2006
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-005-8638-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Seismic Risk Studies for German Earthquake Regions on the Basis of the European Macroseismic Scale EMS-98

Abstract: Within the framework of recent research projects, basic tools for GIS-based seismic risk assessment technologies were developed and applied to the building stock and regional particularities of German earthquake regions. Two study areas are investigated, being comparable by the level of seismic hazard and the hazard-consistent scenario events (related to mean return periods of 475, 2475 and 10000 years). Significant differences exist with respect to the number of inhabitants, the grade and extent of urbanisati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0
10

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
(6 reference statements)
1
14
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The joint team agreed to use a damage scale that was developed several years ago in Europe, the European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98) version (Grünthal et al, 1998;Schwarz et al, 2006;Musson et al, 2010), to ensure standardization of the resultant damage assessment product. The EMS-98 scale includes five damage grades: 1 -no visible damage; 2 -minor damage; 3 -moderate damage; 4 -very heavy damage; and 5 -destroyed (Grünthal et al, 1998).…”
Section: Post-earthquake Damage Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The joint team agreed to use a damage scale that was developed several years ago in Europe, the European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98) version (Grünthal et al, 1998;Schwarz et al, 2006;Musson et al, 2010), to ensure standardization of the resultant damage assessment product. The EMS-98 scale includes five damage grades: 1 -no visible damage; 2 -minor damage; 3 -moderate damage; 4 -very heavy damage; and 5 -destroyed (Grünthal et al, 1998).…”
Section: Post-earthquake Damage Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering the expected differences in the way that buildings will respond to earthquake shaking including factors like workmanship, state of maintenance etc., the most probable vulnerability class (A, B, C, D) was assigned to each building. Additionally, transitional classes (A-B, B-C, C-D) were introduced (Schwarz et al, 2004). This follows strictly the European Macroseismic Scale EMS-98 (Grünthal, 1998).…”
Section: Estimation Of Losses Due To Earthquakesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dennoch hat sich ein wachsendes Interesse entwickelt, die seismische Vulnerabilität des existierenden Gebäudebestands besser zu verstehen (z. B. Sadegh-Azar [44], Schwarz et al [29], [35], [36], [45], Meskouris und Hinzen [46], Raschke [47]). Die in diesen Studien gewonnenen Erfahrungen sind in die Vulnerabilitäts-und Schadensanalyse der vorliegenden Studie eingeflossen.…”
Section: Seismische Vulnerabilitätunclassified
“…Gemeindeklasse [29], [35], [36] auch hinweisen, dass der Gebäudebestand bevölkerungsreicher Gemeinden (urbane Gebiete) generell durch eine Zusammensetzung geringerer Vulnerabilität charakterisiert ist als kleinere Gemeinden (ländliche Regionen).…”
Section: Ort Gemeindeunclassified
See 1 more Smart Citation