D-A-CH TAGUNG 2011 - SGEB

Construction costs have been seen to be approximately 10% less in Belgium, andapproximately 10% greater in the Netherlands. This has been adjusted within the analysis.Based on [34] and other city and town values of construction costs, the population class alsogives a change in the construction cost per m 2 . In cities, construction is more expensive than incountry towns. Based on population in the settlements to keep the average construction cost perm 2 living area at €1450 per m 2 , the following construction factors are proposed.Table 4: Median range per population class of construction cost per m 2 living area.Population Class P1 P2 P3 P4 P5€/m 2 1070 1260 1380 1480 1640In Western Germany, the average space per inhabitant is 44m 2 . In the Netherlands, thisvalue is 57m 2 . In Belgium, the average space per inhabitant is approximately the same as inGermany. Some non-residential exposure elements have been modelled using the guidelines ofthe [3] and [6] studies for Cologne. Additional calculations of assets based on area, totaleconomic value and no., were calculated for various settlements in the P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5classes in the following elements:- (1) Manufacturing and industrial elements, (2) PublicService, Educational and other associated infrastructure, (3) Commercial and Serviceselements, (4) Transportation and Communication, (5) Energy and Water supplies, (6)Agricultural elements.It is very difficult to generalise non-residential elements however, spatial and percentagedistributions have been made, based on location. It must be noted that there are additionallosses due to non-settlement based agricultural, manufacturing, energy and service supplies andthese must be added via other methods (use of remote sensing, percentage of GDP or othermethods).Table 5: Percentage of direct economic loss associated with non-residential elementsResidential IndustrialPublic/EduTrans. AndCommercial/GovCommunic.Energy Agric.P1 79.81 3.99 0.80 0.80 0.24 3.19 11.17P2 74.91 5.24 4.49 3.00 0.37 4.49 7.49P3 70.08 7.01 6.31 6.31 0.49 5.61 4.20P4 66.23 7.95 7.28 9.27 0.66 6.62 1.99P5 61.24 9.19 8.57 12.25 0.80 7.35 0.61The floor space for certain age classes of the building stock was also taken into accountusing values from the census. This was used for vulnerability classification but also in thepercentage of elements. This vulnerability classification has been used as well as other studies,the results of [3] and [6]. After characterisation of the various building stock components,residential classes have been loosely based on the work of [2] and further research. It must benoted that most earthquake design is calculated to ERD-L or a low earthquake resistant designlevel (i.e. intensity VII) even within seismic code regions.The following mean damage ratios are suggested by EMS-98 vulnerability classes. There isa distribution around this mean to take into account natural variation i.e. not all buildings with avulnerability class A will have a mean damage of 92%, but there will be some completelydestroyed, and a few with only 50% damage. A normal distribution has been used around thesevalues, using the damage grading as recommended in [35], [2] etc.719