Seismicity of Komárom-Mór area

Zsíros, T.

doi:10.1556/ageod.39.2004.1.12

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These are used in the magnitude estimation procedure (Fig. 1) to estimate the probability of a damaging event P(E|im,m,r) which is achieved by combining the fragilities with the number of buildings under damage states n k =[dm 0 … dm 4 ]=[105 44 42 35 27], fractions of the total number of damaged structures [14], [15].…”

Section: Fragility Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The founding remark in seismology was written in Réthly's The Earthquakes of the Carpathian Basin [19] with antecedent in the 18 th century Dissertatio de Terrae Motibus Regni Hungariae, by János Grossinger [17] an eye-witness of the event. The work sourced the later characterization of the regional seismicity [14], [20]- [22]. The magnitude is currently estimated in between 5.7 [23]- [25] and 6.5 [15] (Table I).…”

Section: Later Sources and Magnitude Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A methodology for the development of historical building archetypes for seismic performance assessment

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The probabilistic estimation of the magnitude of historical earthquakes requires the analysis of actual building structures affected by those earthquakes. The analysis complicates because most of these buildings no longer exist or were greatly modified, present a great variety of features and the number of analysis for probabilistic assessment is high. As it is not practical to analyze all structures, an alternative is to use structural archetypes representing the affected buildings. This paper presents an approach to develop a quantitative framework for the generation of historical archetypes. The method is illustrated via the definition of a specific archetype for the study and assessment of the effects of the 1763 Komárom earthquake. The historical survey of Tata, Hungary, is assumed as representative of the region and one historical building is utilized to illustrate the archetypes evaluation process.

show abstract

Section: Fragility Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Later Sources and Magnitude Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A methodology for the development of historical building archetypes for seismic performance assessment

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most active seismogenic zone is the Berhida-Komárom zone (Fig. 1), where the largest known Hungarian earthquake has occurred in 1763 with a magnitude of 6.1 (Zsíros, 2004). Its epicentral intensity was IX degree on the EMS scale.…”

Section: Seismicity In the Central Pannonian Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1810, a 5.4 magnitude earthquake hit near Mór (I 0 =VIII), a city south of Komárom (Kitaibel and Tomtsányi, 1814;Zsíros, 2000Zsíros, , 2004. This event was the first thoroughly studied Hungarian earthquake (Réthly, 1910).…”

Section: Seismicity In the Central Pannonian Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroseismic intensity data of the 22 April 2013 Tenk (Hungary) earthquake

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 22 April 2013 an earthquake of magnitude 4.8 occurred near the village of Tenk (Hungary), which was the strongest Hungarian earthquake in the past 28 years. This event was detected by a number of seismological stations, thus it is well documented. Nevertheless, it is still possible to get further data through macroseismic surveys, which cannot be obtained using seismological instruments, but are very useful for the understanding of seismic properties of the affected area.The studied earthquake was felt in approximately third of the territory of Hungary. The number of incoming macroseismic questionnaires was over eight hundred and damage descriptions for the epicentral area reached almost one thousand. Intensity evaluation was carried out following the European Macroseismic Scale guidelines (Grünthal et al, 1998). Intensities were assigned to 211 places, including 23 districts of Budapest. The earthquake caused non-structural building damages, the epicentral intensity was estimated as VI on the EMS-98 scale and was assigned to three villages: Tenk,Átány and Erdőtelek. The event was widely felt west to the epicentre, but much less observed in the east direction. The asymmetry of the intensity distribution raises questions and requires further investigation.

show abstract

“…The earthquakes occur usually in shallow depth (6-15 km) in the upper part of the crust in the entire Carpathian basin (Tóth et al 1999). This event caused significant damage on about 3 thousands square kilometers and some people were killed (Zsíros 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of quarry blasts from the aftershock sequence of the Oroszlány (Hungary) January 29, 2011 $$\hbox {M}_\mathrm{L}=4.5$$ M L = 4.5

Kiszely

Győri

2014

Acta Geod Geophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Vértes Hills are one of the most active seismic regions in Hungary. An M L = 4.5 magnitude earthquake shocked this area near to Oroszlány on January 29, 2011. The mainshock was followed by about four hundred aftershocks, and their magnitude varied from M L = −0.6 to M L = 3.5. Despite of the large number of aftershocks, the seismotectonic interpretation is very difficult because these earthquakes occurred in the vicinity of quarries. The waveform similarity analysis was proven a successful method to separate earthquakes and explosions, and revealed plus information about the aftershock sequence.

show abstract

Seismicity of Komárom-Mór area

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

A methodology for the development of historical building archetypes for seismic performance assessment

A methodology for the development of historical building archetypes for seismic performance assessment

Macroseismic intensity data of the 22 April 2013 Tenk (Hungary) earthquake

Separation of quarry blasts from the aftershock sequence of the Oroszlány (Hungary) January 29, 2011 $$\hbox {M}_\mathrm{L}=4.5$$ M L = 4.5

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About