This study investigated and classified typical structures in rural village and analyzed the vulnerability. Based on the statistics of earthquake damages with magnitudes above 5 from 1996 to 2013 in China, the damage matrixes of types of structures in rural village are obtained. The vulnerability index and equation of structure are crucial to assess the earthquake losses of typical structures under different magnitudes earthquakes. According to the seismic loss of different types of structures under different earthquake magnitudes, there are possible to improve the seismic resilience of the buildings in rural village. Moreover, the regional vulnerability is analyzed by β probability distribution function. The comprehensive seismic vulnerability index of different types of structures in rural villages is obtained. The main research is to predict the loss of different types of structures under different earthquake magnitudes in the future, and to provide technical support for types of buildings in rural village reinforcement.
AlexHFabricioYJoséAC, et al. (1996) Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthquake Spectra12(3): 371–394. DOI: 10.1193/1.1585889. Issue published: 1 August 1996.
2.
AsterisPGChronopoulosMPChrysostomouCZ, et al. (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Engineering Structures62–63: 118–134. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.031.
3.
Earthquake Administration China (1998) Outline and Technical Guidelines for Earthquake Site Work. Earthquake Press, Beijing, 1998, 05. (in Chinese).
4.
Earthquake Information Network China (2020) Earthquake Disaster Data in China. Available at:http://www.gopi.com.cn/ (accessed 10 July 2020).
5.
FerreiraTMMaioRVicenteR, et al. (2016) Seismic vulnerability assessment of the old city centre of Horta, Azores: calibration and application of a seismic vulnerability index method. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(7): 2879–2899. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-016-0071-9.
6.
GautamDChaulagainH (2016) Structural performance and associated lessons to be learned from world earthquakes in Nepal after 25 April 2015 (MW 7.8) Gorkha earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis68: 222–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.06.002.
7.
GB/T 17742-2020 (2020) The Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale. Beijing: China Earthquake Administration.
GB/T 18208.4-2005 (2005) Post-Earthquake Field Works—Part 4: Assessment of Direct Loss. Beijing.
10.
GüçhanNŞ (2007) Observations on earthquake resistance of traditional timber-framed structures in Turkey. Building and Environment42(Issue 2): 840–851. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.027.
11.
KennethAFranchGGianM, et al. (2008) A seismic vulnerability index for confined masonry shear wall buildings and a relationship with the damage. Engineering Structure10(30): 2605–2612.
12.
LiS-QChenY-S (2020) Analysis of the probability matrix model for the seismic damage vulnerability of empirical structures. Natural Hazards104(1): 705–730. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04187-2.
13.
LourençoPB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials4(3): 301–319. DOI: 10.1002/pse.120.
14.
LourencoPBOliveiraDVLeiteJC, et al. (2013) Simplified indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: international database and validation. Engineering Failure Analysis1(34): 585–605.
15.
LourencoPBRoqueJA (2006) Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry buildings. Construction and Building Materials4(20): 200–208.
16.
MauroDAngeloMMariaM, et al. (2003) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of potenza (southern Italy) including site effects. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering1: 115–140. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024809511362.
17.
MilutinovicZVTrendafiloskiGS (2003) An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risks Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns. Greece: WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings Risk-UE 2003.
18.
National Institute of Building Sciences (1997) Hazards Risk Assessment Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences.
19.
OYO Corporation (1999) RADIUS Methodology. IDNDR.
20.
PakdamarFKaraFIEryilmazY, et al. (2019) Seismic risk assessment using updated hazard and building inventory data. Građevinar71(5): 375–387. DOI: 10.14256/jce.2329.2018.
21.
PolatGRandolphL (2004) The earthquake resistance of traditional timber and masonry dwellings in Turkey. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 1 August-6 August 2004, Paper No. 2297.
22.
PreciadoARamirez-GaytanASantosJC, et al. (2020) Seismic vulnerability assessment and reduction at a territorial scale on masonry and adobe housing by rapid vulnerability indicators: the case of Tlajomulco, Mexico. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction44: 101425. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101425.
23.
RomisFCapriliSSalvatoreW, et al. (2021) An improved seismic vulnerability assessment approach for historical urban centres: the case study of Campi Alto di Norcia, Italy. Applied Sciences11(2): 849. DOI: 10.3390/app11020849.
24.
ŞahinGüçhanN (2007) Observations on earthquake resistance of traditional timber-framed houses in Turkey. Building and Environment42(2): 840–851. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.027.
25.
VettoreMDonàMCarpaneseP, et al. (2020) A multilevel procedure at urban scale to assess the vulnerability and the exposure of residential masonry buildings: the case study of Pordenone, Northeast Italy. Heritage3(4): 1433–1468. DOI: 10.3390/heritage3040080.
26.
VotsisRAKyriakidesNChrysostomouCZ, et al. (2012) Ambient vibration testing of two masonry monuments in Cyprus. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering43: 58–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.015.
27.
YaoXQ (2016) Analysis of Tianjin Rural Residential Vulnerability and Seismic Capacity Distribution. Harbin: Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration.
28.
YaoXQLiangBZhangH, et al. (2021) Typical brick masonry walls reinforced with high-strength mortar and steel bars in the horizontal joints. Advances in Structural Engineering24(12): 2767–2779. DOI: 10.1177/13694332211012238.
29.
YaoXQSunBTChenYK, et al. (2017a) Study on distribution of seismic capacity of Tianjin rural residence. Building structure47(S1): 578–582. (in Chinese).
30.
YaoXQSunBTChenYK, et al. (2018) Elasto-plastic finite element analysis of typical brick-wood rural buildings under ground motions. China earthquake engineering journal40(1): 32–40. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0844.2018.01.032.
31.
YaoXQSunBTChenYK, et al. (2019) Investigation and analysis on seismic performance of rural residences in Tianjin. Building structure49(No. 16): 578–582. (in Chinese).
32.
YaoXQSunBTLiuF, et al. (2020) Research on seismic capacity of brick-wood structure farmhouse based on modal test in a certain area of North China. Earthquake engineering and engineering dynamics40(4): 164–172. (in Chinese).
33.
YaoXQSunBTLiuF, et al. (2017b) Study on distribution of seismic capacity of Tianjin rural residence. Journal of Natural Disasters26(6): 31–38. (in Chinese).
34.
YousfiNBensaibiM (2018) Weighting assessment of vulnerability index parameters for reinforced masonry structures. Structural Engineering International27(1): 79–87. DOI: 10.2749/101686617x14676303589435.
