So / Scawthorn / Spence Human Casualties in Earthquakes

Progress in Modelling and Mitigation
1. Auflage 2011
ISBN: 978-90-481-9455-1
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 329 Seiten

Assessment of human casualties in earthquakes has become a topic of vital importance for national and urban authorities responsible for emergency provision, for the development of mitigation strategies and for the development of adequate insurance schemes. In the last few years important work has been carried out on a number of recent events (including earthquakes in Kocaeli, Turkey 1999, Niigata Japan, 2004, Sichuan, China 2008 and L'Aquila,Italy 2009). These events have created new and detailed casualty data, which has not until now been properly assembled and evaluated. This book draws the new evidence from recent events together with existing knowledge. It summarises current trends in the understanding of the factors influencing the numbers and types of casualties in earthquakes; it offers methods to incorporate this understanding into the estimation of losses in future events in different parts of the world; it discusses ways in which pre-event mitigation activity and post-event emergency management can reduce the toll of casualties in future events; and it identifies future research needs.

Autoren/Hrsg.

So, Emily

Scawthorn, Charles

Spence, Robin

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Human Casualtiesin Earthquakes;3
1.1;Foreword;5
1.2;Acknowledgements;7
1.3;Contents;9
1.5;Chapter 1: Introduction;19
1.5.1;1.1 Context;19
1.5.2;1.2 Motivation and Aims of the Book;22
1.5.3;1.3 Scope of the Book;23
1.5.4;1.4 Research Needs;26
1.6;Part I:A Global Perspective;28
1.6.1;Chapter 2: Earthquakes, an Epidemiological Perspective on Patterns and Trends;29
1.6.1.1;2.1 Introduction;30
1.6.1.2;2.2 Recording Natural Disasters in EM-DAT;31
1.6.1.2.1;2.2.1 EM-DAT: Objectives and Methodology;31
1.6.1.2.2;2.2.2 Finding the Right Definitions and Terminology;33
1.6.1.2.3;2.2.3 Challenges in Disaster Data Collection;33
1.6.1.3;2.3 Global Patterns and Trends in Earthquake Occurrence and Human Impact;33
1.6.1.3.1;2.3.1 Long-Terms Trends in Natural Disasters;34
1.6.1.3.2;2.3.2 Earthquake Disasters: Patterns and Trends from 1970 to 2008;35
1.6.1.4;2.4 Conclusions;40
1.6.2;Chapter 3: Earthquake Casualties Research and Public Education;41
1.6.2.1;3.1 Earthquake Epidemiology;41
1.6.2.2;3.2 Rates of Death and Injury;45
1.6.2.3;3.3 Key Variables and Findings;49
1.6.2.4;3.4 Individual Level Variables;51
1.6.2.4.1;3.4.1 Demographic Characteristics;51
1.6.2.4.2;3.4.2 Injury Characteristics;52
1.6.2.4.3;3.4.3 Occupant Behaviour;53
1.6.2.4.4;3.4.4 Individual Behaviour – Time of Injury;58
1.6.2.5;3.5 Built Environment Level Variables;59
1.6.2.5.1;3.5.1 Building Damage;59
1.6.2.5.2;3.5.2 Inside or Outside a Building, Building Function and Occupancy;59
1.6.2.5.3;3.5.3 Building Construction Type;60
1.6.2.5.4;3.5.4 Building Construction Quality and Year of Construction;60
1.6.2.5.5;3.5.5 Building Height and Floor;61
1.6.2.5.6;3.5.6 Structural and Non-Structural Causes of Injuries and Deaths;61
1.6.2.6;3.6 Hazard Level Variables;62
1.6.2.6.1;3.6.1 Seismic and Geophysical Factors;62
1.6.2.7;3.7 Mitigation Level Variables;63
1.6.2.7.1;3.7.1 The Value of Preparedness;63
1.6.2.8;3.8 Response Level Variables;63
1.6.2.8.1;3.8.1 Entrapment, Rescue and Medical Response;63
1.6.2.9;3.9 Discussion;65
1.6.2.10;3.10 Conclusions;66
1.6.3;Chapter 4: Disaster Casualties – Accounting for Economic Impacts and Diurnal Variation;67
1.6.3.1;4.1 Introduction;67
1.6.3.2;4.2 Economic Adjusted Life Years (EALY);72
1.6.3.3;4.3 Twentieth Century Deaths and Diurnal Variation;75
1.6.4;Chapter 5: A Global Earthquake Building Damage and Casualty Database;80
1.6.4.1;5.1 Introduction: Cambridge University Earthquake Damage Database;81
1.6.4.2;5.2 Database Structure;82
1.6.4.3;5.3 The Casualty Data;88
1.6.4.4;5.4 Analytical Tools;90
1.6.4.5;5.5 Conclusions;94
1.6.4.6;5.6 Access to CUEDD;94
1.7;Part II:Casualty Loss Modelling;95
1.7.1;Chapter 6: Earthquake Casualty Models Within the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) System;96
1.7.1.1;6.1 Introduction;97
1.7.1.2;6.2 Inputs for Loss Estimation;98
1.7.1.2.1;6.2.1 Hazard;98
1.7.1.2.2;6.2.2 Vulnerability;98
1.7.1.2.3;6.2.3 Exposure;98
1.7.1.3;6.3 Loss Estimation Models;99
1.7.1.3.1;6.3.1 Empirical Model;99
1.7.1.3.1.1;6.3.1.1 Empirical Fatality Rate;100
1.7.1.3.1.2;6.3.1.2 Uncertainty Estimation;101
1.7.1.3.1.3;6.3.1.3 Regionalisation;101
1.7.1.3.2;6.3.2 Semi-Empirical Model;104
1.7.1.3.2.1;6.3.2.1 Collapse Ratios (CR) or Collapse Fragility Functions;104
1.7.1.3.2.2;6.3.2.2 Fatality Rates (FR) Given Structural Collapse;104
1.7.1.3.3;6.3.3 Analytical Model;105
1.7.1.3.4;6.3.4 Grid-Based Loss Computation;106
1.7.1.4;6.4 Conclusions;107
1.7.2;Chapter 7: Loss Estimation Module in the Second Generation Software QLARM;108
1.7.2.1;7.1 Introduction;108
1.7.2.2;7.2 QLARM Database;109
1.7.2.3;7.3 QLARM Loss Estimation Module;110
1.7.2.3.1;7.3.1 Damage Estimation;111
1.7.2.3.2;7.3.2 Estimation of Human Losses;111
1.7.2.4;7.4 Calibration and Validation of the Loss Estimating Tool;113
1.7.2.5;7.5 Loss Scenarios for Lima;114
1.7.2.5.1;7.5.1 Lima City Model;114
1.7.2.5.2;7.5.2 Calibration of QLARM for Peru;114
1.7.2.5.3;7.5.3 Expected Damage and Human Losses in Lima;115
1.7.2.6;7.6 Discussion;118
1.7.3;Chapter 8: Earthquake Casualties Estimation in Emergency Mode;120
1.7.3.1;8.1 Description of Extremum System Simulation Models;121
1.7.3.1.1;8.1.1 Estimation of Shaking Field;121
1.7.3.1.2;8.1.2 Vulnerability Functions for Buildings/Fragility Laws;123
1.7.3.1.3;8.1.3 Vulnerability of Population/Laws of Earthquake Impact;125
1.7.3.2;8.2 Extremum System Loss Estimations in Emergency Mode at Worldwide;127
1.7.3.3;8.3 Use of Impact Database for Extremum System Calibration;131
1.7.3.4;8.4 Extremum and Other Global Systems for Loss Estimations in Emergency Mode;133
1.7.3.5;8.5 Future Research Needs;135
1.7.3.6;8.6 Conclusions;136
1.7.4;Chapter 9: Estimating Casualties for the Southern California ShakeOut;137
1.7.4.1;9.1 Background;137
1.7.4.1.1;9.1.1 Southern California Shakeout;138
1.7.4.1.1.1;9.1.1.1 The Earthquake;138
1.7.4.2;9.2 Estimating Casualties for the ShakeOut;139
1.7.4.2.1;9.2.1 HAZUS®;140
1.7.4.2.2;9.2.2 Injuries from Collapse of Steel Frame Buildings;143
1.7.4.2.3;9.2.3 Injuries Resulting from Fire-Following Earthquake;144
1.7.4.2.4;9.2.4 Injuries Resulting from Impact to the Transportation System;145
1.7.4.2.5;9.2.5 Total Casualties;148
1.7.4.3;9.3 Discussion;148
1.8;Part III:Lessons Learnt from Regional Studies;150
1.8.1;Chapter 10: Casualty Estimation due to Earthquakes: Injury Structure and Dynamics;151
1.8.1.1;10.1 Introduction;151
1.8.1.2;10.2 Procedures for Casualty Assessment due to Earthquakes;152
1.8.1.3;10.3 Logistic Planning in the Case of Scenario Events in the Kamchatka;156
1.8.1.4;10.4 Conclusions;162
1.8.2;Chapter 11: Seismic Vulnerability and Collapse Probability Assessment of Buildings in Greece;163
1.8.2.1;11.1 Introduction;163
1.8.2.2;11.2 Research Questions – Research Aims;164
1.8.2.3;11.3 Methodology of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment;167
1.8.2.3.1;11.3.1 Available Damage Databases;167
1.8.2.3.2;11.3.2 Definition of Building Typologies;168
1.8.2.3.3;11.3.3 RMS Methodology;168
1.8.2.3.4;11.3.4 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Methodology;172
1.8.2.4;11.4 Estimation of the Population Living or Working in Each Building Typology;177
1.8.2.5;11.5 Results-Comparisons with Other Countries;177
1.8.2.6;11.6 Conclusions;179
1.8.3;Chapter 12: Seismic Casualty Evaluation: The Italian Model, an Application to the L’Aquila 2009 Event;181
1.8.3.1;12.1 Introduction;181
1.8.3.2;12.2 Vulnerability Factors Influencing the Number of Casualties;182
1.8.3.2.1;12.2.1 Structural and Non-Structural Damage;182
1.8.3.2.2;12.2.2 Vertical Building Structural Typology;183
1.8.3.2.3;12.2.3 Geometrical Characteristics;183
1.8.3.2.4;12.2.4 Distribution of the Population in Different Building Typologies;184
1.8.3.3;12.3 Exposure Factors Influencing the Number of Casualties;184
1.8.3.3.1;12.3.1 Variation of Exposure over the Day (Short Term) and over the Week (Mid-Term);185
1.8.3.3.2;12.3.2 Variation of the Exposure in a Year (Long Term);185
1.8.3.3.3;12.3.3 Variation in Exposure due to Low Seismic Activity Before the Damaging Event;186
1.8.3.4;12.4 Basic Elements of the Casualty Model;189
1.8.3.5;12.5 Application;190
1.8.3.6;12.6 Conclusions;193
1.8.4;Chapter 13: Mortality and Morbidity Risk in the L’Aquila, Italy Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Lessons to be Learned;195
1.8.4.1;13.1 Introduction;195
1.8.4.2;13.2 Pattern of Fatalities Caused by the Earthquake;196
1.8.4.3;13.3 Scenarios for Earthquakes at Other Times of Day;199
1.8.4.4;13.4 Models of Building Failure;201
1.8.4.5;13.5 Relating Building Failure to Earthquake Survivability;204
1.8.4.6;13.6 Conclusions;206
1.8.5;Chapter 14: Major Factors Controlling Earthquake Casualties as Revealed via a Diversified Questionnaire Survey in Ojiya City forthe 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake;208
1.8.5.1;14.1 Introduction;209
1.8.5.2;14.2 Methods;210
1.8.5.2.1;14.2.1 Investigation;210
1.8.5.2.2;14.2.2 Statistical Analysis;211
1.8.5.3;14.3 Results;211
1.8.5.3.1;14.3.1 Sampling Distribution;211
1.8.5.3.2;14.3.2 Individual Attributes and Injury;212
1.8.5.3.3;14.3.3 Seismic Intensity, Damage to Dwellings and Injury;212
1.8.5.3.4;14.3.4 Details of Injury;217
1.8.5.3.5;14.3.5 Household Structures and Injured;221
1.8.5.4;14.4 Discussion;224
1.8.5.5;14.5 Conclusions;225
1.9;Part IV:Exploring Approaches to ImprovingCasualty Modeling;227
1.9.1;Chapter 15: Advancements in Casualty Modelling Facilitated by the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER)System;228
1.9.1.1;15.1 Introduction;229
1.9.1.2;15.2 PAGER’S Contributions to Loss Modelling;230
1.9.1.2.1;15.2.1 Hazard Contributions;230
1.9.1.2.1.1;15.2.1.1 PAGER-CAT;230
1.9.1.2.1.2;15.2.1.2 Global VS30 Server;231
1.9.1.2.1.3;15.2.1.3 ShakeMap Atlas;231
1.9.1.2.1.4;15.2.1.4 Exposure-Cat (EXPO-CAT);232
1.9.1.2.2;15.2.2 Loss and Risk Contributions;232
1.9.1.3;15.3 Example Applications;233
1.9.1.3.1;15.3.1 Geospatial Analysis of Casualties due to Secondary Hazards;233
1.9.1.3.2;15.3.2 Time-of-Day Corrections for Casualties;235
1.9.1.4;15.4 Limitations and Ongoing Needs;235
1.9.1.5;15.5 Discussion and Conclusions;236
1.9.2;Chapter 16: Challenges in Collating Earthquake Casualty Field Data;238
1.9.2.1;16.1 Introduction;238
1.9.2.2;16.2 The Questionnaire;241
1.9.2.2.1;16.2.1 Fundamentals of Design;241
1.9.2.2.2;16.2.2 Design of the Questions;244
1.9.2.2.3;16.2.3 Challenges in Designing the Questionnaire;246
1.9.2.2.3.1;16.2.3.1 Injury Coding;248
1.9.2.3;16.3 Logistics and Sampling Methodology;249
1.9.2.4;16.4 General Issues Arising from the Interviews;251
1.9.2.4.1;16.4.1 Ethical Issues;251
1.9.2.5;16.5 Limitations of the Questionnaires;252
1.9.2.6;16.6 Conclusions;253
1.9.3;Chapter 17: Estimating Human Losses in Earthquake Models: A Discussion;262
1.9.3.1;17.1 Background;262
1.9.3.2;17.2 Results from Recent Earthquakes;265
1.9.3.2.1;17.2.1 L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy);265
1.9.3.2.1.1;17.2.1.1 Post-Earthquake Numbers;267
1.9.3.2.1.2;17.2.1.2 Understanding the Death Toll;268
1.9.3.2.2;17.2.2 Azores and Benavente Earthquakes (Portugal);269
1.9.3.2.2.1;17.2.2.1 Azores Earthquakes;270
1.9.3.2.2.2;17.2.2.2 The Benavente Earthquake;271
1.9.3.3;17.3 Human Casualty Models: Making the Count Right;272
1.9.3.4;17.4 Conclusions;273
1.9.4;Chapter 18: Trends in the Casualty Ratio of Injured to Fatalities in Earthquakes;274
1.9.4.1;18.1 Introduction;274
1.9.4.2;18.2 Properties of the Casualty Ratio;275
1.9.4.3;18.3 Data;277
1.9.4.4;18.4 The Casualty Ratio as a Function of Time and Space;278
1.9.4.5;18.5 Estimation of Human Losses Worldwide, Using the Casualty Ratio;279
1.9.4.6;18.6 Discussion and Conclusions;280
1.9.5;Chapter 19: Study of Damage to the Human Body Caused by Earthquakes: Development of a Mannequin for Thoracic Compression Experiments and CyberMannequin Using the Finite Element Method;282
1.9.5.1;19.1 Database of Casualties due to the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake;282
1.9.5.1.1;19.1.1 Records of the Casualties in the 1995 Great Earthquake;282
1.9.5.1.2;19.1.2 Deaths;283
1.9.5.1.3;19.1.3 Severe Injuries;285
1.9.5.2;19.2 Mannequin and Cyber Mannequin Development;286
1.9.5.2.1;19.2.1 Analysis of a Human Thoracic Compression Model by a CT Scanner;286
1.9.5.2.1.1;19.2.1.1 Method;287
1.9.5.2.1.1.1;Results;287
1.9.5.2.1.2;19.2.1.2 Issues to Consider in the Future;290
1.9.5.2.2;19.2.2 Mannequin Based on a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Mannequin;291
1.9.5.2.2.1;19.2.2.1 Static Loading Experiment to the Mannequin Chest;292
1.9.5.2.2.1.1;Risk Evaluation;292
1.9.5.3;19.3 Cyber Mannequin Using Finite Element Method;293
1.9.5.3.1;19.3.1 Software;293
1.9.5.3.2;19.3.2 Model;293
1.9.5.3.3;19.3.3 Simulation;294
1.9.5.4;19.4 Discussion;294
1.9.5.5;19.5 Conclusions;295
1.9.6;Chapter 20: A Different View on Human Vulnerabilityto Earthquakes: Lessons from Risk Perception Studies;297
1.9.6.1;20.1 Overview of Past Studies on Earthquake Risk Perception;297
1.9.6.1.1;20.1.1 The Influence of Perceived Riskon Seismic Adjustment Behaviours;298
1.9.6.1.2;20.1.2 The Influence of Community Orientation and Social Norms on Seismic Adjustment Behaviours;299
1.9.6.1.3;20.1.3 The Influence of Perceived Trust on Seismic Adjustment Behaviours;299
1.9.6.1.4;20.1.4 The Influence of Sense of Responsibility on Seismic Adjustment Behaviours;300
1.9.6.1.5;20.1.5 The Influence of Fatalism and Control on Seismic Adjustment Behaviours;301
1.9.6.2;20.2 Tentative New Perspectives on Human Vulnerabilityin Light of Existing Risk Perception Research;302
1.9.6.3;20.3 A New Study at UCL;303
1.9.6.3.1;20.3.1 UCL Study Methodology;303
1.9.6.3.2;20.3.2 Selected Results from the UCL EPICENTRE Questionnaire;304
1.9.6.3.2.1;20.3.2.1 Risk Perceived as Most Threatening in Each Culture and Group;304
1.9.6.3.2.2;20.3.2.2 Seismic Adjustments;306
1.9.6.3.2.3;20.3.2.3 Does Seismic Risk Perception Correlate with the Adoptionof Seismic Adjustments?;309
1.9.6.4;20.4 Conclusion;309
1.10;References;311
1.11;Index;325