EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 331 (2021) E3S Web Conf., 331 (2021) 07013 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 331, 2021
International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management (ICDMM 2021)
Article Number 07013
Number of page(s) 6
Section Tsunami and Seismic Engineering
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202133107013
Published online 13 December 2021
  1. P. Fajfar, Analysis in seismic provisions for buildings: past, present, and future: The fifth Prof. Nicholas Ambraseys lecture, 16, no. 7. Springer Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. L. G. Mejía, “A-Z of Seismic Failures,” Procedia Eng., 210, pp. 433–440, 2017, DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.11.098. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. A. Ayele, K. Woldearegay, and M. Meten, “A review on the multi-criteria seismic hazard analysis of Ethiopia: with implications of infrastructural development,” Geoenvironmental Disasters, 8, no. 1, 2021, DOI: 10.1186/s40677-020-00175-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. S. L. Kramer and S. B. Paulsen, “Practical use of geotechnical site response models,” Proceedings, Int. Work. Uncertainties Nonlinear Soil Prop. their Impact Model. Dyn. Soil Response, PEER Cent. Headquarters, Richmond, Calif., 1–10, 2004, [Online]. Available: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Practical+Use+of+Geotechnical+Site+Response+Models#0. [Google Scholar]
  5. F. Mulargia, P. B. Stark, and R. J. Geller, “Why is Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) still used?,” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 264, 63–75, Mar. 2017, DOI: 10.1016/J.PEPI.2016.12.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. A. Kharazian, S. Molina, J. J. Galiana-Merino, and N. Agea-Medina, “Risk-targeted hazard maps for Spain,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., 19, 13, pp. 5369–5389, 2021, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-021-01189-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. B. Yön, E. Sayın, and O. Onat, “Earthquake and Structural Damages,” in Earthquakes -Tectonics, Hazard and Risk Mitigation, no. Earthquakes, Intech, 2017, 319–339. [Google Scholar]
  8. G. Çnce, “The relationship between the performance of soil conditions and damage following an earthquake: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey,” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 2011, DOI: 10.5194/nhess-11-1745-2011. [Google Scholar]
  9. Masrilayanti, A. P. Nasution, and R. Kurniawan, “Seismic response of cable-stayed bridge subjected to single-support excitation on various soil condition,” 2020, DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202015605003. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. F. Petruzzelli and I. Iervolino, NODE: a large‐scale seismic risk prioritization tool for Italy based on nominal structural performance, 19, 7. Springer Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  11. L. Martins, V. Silva, H. Crowley, and F. Cavalieri, “Vulnerability modelers toolkit, an open-source platform for vulnerability analysis,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 19, 13, 5691–5709, 2021, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-021-01187-w. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. C. Scawthorn, “A Brief History of Seismic Risk Assessment,” in Risk Assessment, Modeling and Decision Support, S. F. Gottlieb, Ann Bostrom, Ed. Springer, 5–81 (2006) [Google Scholar]
  13. B. A. Bradley, R. P. Dhakal, M. Cubrinovski, G. A. MacRae, and D. S. Lee, “Seismic loss estimation for efficient decision making,” Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 42, 2, 96–110 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. C.J. van Westen, “Risk assessment methods,” 2011. https://www.cdema.org/virtuallibrary/index.php/charim-hbook/methodology/5-risk-assessment/5-5-risk-assessment-methods (accessed Oct. 05, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  15. R. K. McGuire, “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Early history,” Earthquake Engineering, and Structural Dynamics, 37, 3. (2008) [Google Scholar]
  16. K. R. Karim and F. Yamazaki, “A simplified method of constructing fragility curves for highway bridges,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. (2003) [Google Scholar]
  17. M. Masrilayanti, A. P. Nasution, R. Kurniawan, J. Tanjung, and S. Sarmayenti, “Fragility Curve Analysis of Medium Cable Stayed Bridge,” Civ. Environ. Eng., 17, 1, pp. 209–218 (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. G. R. Searer, S. A. Freeman, and T. F. Paret, “Does it make sense from engineering and economic perspectives to design for a 2475-year earthquake?,” Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am., 425 (2007) [Google Scholar]
  19. R. Fenwick and G. Macrae, “Comparison of New Zealand standards used for seismic design of concrete buildings,” Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 42, 3, pp. 187–203 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. M. Irsyam et al., “Development of the 2017 national seismic hazard maps of Indonesia,” Earthq. Spectra, 36, 1_suppl (2020) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.