Probabilistic evaluation of observed earthquake damage data in Turkey

Natural Hazards

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 305-326

  Şengezer, Betül ^a   Ansal, Atilla ^b  

^a YILDIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Beta distribution; Binomial distribution; Damage; Earthquake; Probability matrices; Vulnerability

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; MASONRY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PROBABILITY; REINFORCED CONCRETE; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EURASIA; TURKEY;

EID: 33846373748     PISSN: 0921030X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-006-0016-8     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Akbar S (1989) Urban housing in seismic areas: A computerised methodology for evaluating planning strategies for risk mitigation. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 216 p
2. Akkaş N, Erdik M (1984) Consideration on Assessment of Earthquake Resistance of Existing Buildings. Int J Housing Sci 8:49-66
3. Ansal A, Iyisan R, Güllü H (2001) Microtremor measurements for the microzonation of Dinar. Pure and Applied Geophysics 158:2525-2541
4. Ansal A, Lav A (1995) Geotechnical Factors in 1992 Erzincan Earthquake. Proc. 5th Int. Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice 1:667-674
5. Ansal A, Şengezer BS, Iyisan R, Gençoǧlu S (1993) The Damage distribution in March 13, 1992 earthquake and effects of geotechnical factors. In: Seco e Pinto P (ed), Soil dynamics and geotechnical earthquake engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 413-434
6. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, ATC-13 Report. Redwood City, California, 492 p
7. Asilhan M, Şahin M, Turan E, Kiliç H (2000) Geological and geotechnical investigation report for the revision of the Adapazari Urban Plan, Adapazari Metropolitan Municipality, Planning Directorate, February, 36 p
8. Barbat AH, Moya FY, Canas JA (1996) Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthquake Spectra 12(3):371-394
9. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and ensuing review of the MSK-76 scale in Southern Italy Nov 23, 1980 Earthquake, Chapter 5, Geodynamics Project, CNR Publ. 503, Rome
10. Bray JD, Sancio RB, Durgunoǧlu HT, Önalp A, Seed RB, Stewart JP, Youd TL, Baturay MB, Çetin KÖ, Christensen C, Karadayilar T, Emrem C (2001) Ground failure in Adapazari, Turkey, Lessons learned from recent strong earthquakes, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference, XVth Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, pp 19-28
11. Charles C, Thiel CC, Boissonnade AC (1996) Divergence Between Estimated Building Vulnerability and Observed Damage: A Fuzzy Set Theory Reconciliation, ATC-20-3, Case Studies in Rapid Post earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Applied Technology Council, California, pp. 115-129
12. Coburn AW (1987) The use of intensity in earthquake vulnerability assessment, Appendix to Report to the European Association of Earthquake Engineering by Working Group 3, Vulnerability and Risk Analysis, Proc. of 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Moscow, USSR, 1990
13. Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex
14. Erdik M (1994) Developing a comprehensive earthquake disaster master plan for Istanbul, Issues in urban earthquake risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/ Netherlands, pp 125-166
15. Finn L (1994) Geotechnical aspects of the estimation and mitigation of earthquake risk, issues in urban earthquake risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/ Netherlands, pp 35-77
16. Grünthal G (ed) (1998) European macroseismic scale 1998, European Seismological Commission. Council of Europe, Luxembourg
17. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment, natural hazards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 177-192
18. Kircher CA, Nassar AA, Kustu O, Holmes WT (1997) Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra 13(4):663-682
19. Rojahn C (1994) Estimation of earthquake damage to buildings and other structures in large urban areas, issues in urban earthquake risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Netherlands, pp 79-95
20. Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. J Struct Eng 122(12):1458-1468
21. Åengezer B (1999) Damage analysis of Erzincan earthquake, March 13, 1992 and the problem of earthquake in Turkey. Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, 412 p
22. Åengezer B (1992) Investigation of seismic risk in urban areas in Turkey and development of disaster mitigation policies. PhD Dissertation, Yildiz Technical University, p 278
23. Spence R (2000) Recent earthquake damage in europe and implications for loss estimation methodologies, implications of recent earthquakes on seismic risk, Proc. of Japan-UK Seismic Risk Forum 3rd Workshop. Imperial College Press, London, UK, pp 77-89
24. Thiel CC, Zsutty TC (1987) Earthquake characteristics and damage statistics. Earthquake Spectra 13(4):747-792
25. UNDRO (1978) Disaster prevention and mitigation, a compendium of current knowledge, vol 5. Land Use Aspects, New York, 69 p
26. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1999) Implication for earthquake risk reduction in United States from the Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999, Denver, Colorado, 64 p
27. Whitman R, Reed J, Hong ST (1974) Earthquake damage probability matrices. Proc. 5th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Rome 2:2531-2540