滇地区2008—2019年发生的6次强震进行动态评估试算,结果表明,通过动态评估模型评估的人员伤亡数量能够与实际伤亡人数保持数量级一致,评估结果准确性优于传统评估方法。 相似文献
5.
本文针对2021年5月21日云南漾濞6.4级地震,选取不同的地震烈度衰减关系模型,对各模型地震影响场评估结果与发布的地震烈度图进行对比分析,并对地震影响范围不确定性进行研究。选取多种死亡人数评估模型,分别计算各模型在不同地震影响场下的死亡人数、人口分布数量,探讨各地震影响场模型下的人口分布特征及影响人员死亡的主要因素。通过对比分析可知,导致此次地震灾害损失评估结果与真实地震现场结果不同的主要原因是地震影响场分布、人口分布、房屋建筑抗震能力偏差、地形地貌、次生灾害等多种因素不同。研究结果表明,有效提高地震灾害损失快速评估精确性的途径为提高地震影响场评估精度,提高人口分布、房屋建筑等数据空间分布评估精度,后期专家检验等。 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
系统收集、整理了彝良“9·07”MS5. 7、5. 6 地震造成的81 名震亡者的资料，分析研究了本次地震震亡人员的特征和原因。结果表明:彝良地震震亡人数多且空间分布极不均衡;壮年劳动力人口震亡人数和占震亡总数的百分比较高，震亡人员均为农村户口;其中外地户口震亡人数超过当地户口震亡人数，男性震亡人口总数和相对震亡率远高于女性，震亡人员以汉族为主但少数民族相对震亡率较高。次生地质灾害严重、房屋抗震能力差、人口密度高、震害叠加、经济发展水平低等是该震造成较多人员死亡的重要原因;山体滑坡次生地质灾害是造成震亡人员多的最直接原因，滑坡砸死的人数超过总震亡数的74. 07% ;灾区矿点密集、采矿方式粗放、采矿人员地震逃生意识欠缺、逃生能力差等是该次地震人员死亡的突显特征。 相似文献
9.
地震和地震海啸中报道死亡人数随时间变化的一个简单模型 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
在防灾减灾工作中，避免人员伤亡是需要考虑的最重要问题之一。正因为如此，人们对地震伤亡的规律进行了不同角度的研究（例如Lomnitz，1970；Tsai，et al．，2001；Samardjieva and Badal，2002；贾艳等，2004）。 相似文献
10.
