Following the video surveillance and personal video cameras: New tools and innovations to health monitor the earthquake wave field

Abstract Video cameras are becoming essential tools for obtaining real-time information on the mechanical performance of structures and their contents during seismic events as well as information on the moving properties of propagating media, such as tsunamis, landslides, and water sloshing. Their recorded images also provide important clues on human behavior during shaking. In this paper a large set of situations obtained from published YouTube videos, involving structures, natural outfits, human behavior are presented. Video cameras cannot replace laboratory static tests or tests on shaking tables, pseudo-dynamic sub-structure testing, wind tunnels or the channel propagation of waves. However, information that is collected over time and well used is of great value, as it shows the real world without any shortcomings provoked by “similarity laws”, “boundary conditions”, or a “friction and nonlinear hypothesis”. This information should be collected even if it only serves as an “inspiration” to researchers by supporting new ideas that only visualization can provide. This type of information can be considered a random visual health monitoring system. The present paper pretends to show the added value brought by video and personal cameras to the health monitoring of the wave field. We supplement the presented observations with practical recommendations supported in a simple analysis. Once treated, the images can be used in presentations to illustrate different phenomena related to the wave propagation and effects on the built environment and can also serve as an inspiration for mathematical modeling and/or can supply information that otherwise would be lost.

[1]  G. Gazetas,et al.  ATC Mw7.1 Puebla–Morelos earthquake reconnaissance observations: Seismological, geotechnical, ground motions, site effects, and GIS mapping , 2020 .

[2]  E. Tams,et al.  Seismogramme : des nordpazifischen und südamerikanischen Erdbebens am 16. August 1906 , 1907 .

[3]  P. Sbarra,et al.  Quantification of earthquake diagnostic effects to assess low macroseismic intensities , 2020, Natural Hazards.

[4]  Mário Lopes,et al.  Seismic Performance of Non-structural Elements Assessed Through Shake Table Tests: The KnowRISK Room Set-Up , 2017 .

[5]  John Douglas,et al.  Special issue in memory of Nicholas Ambraseys , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[6]  H. O. Wood,et al.  Modified Mercalli intensity scale of 1931 , 1931 .

[8]  G. Grünthal.  European macroseismic scale 1998 : EMS-98 , 1998 .

[9]  Jun He,et al.  Earthquake evacuation simulation of multi-story buildings during earthquakes , 2020 .

[10]  Yuji Ishiyama,et al.  Motions of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by earthquake excitations , 1982 .

[11]  Victor Borovsky,et al.  Academy of Sciences of the USSR , 1970 .

[12]  C. Oliveira,et al.  3-D nonlinear behavior of an obelisk subjected to the Lorca May 11, 2011 strong motion record , 2015 .

[14]  Gian Michele Calvi,et al.  Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nonstructural Building Elements , 2018, Journal of Earthquake Engineering.

[15]  Gian Paolo Cimellaro,et al.  Simulating earthquake evacuation using human behavior models , 2017 .

[16]  Isabel Wagner,et al.  Privacy in the Smart City—Applications, Technologies, Challenges, and Solutions , 2018, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[17]  M. Goddard.  The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European Regulation that has a Global Impact , 2017 .

[18]  A note on peak accelerations computed from sliding of objects during the 1969 Banja Luka earthquakes in former Yugoslavia , 2015 .

[19]  C. S. Oliveira,et al.  Back-analysis of the Collapse of a Tetrastyle Canopy during the April 25, 2015 Nepal Earthquake , 2021, International Journal of Architectural Heritage.

[20]  H. Yoon,et al.  Effect of natural frequency modes on sloshing phenomenon in a rectangular tank , 2015 .