All buildings in Iceland are registered in an official database that contains detailed information about them, and insurance against natural disasters is obligatory. When a destructive earthquake occurs, all damage is reported, and the repair and replacement cost for every affected building is evaluated. In May 2008, a shallow earthquake of magnitude Mw = 6.3 struck in South Iceland. A great deal of damage occurred, but fortunately, there was no loss of life. The recorded maximum PGA was 0.88 g. Detailed and complete information of all real estate property and the damage incurred, along with recorded strong-motion data and an area-specific attenuation model, have provided an opportunity to create probabilistic damage curves for the building stock in the affected area. The damage model obtained from the 2008 earthquake was tested and verified by using it to back-calculate the damage that occurred in the two South Iceland earthquakes of June 2000 (Mw = 6.5).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbraseysN., SmithP., SigbjörnssonR., SuhadolcP., and MargarisB., 2002. Internet Site for European Strong-Motion Data, European Commission, Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme.
2.
AndersonT. W., and DarlingD. A., 1952. Asymptotic theory of certain “goodness-of-fit” criteria based on stochastic processes, Annals of Mathematical Statistics23, 193–212.
3.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1978. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC-3-06 (NBS SP-510), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
4.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1985. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Report No. ATC-13, Redwood City, CA.
5.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2002. Commentary on the Use of ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for Probable Maximum Loss Studies of California Buildings, Report No. ATC-13-1, Redwood city, CA.
6.
BessasonB., and HaflidasonE., 2004. Recorded and numerical strong motion response of a base-isolated bridge, Earthquake Spectra20, 309–332.
7.
BessasonB., and KayniaA. M., 2002. Site amplification in lava rock on soft sediments, Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering22, 525–540.
8.
DouglasJ., 2003. Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates, Earth-Science Reviews61, 43–104.
9.
ColombiM., BorziB., CrowleyH., OnidaM., MeroniF., and PinhoR., 2008. Deriving vulnerability curves using Italian earthquake damage data, Bull. Earthquake Eng. 6, 485–504.
10.
EinarssonP., 1991. Earthquakes and present-day tectonism in Iceland, Tectonophysics189, 261–279.
11.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2004. Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, Brussels.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1999. HAZUS User and Technical Manuals. FEMA Report: HAZUS 1999, Washington D.C.
13.
GrünthalG., editor, (EMS 1998) 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998, Council of Europe, Cahiers du Centre Euroéen de Géodynamique at de Sismologie.
14.
HalldórssonB., SigbjörnssonR., and SchweitzerJ., 2009. ICEARRAY: The first small-aperture, strong-motion array in Iceland, Journal of Seismology13, 173–178.
15.
HalldórssonB., and SigbjörnssonR., 2009. The Mw = 6.3 Ölfus Earthquake at 15:45 UTC on May 29 2008 in South Iceland: ICEARRAY strong-motion recordings, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29, 1073–1083.
16.
HillM., and RossettoT., 2008. Comparison of building damage scales and damage descriptions for use in earthquake loss modeling in Europe, Bull. Earthquake Eng. 6, 335–365
17.
JónssonM. H., BessasonB., and HaflidasonE., 2010. Earthquake response of a base-isolated bridge subjected to strong near-fault ground motion, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering30, 447–455.
18.
ÓlafssonS., and SigbjörnssonR., 2002. Attenuation of Strong-Motion in the South Iceland Earthquakes of June 2000, Proc. of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM: Paper 412, Elsevier, London.
19.
ÓlafssonS., 1999. Estimation of Earthquake-Induced Response, Ph.D. Thesis 1999:75, Institute for Marine structures, NTNU, Norway.
20.
RossettoT., and ElnashaiA., 2003. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data, Engineering Structures25, 1241–1263.
21.
RotaM., PennaA., and StrobbiaC. L., 2008. Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering28, 933–947.
22.
RotaM., PennaA., and MagenesG., 2010. A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analysis, Engineering Structures32, 1312–1323.
23.
SigbjörnssonR., BessasonB., SigfússonT. I., and SigfússonT., 1998. Earthquake risk mitigation in South Iceland, 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Paris.
24.
SigbjörnssonR., SnæbjörnssonJ. T., HigginsS. M., HalldórssonB., and ÓlafssonS., 2009. A note on the Mw6.3 earthquake in Iceland on 29 May 2008 at 15:45 UTC, Bull. Earthquake Eng. 7, 113–126.
25.
SigbjörnssonR., ÓlafssonS., and ThórarinssonÓ., 2004. Strong-motion recordings in Iceland, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 2370, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Mira.
26.
SomervilleP. G., SmithN. F., GravesR. W., and AbrahamsonN. A., 1997. Modification of empirical strong motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effect of rupture directivity, Seismological Research Letters68, 199–222.
27.
ThoroddsenT., 1899. JarÐskjálftar á SuÐurlandi, Hid íslenzka bókmenntafjelag, Copenhagen, Denmark (in Icelandic).
28.
WaldD. J., QuitorianoV., HeatonT. H., and KanamoriH., 1999. Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and Modified Mercally Intensity in California, Earthquake Spectra15, 557–564.
