D-A-CH TAGUNG 2011 - SGEB

3 EXPOSURE/VULNERABILITY COMPONENTS FOR THE EQ SCENARIOConsidering the large number of settlements affected by an earthquake of this magnitude,classification of settlements using the methodology of [2],[5] and [6] has been used to createvulnerability relationships based on the town size (class P1, P2, P3, P4, P5). This works wellfor Germany, Belgium and Netherlands due to the differing housing types between settlementsizes (i.e. multiple family houses and apartments are more common in cities, and one and twofamily homes are more likely in smaller settlements). This is not always the case in othercountries such as Australia where the typologies remain similar between small towns and largecities.A detailed residential housing and settlements analysis has been first undertaken to examinethe various previous seismic codes employed in Germany, Netherlands and Belgium, buildingtypologies, building costs and building year for each of the 5 types of settlements based onpopulation class. 1917 marked the first construction industry standard (DIN) for Germany. [24]gives a good comparison of past seismic codes for Germany. The first seismic code wasemployed as DIN4149:1957, slightly after the Euskirchen earthquake of 1951. Updates to thiscode were made in 1981 following the 1978 Albstadt earthquakes, in 1992 and then in 2005where Eurocode 8 changes were taken into account [25]. [26] also provides useful input intovulnerability calculations as a result of the employed seismic codes combined with hazardcalculations.It has been assumed for this study that the neighbouring regions in Belgium and Netherlandsare the same as Germany. The study of [27] shows the approximation that the locations ofZones 1 (a o >0.05g) and 2 (a o >0.1g) in Belgium are the same as Zones 2 (a o >0.066g) and 3(a o >0.1g) in Germany. In the Netherlands, [28] shows Zone C (EMS-98 VI, a o >0.05g) and D(EMS-98, VII, a o >0.1g) which will be taken the same as zones 2 and 3 in Germany. Thus, inthe vulnerability measurements, two classes will be calculated – low seismic protection andmoderate seismic protection.A loose residential building typology based on the EMS-98 damage classes from theCEDIM study by [2] has been defined. However, it has been decided that there existed enoughdata to do a detailed analysis of building typologies. This has been updated to more accuratevalues using the additional information sources from [6] for Cologne as well as [29], [30] and[31]. Most databases in Germany consist of occupancy housing types (one or two familyhomes, country houses, row houses, terrace houses, more family houses, block houses and highrise buildings) rather than including data on the load-bearing structures. As part of this study,HAZUS classes have been created for the building stock within this northern Rhine region.There are many different load bearing structures that can be found in Germany, dependingon location, age of settlement, building material availability and other factors. Some of themost common typologies include:- 1) masonry buildings with wooden flooring, 2) masonrybuildings with waffle beam flooring (hollow blocks), 3) reinforced concrete (RC) columns withmasonry infill and concrete diaphragms, 4) stone buildings, 5) reinforced concrete buildings, 6)steel moment frame masonry infill, 7) wood/timber constructions.It is reasonably difficult to characterise these due to the sheer number of living quarters(39.6 million in 2009) in Germany. Thus, it is necessary to also consult age in order tocharacterise which building types have been used. [30] provides a good summary of thesetypologies classified by year and by certain building types – one family houses, row houses,517