2001
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.33
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of strong motion distribution in the 1995 Kobe earthquake based on building damage data

Abstract: SUMMARYThe 1995 Kobe earthquake caused unprecedented damage to buildings and civil infrastructures in the city of Kobe and its surrounding areas. In order to evaluate the structural damage in this area due to the earthquake, it is important to estimate the distribution of earthquake ground motion. However, since the number of strong ground motion records is not enough in the heavily damaged areas, it is necessary to estimate the distribution using other data sources. In this paper, the fragility curves for low… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the 1995 Kobe earthquake (M w 6.9), about 49 000 buildings were collapsed (G5 in EMS-98 scale) or severely damaged (G4) out of 560 000 buildings in the affected urban area (Building Research Institute, 1996). The recorded strong motion distribution in the Kobe earthquake was at a similar level to that of the Kumamoto earthquake (Yamaguchi and Yamazaki, 2001). However, in 1995, the number of strong motion accelerometers was much lower, about only 10 in the hard-hit zone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the 1995 Kobe earthquake (M w 6.9), about 49 000 buildings were collapsed (G5 in EMS-98 scale) or severely damaged (G4) out of 560 000 buildings in the affected urban area (Building Research Institute, 1996). The recorded strong motion distribution in the Kobe earthquake was at a similar level to that of the Kumamoto earthquake (Yamaguchi and Yamazaki, 2001). However, in 1995, the number of strong motion accelerometers was much lower, about only 10 in the hard-hit zone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…For instance, Whitman et al (1973) provided earthquake damage probability matrices using data collected after the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake. Yamazaki and Murao (2000) proposed vulnerability functions for Japanese buildings based on building inventory and damage data and the spatial distribution of strong motion (Yamaguchi and Yamazaki, 2001) during the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For comparison, a complete numerical analysis using the same FEM model used for the pushover analysis is also performed. The faultnormal component of the 1995 JMA Kobe ground motion is adopted for these analyses [24]. A 28% difference in the displacement response of the first story can be observed in Figure 5(a) between the initial-stiffness scheme and the overall analysis, while the difference is rather limited, 3%, comparing the secant stiffness with the overall analysis.…”
Section: Numerical Analyses By P2p Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A time interval of 0.01 s is adopted. The fault-normal ground motion recorded at the JR Takatori station during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake [24] is used. The ground motion is enlarged by 1.5 times to ensure severe damage to the column base and eventual collapse.…”
Section: Distributed Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They are expressed in different mathematical forms and can be based on observation data from one or more earthquakes. Even if sample sizes vary from 20 (Sarabandi et al 2004) up to hundreds of thousands of data (e.g., Yamaguchi and Yamazaki 2001), a suitable sample size can be considered 200 or above (Rossetto et al 2013).…”
Section: Empirical Fragility Relationshipsmentioning
confidence: 99%