Probabilistic assessment of earthquake insurance rates for buildings - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 792

of an earthquake intensity scale is convenient while integrating the hazard
and the earthquake damage which is known with respect to different inten-
sity levels. Besides, it predicts the intensity as a function of the earthquake
magnitude and connects a link between the earthquake catalogue in mag-
nitude scales and the seismic hazard in intensity units. Since neither Musson
(2000) nor Ambraseys (1988) made a discrimination among the earth-
quakes of the catalogue with respect to the soil conditions of the locations
where damage occurred, our seismic hazard analysis is expected to yield
results compatible with average local soil conditions.
Different seismic hazard combinations are formed under the consider-
ation of either the whole earthquake catalogue or the main shocks only,
either incomplete or complete catalogs, using either the standard least
squares regression or the maximum likelihood method when obtaining the
recurrence relationships, different forms of the selected attenuation rela-
tionship and different levels of attenuation uncertainty. Finally, the best
estimate hazard curves are obtained to be the combination of 2 4 48

different cases. While combining the results of these cases, logic tree
approach is utilized and subjective weights are assigned to each alternative
case. These weights, which are shown in Table 29.2, represent the probability
of each assumption being valid as compared to the alternative ones and are
based mainly on the opinion of the author.

× 3 =

29.3.2 Estimation of earthquake damage through damage
probability matrices

Most of the building stock in Turkey under earthquake hazard is low to
medium-rise buildings. High-rise buildings are usually designed and con-
structed with special care and comply highly with superior earthquake-
resistant design principles. For this reason, the focus is given to the low- and
medium-rise buildings. However, a basic distinction is made depending on
the construction material so that reinforced concrete and masonry buildings
are treated in different categories as their earthquake responses are quite
different. Here only reinforced concrete buildings are considered.
In the conventional DPM-based method, separate matrices have been
formed for different seismic zones. The reason for this is that different levels
of expected earthquake excitation are considered during the design and
construction of buildings in different seismic zones. Gurpinar et al. (1978)
separated the expected damage of structures depending on their compli-
ance with earthquake-resistant design provisions and established two
groups: as buildings constructed according to the Code (AC) and buildings
constructed not in accordance with the requirements of the Code (NAC).
The available DPMs are complemented with empirical damage data for
the ten recent earthquakes, namely, 1999 Marmara and 1999 Duzce, 2002