Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal o Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Comparison and modelling o building losses in South Iceland

caused by dierent size earthquakes
Bjarni Bessason a, *, Rajesh Rupakhety a, Jón Örvar Bjarnason b
a
Faculty o Civil & Environmental Engineering, University o Iceland, Hjardarhagi 2, 107, Reykjavik, Iceland
b
Natural Catastrophe Insurance o Iceland, Hlídarsmári 14, 201, Kópavogur, Iceland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In June 2000, two earthquakes o Mw6.52 and Mw6.44 occurred with a 4-day interval in the
Seismic vulnerability South Iceland seismic zone, and in May 2008, a Mw6.30 earthquake occurred urther west in the
Fragility unctions zone. Their epicentres and ault ruptures were close to small towns and arms, and almost 5000
Zero-inated beta regression residential buildings were aected in each o these two seismic events. Despite substantial
Seismic codes damage, no residential building collapsed and there were no atalities. Catastrophe insurance o
GEM taxonomy
buildings is mandatory in Iceland. Driven by insurance claims, repair cost was estimated or every
ESRM20
aected building, and registered in two independent datasets, called hereater the 2000 and the
2008 dataset. Two complete loss datasets rom dierent size earthquakes, aecting the same
building typologies in the same region is rare to fnd in the literature. Valuable inormation can be
drawn by comparing the losses caused by these events on the housing stock. In this study an
advanced empirical vulnerability model based on zero-inated beta regression was ftted to fve
building typologies, based on GEM taxonomy, independently or the 2000 dataset and the 2008
dataset. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) was used as intensity measure. The vulnerability
model and the ragility curves are substantially dierent rom these two datasets. For a given
PGA, the mean losses based on the 2000 dataset was typically roughly twice that based on the
2008 dataset. Such a large dierence in losses or similar building types located in the same area
indicates that PGA is not alone an adequate intensity measure to predict losses. The study also
showed that high code buildings perormed better than low code buildings.

1. Introduction
Seismic hazard is high in Iceland [1,2]. In this century alone, three destructive earthquakes have struck in the South Iceland Seismic
Zone (SISZ). On 17 and June 21, 2000, two, similar size, Mw6.52, and Mw6.44, earthquakes struck in the eastern part o the zone [2].
These events occurred on two shallow strike-slip aults oriented north-south, and approximately 16 km apart (Fig. 1). They aected
nearly 5000 low-rise residential buildings. On May 29, 2008, a Mw6.30 earthquake struck urther west in the zone and again aected
nearly 5000 buildings [2,3]. The area inuenced by these events is an agricultural region with small towns, arms, bridges and all the
inrastructure assets o a modern society. Mandated by law, all properties in Iceland are insured against natural hazards, including
earthquakes [4]. Thereore, ater the two 2000 earthquakes and again ater the 2008 event, monitory losses were estimated or each
damaged building to address insurance claims. Registers Iceland maintains a detailed property database containing comprehensive
inormation about all building units in Iceland [5]. Combination o the property database and loss paid out or damaged buildings

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bb@hi.is (B. Bessason), rajesh@hi.is (R. Rupakhety), jon@nti.is (J.Ö. Bjarnason).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103806
Received 11 September 2021; Received in revised orm 15 November 2021; Accepted 30 November 2021
Available online 3 December 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 1. Epicentre and ault ruptures o the three earthquakes considered in this study. Residential buildings and settlements are marked with red dots, with their size
scaled to the population. The 2008 event occurred closer to the densely populated areas than the 2000 events. The area within 30 km rom the ault rupture was
aected by the 2008 event and within 35 km or the 2000 events. The capital area o Reykjavik is outside these ranges. (For interpretation o the reerences to colour in
this fgure legend, the reader is reerred to the Web version o this article.)

provides a complete loss dataset. Loss datasets corresponding to the 2000 and 2008 events are hereater reerred to as the 2000 dataset
and the 2008 dataset, respectively. The two datasets are complete in the sense that they include every building exposed to estimated
PGA o 005g or more, and thereore give unique possibilities to study dierent aspects o seismic vulnerability [6]. The datasets have to
some extent, been analysed and modelled in previous studies concentrating on losses in residential buildings. The frst vulnerability
model using only the 2008 dataset was presented by Bessason et al., in 2012 [7]. A detailed overview o how the losses in the 2008
dataset were classifed into dierent subcategories o structural and non-structural damage was reported in Re. [8]. Classical ragility
unctions using the lognormal distribution were calibrated using both the 2000 and 2008 datasets combined into one dataset in
Re. [9]. Then Ioannou et al. in Re. [10] used an advanced beta-regression [11] to model the losses caused by the two June 2000
earthquakes. Buildings located between the two aults o the 2000 earthquakes (Fig. 1) were to some degree aected by both events,
and thereore damage accumulation rom the two events was also considered in this beta regression model. Finally, Bessason et al. [12]
improved the loss modelling by applying a zero-inated beta regression model (ZIBRM) [13] to better account or the large proportion
o buildings that suered no damage in the June 2000 events. This last model also has more exibility than the previous beta model in
Re. [10] in two aspects. First, the regression parameters are calibrated or each building typology separately, and second, two extra
parameters are used to model the zero-losses, in total fve model parameters or each building typology [12].
To our best knowledge, the frst use o ZIBRM to model post-earthquake loss data is in Re. [12] authored by same authors as this
study. The most important novelty o the ZIBRM is that it treats the no-loss buildings specially and help to bend the vulnerability curves
down towards zero loss at low intensity. By this the models better reect the dominance o no-loss data in that intensity range.
Presenting the capability o using this type o advanced statistical tool in empirical vulnerability assessment is thereore believed to be
important contribution in the feld.
The objective o this study is threeold. First, to study the eect o earthquake size by comparing the losses rom the two datasets.
Availability o complete loss data rom two dierent sized earthquakes aecting the same building stock in the same region makes this
comparison interesting and valuable. The comparison is done frst by exploration o loss data and then by comparison o calibrated
vulnerability models. The second objective is to study the inuence o seismic code status on the perormance o building stock. The
buildings in the earthquake zone were designed and constructed over a long time and thereore covering period when no seismic

2
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Table 1
Status o seismic design codes or the Icelandic building stock or dierent construction periods [14].

Status Description Comment Period Code

CDN No Code No seismic design code <1958 –

CDL Low code First generation o seismic codes 1958–1975 Hazard map1 [24]
CDM Moderate code Second generation o seismic codes 1976–2001 ÍST 13 [25,26]
CDH High code Latest generation o seismic codes ≥2002 Eurocode 8 [27–29]

1) The hazard map or Iceland presented in 1958 in the Icelandic Journal o Engineering [24] initiated seismic design in the country. Most designers began applying
static lateral orce in their structural analysis although not ofcial requested by regulations or codes.

design codes existed to the modern-day seismic code enorcement. Status o code enorcement can be conveniently described in terms
o no-code to high-code classes proposed by Crowley et al. [14]. Existing vulnerability and ragility models commonly take into ac-
count ductility classes (low, medium, high) but in this study we instead connect the models to status o seismic codes (no-code,
low-code, moderate-code and high-code). Seismic loads can or example increase when going rom say moderate-code to high-code,
although the ductility can be classifed as DCL or a given building or both code periods. The third objective is to use the GEM building
taxonomy [15] to classiy the Icelandic loss data or frst time and then to calibrate local vulnerability model based on this classif-
cation. By this the local model can more easily be compared to other global vulnerability models and added to existing seismic risk
platorms [16–18]. In this study the ragility and vulnerability unctions rom ESRM20 [19] will be used or comparison.
Most studies reported in the literature construct ragility curves and convert them to vulnerability models using damage-to-loss
modes [19]. In this study, the statistical vulnerability model is calibrated directly rom the loss data, and ragility curves are iner-
red rom it.

2. Earthquake and loss data

2.1. The South Iceland earthquakes o June 2000 and May 2008
In June 2000, two shallow, strike-slip earthquakes, struck in the SISZ (Fig. 1) on two north-south striking aults. The frst event o
Mw6.52 occurred on June 17, 2000, 15:41, (UTC) with a ocal depth o 6.3 km. The second earthquake o Mw6.44 struck on June 21,
2000, at 00:52, (UCT) urther west with a ocal depth o 5.3 km [2]. The highest horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) recorded
by the Icelandic Strong Motion Network in these two events was 0.84 g [20]. On May 29, 2008, a Mw6.30 earthquake struck again
urther west in the SISZ (Fig. 1). It consisted o north-south running strike-slip ruptures, almost simultaneous, on two closely spaced
aults. In the nearest town, Hveragerdi, PGA as high as 0.88 g was recorded, while the highest PGA in Seloss was 0.54g [3,21].

2.2. Intensity measure and ground motion prediction model

The PGA is used as the ground motion intensity measure (IM) in this study. Although it has some limitations in describing observed
damage, it is one o the most easily available and commonly used IM in seismic hazard and vulnerability assessment. It is common to
use this parameter or sti and low-rise structures like the ones being studied here [19]. The PGA was computed at each building site
using a local ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) developed by Rupakhety and Sigbjörnsson [22]. For the two events o the
June 2000 sequence, at each building site, the higher o the PGAs corresponding to the two events was considered as the ground motion
IM (see also [10,12]). The main characteristic o recorded ground motion in the 2000 and 2008 events was relatively high PGAs in the
near ault areas and then aster attenuation than generally observed in other worldwide seismic regions. These high PGAs can be
explained by the shallow ocal depth o the earthquakes (<10 km). On the other hand, the observed high attenuation can be attributed
to damping o the seismic waves caused by the young, fssured and low quality rock in the seismic zone [23].

2.3. Property database and building typologies

The ofcial property database contains inormation on construction year, main construction material, number o storeys, oor area
and geographical coordinates [5]. It also contains the fre insurance value or each property, which is used as the replacement value in
this study. Most residential buildings in the SISZ are single-amily buildings, but there are also two-amily duplexes, townhouses, and
apartment buildings (blocks). The property database uses “building units” as a basic unit in its register. For residential properties, the
unit is usually a dwelling. For a single-amily building, the “dwelling” and “building” is the same unit in the property database. On the
other hand, a multistorey apartment building can contain many dwellings. In the 2000 dataset, losses in dwellings with the same street
address were combined in one loss value and the street address was used to defne a building. A townhouse with a ew (more than one)
street addresses were thereore registered in the database as several distinct buildings. Based on the above procedure, the 2000 dataset
can be considered as building-by-building dataset. On the other hand, in the 2008 dataset, the losses in dwellings were not combined
although they had the same street address. This dataset is thereore a dwelling-by-dwelling dataset. However, in most cases the
dwellings belong to single amily buildings. In the ollowing we will mostly use the phrase “building” when we talk about both the
datasets although, strictly speaking, we are reereeing to dwellings or the 2008 dataset.
Crowley et al., 2021 [14] classifed status o seismic design codes in dierent European countries, including Iceland, in our
categories based on construction period (Table 1).
The GEM taxonomy [15] was used to classiy all the buildings in the loss datasets in three main typologies, and in addition they are
here subclassifed according to the status o seismic codes as defned in Table 1, which is an improvement in presenting vulnerability
and ragility models [14]. The result o the typology classifcation and subclassifcation is shown in Table 2. The lateral load resisting

3
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Table 2
Classifcation o residential buildings aected by the June 2000 and May 2008 earthquakes based on the GEM building taxonomy [15] and based on seismic code status
(Table 1).

GEM building Design code June 2000 earthquakes May 2008 earthquake

taxonomy Number (%) Number (%)

CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDN 465 18.1 277 13.1

CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDL 1200 46.7 835 39.5
CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDM 907 35.3 637 30.1
CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDH 366 17.3
2572 100 2115 100
W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDN 307 17.7 277 12.2
W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDL 385 22.1 372 16.4
W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDM 1047 60.2 824 36.3
W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDH 799 35.2
1739 100 2272 100
MR + CBH + MOC/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDN 314 70.9 251 69.9
MR + CBH + MOC/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDL 120 27.1 103 28.7
MR + CBH + MOC/LWAL/HBET:2,1 CDM 9 2.0 5 1.4
CDH 0 0.0
443 100 359 100
Total: 4754 4746

system or the great majority o the building typologies are structural walls, hence LWAL is used to identiy the structural system or the
three building typologies. Frame structures with inflls or stone/brick masonry units common in South Europe are rare to fnd in
Iceland. Clay is also scarce in Iceland and there is no production or supply o low-cost fred clay bricks. The ground oor slab and the
oundations in both timber and masonry buildings are usually made o RC. The structural walls o the masonry buildings are built o
unreinorced, hollow concrete blocks using light-weight pumice (high porosity volcanic rock) as the main aggregate. The weight density
o the pumice blocks is low, typically around 14 kN/m3, and consequently the inertia orces are considerably lower than in stone or
clay brick masonry buildings with higher weight density. These hollow pumice blocks have not been manuactured or many decades
(not ater ~1975) and masonry buildings have hardly not been built since then (Table 2).
In the 2000 dataset, 54% o the buildings were built o reinorced concrete (RC). Almost all cast-in-place (CIP). Furthermore, 37%
were timber buildings, 9.3% masonry buildings, and the rest (only 0.3%) used other main construction material (not shown in Table 1).
Moreover, 68% o the buildings were one storey, 23% two storeys, 7.9% three storeys, 0.3% our storeys, and no building was higher.
In the 2008 dataset, 45% o the dwellings were built o RC, 48% timber and 7.6% masonry dwellings. Furthermore, 74% were one
storey buildings, 19% two storeys buildings, 5.9% three storeys, and 0.5% our storeys. Since only a low raction o the aected
buildings are 3 storeys or higher all the buildings in both the datasets are placed in HBET:1,2 class. Typical oor area o a dwelling is in
the range 100–150 m2. In buildings built beore 1976 (CDN and CDL), the concrete strength was low, typically corresponding to C16
concrete (ck = 16 MPa). Ater 1976 (CDM and CDH) it was increased, usually to C20 or C25 concrete. Today, only ribbed high grade
steel bars with yk = 500 MPa are used or reinorcement, but beore 1965, non-ribbed low-grade bars with yk = 235 MPa were the only
alternative. It was common in this period, i.e. beore 1965, to use only one or two horizontal 12 mm steel bars above window and door
openings. Between 1965 and 1976, this reinorcement was generally increased to one or two 12 mm bars around all openings [7]. Ater
1976 structural walls usually have reinorcement grid. It should be noted that no buildings in the 2000 dataset belong to high code as
they were all constructed beore the Eurocodes were implemented in Iceland in 2002 (Table 1).

2.4. Loss data

The loss data is based on damage inspection o each damaged property carried out by trained assessors. For the June 2000 South
Iceland earthquakes, the loss assessment work started ew days ater both the destructive earthquakes had occurred. In 2008 the work
started only a day ater the earthquake. The assessment work procedure was as ollows:
1. Property owner reports damage to his local insurance company. Since all dwellings/buildings have compulsory catastrophe in-
surance provided by the Natural Catastrophe Insurance o Iceland (NCI) [4], it can be assumed that all damages were reported as it
fnancially benefts the owners to fle a claim. It is also important to underline that the deductible or each property was very low at
the time, or ~500 Euros so that did not dissuade owners rom reporting damage. The deductible has now been raised to ~2700
Euros.
2. The local insurance company notifes the NCI, which mandates the loss assessments.
3. Assessors, working in pairs, prepare the assessment work by amiliarizing themselves with available technical drawings and other
related inormation about the damaged property.
4. Assessors perorm a frst inspection o the property; owners are encouraged to participate in the inspection. All building damage is
documented and marked on drawings i available. Estimators also take photos as required.
5. Assessors prepared a damage assessment report. The reports included a description o the damage and a cost estimate or the repair,
which orms the basis or the compensation to the owner.
Damage o both structural and non-structural elements were considered. Here, non-structural damage includes damage to all

4
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Table 3
Subcategories o the loss data used or both datasets.

Category No. Subcategory

Structural damage E1 Excavation, oundations, and bottom slab.

E2 Interior and exterior supporting structure (walls, columns, beams, roos).
Non-structural damage E3 Interior fnishing work (partition walls, mortar, suspended ceilings, cladding).
E4 Interior fxtures, paintwork, ooring, wall tiles, windows, doors, etc.
E5 Plumbing (cold water, hot water, and sewer pipes), radiators, electrical installations.

Table 4
Subcategories o structural damage and non-structural damage in the 2008 dataset.

Category No. Subcategory

Structural damage G1 Excavation, fll and earthwork,

G2 Foundations and bottom slab,
G3 Exterior supporting structure (walls, columns, beams, stairways),
G4 Roo structure,
G5 Interior supporting structure (walls, columns, beams, plates, stairways).
Non-structural damage G6 Interior fnishing work (light party walls, mortar, suspended ceilings, ceiling cladding),
G7 Interior fxtures, including kitchen and bathrooms, interior doors, ooring, wall tiles, etc.
G8 Windows, glass, exterior doors, wall cladding etc.
G9 Paintwork outdoors and indoors, including crack flling and surace treatment,
G10 Plumbing (cold water, hot water and sewer pipes), radiators, electrical installations.

Fig. 2. Number o buildings within dierent PGA bins, or dierent construction material, and or both the datasets.

fxtures, as well as technical systems (plumbing, electrical installations etc.) but does not include damage o loose household items like
urniture, TVs, computers, etc. In the 2000 dataset the damage (estimated repair cost) in each building was classifed into fve sub-
categories, two covering structural damage and three or non-structural damage (Table 3). In the 2008 dataset ten subcategories were
used (Table 4) [8]. The 2008 dataset can eortlessly be combined to obtain identical categories as in the 2000 dataset. The damage
actor, DF, is defned as:

5
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 3. Proportions o ‘No Loss’, ‘Loss’, and ‘Total loss’ buildings, within dierent PGA bins, or dierent construction materials, and or both the datasets.

Fig. 4. Mean damage actor within dierent PGA bins, or dierent construction materials, and or both the datasets. The bars also show how the loss was split into
structural and non-structural loss in each case.

6
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 5. Number o dwellings (N), observed mean damage actor (DF), and observed damage stages in Seloss (PGA ~ 0.55g) and Hveragerdi (PGA ~0.60g), or
dierent construction material and dierent status o seismic codes in the May 2008 Ölus earthquake.

5
∑
ECi
Estimated loss
DF = = i=1 (1)
Replacement value RV
where ECi is the estimated repair cost in each subcategory i (Table 3) and RV is the replacement value taken as the fre insurance
value rom the ofcial property database. The RV is estimated as the depreciated replacement value plus the cost o dismantling and
transporting the debris. Depreciation is based on age, main construction material and general condition. On the other hand, the repair
cost was not depreciated.
The DF can reach 1.0 (100%) or buildings with total damage and correspond to payment o ull replacement values to the building
owners. Damage equivalent to “total loss” was assigned to buildings that suered an estimated repair cost o more than 70% o their
replacement value in the 2000 dataset. In 2008, the level was lower and estimated on a case-by-case basis or each building with
estimated loss in the range 50–70%.

3. Data exploration
3.1. Classifcation with respect to intensity measure
To explore the loss data, computed PGA at each building site as well as main construction material (RC, timber and masonry) was
used to classiy the loss data into our PGA bins, i.e., 0.05–0.10g, 0.10–0.20g, 0.20–0.40g and >0.40g (Fig. 2). In the 2000 dataset most
o the buildings were exposed to low PGA, i.e., they belong to the two frst PGA bins (Fig. 2abc). For the 2008 dataset this was opposite
(Fig. 2de), and most o the buildings were exposed to PGA in the two higher bins. The main reason or this is that the two largest towns
in the region (Seloss and Hveragerdi) were located within 5 km rom the ault rupture o the 2008 event (Fig. 1).
For both the June 2000 and the May 2008 earthquakes, most o the buildings in the two lowest PGA bins did not suer any loss. The
higher PGA bins, on the other hand, contained buildings with no loss, partial loss, and total loss (Fig. 3). This is also reected in the
mean DF, which is very low in the two lower PGA bins in all cases but substantially higher in the two higher PGA bins (Fig. 4). The

7
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

mean DF in the 2000 dataset is much higher than that in the 2008 dataset (Fig. 4). In more details, or a given main construction
material the two datasets diered in structural losses (category E1 and E2 in Table 3) but showed comparable levels o non-structural
losses (categories E3, E4 and E5). The similarity in the extent o non-structural damage can partly be explained rom the analysis o the
loss data rom the 2008 earthquake where most o the losses were due to cosmetic damage o ooring and paint work [8]. Such minor
damage oten results in replacement o all the ooring and repainting o the entire wall in question. Thereore, even minor cosmetic
damage can result in notable repair costs or non-structural elements.
Since both the 2000 and 2008 earthquakes occurred in the same region and aected alike buildings (same codes, same work-
manship, same detailing, same construction material etc.), the observed dierence in mean DF in each PGA bin (Fig. 4), indicates that
the PGA alone is not an adequate ground motion IM to predict the structural losses. Other parameters, or example the size o the
earthquake, which controls strong shaking duration among other things, are also expected to aect the losses suered by the structural
elements (see also [30]).

3.2. Classifcation with respect to status o seismic code

Both the towns Hveragerdi and Seloss are located close to the ault rupture o the May 2008 Mw6.30 Ölus earthquake (Fig. 1).
Maximum horizontal PGA in the range o 0.45–0.88g was recorded by a small-aperture dense array (ICEARRAY) located in Hveragerdi,
while two stations o the Icelandic Strong Motion Network recorded horizontal PGA o 0.53g and 0.54g in the nearby town o Seloss
[3,21]. Roughly, all the buildings in Hveragerdi are distributed over a square o 2.5 × 1.5 km, and in Seloss over a square o 3 × 3 km.
The 2008 database includes 924 dwellings in Hveragerdi and 2041 in Seloss. I local site eects are ignored and assumed that more or
less all the buildings in Hveragerdi (within the square) were exposed to similar ground motion intensity (PGA ~0.60g), and then the
same assumption or Seloss (PGA ~0.55g), it is inormative to compare observed losses in the dierent building typologies with
respect to status o seismic code (CDN, CDL, CDM and CDH) as defned by Crowley et al. [14] (see section 2.1). This assumption is not
strictly true as shown by the variability o ground motion recorded by the ICEARRAY, but is a simplifcation or comparing damage
suered by buildings with dierent code levels. To acilitate the comparison, the mean losses (mean DF) are given in each case and in
addition the losses are classifed into the ollowing DF bins.
DS0  No loss, DF = 0; DS1  Slight, losses in the range 0 < DF ≤ 0.05; DS2  Moderate, losses in the range 0.05 < DF ≤ 0.20; DS3 
Extensive, losses in the range 0.20 < DF ≤ 0.60; DS4  Total loss/Complete loss, losses in the range 0.60 < DF ≤ 1.00; The results are
shown in Fig. 5 or both Hveragerdi and Seloss. As expected, requency o losses decreases as the code status improves. For RC and
timber buildings in Seloss there is a sharp improvement (decrease in mean DF) between CDL buildings and CDM buildings. This is not
as clear or Hveragerdi. It is also important to notice that only very ew RC and timber buildings exceeded the moderate damage stage
(DS2) in both Hveragerdi and Seloss.

4. Statistical modelling
In total, 84% and 50% o buildings/dwellings suered no losses (DF = 0) in the 2000 and 2008 datasets, respectively. Total losses
(DF = 1) were on the other hand very rare. When proportion data, like damage actor (DF), contains both “zero” values and “one”
values, i.e. the data is bounded in the range [0,1], it is preerable to use a mixed continuous-discrete regression to model the data [13].
That is, discrete models to cover the “zeros” and “ones”, and then continuous regression or data in the range (0,1). In our case where
the data includes high raction o zero loss incidents but negligible number o total losses, a zero-inated beta regression model is
well-suited [13]. This model was used to ft the 2000 dataset in a two-step regression by Bessason et al. [12]. First, a logistical
regression model was used to evaluate the probability o obtaining loss (DF > 0) or a given PGA. Then a beta regression was applied to
model the continuous loss distribution conditioned on loss. This approach is explained briey in the ollowing sections, but more
details are available elsewhere [10–13].

4.1. Logistical regression

A logistical regression is used to model the probability o suering loss (DF > 0) or given ground motion intensity. For each
building typology the DF or every building/dwelling in this group is converted to a binary response variable y, that is assigned y =
0 or properties with zero loss (DF = 0) and y = 1 or those that suered some loss (DF > 0). Furthermore, p is defned as the probability
o suering loss (p = Prob[y = 1]. Then a liner relationship is assumed between the log o the odds (called logit) and the explanatory
variable represented by PGA computed or each property. The logit model is expressed mathematically as:
( )
p
logit(p) = log = β0 + β1 · PGA (2)
1p

where β0 and β1 are the regression parameters, which are calibrated separately or each building typology and each dataset.

4.2. Beta regression

Beta distribution is very exible and well suited to model proportions restricted in the interval (0,1). The DF ulfls this interval
condition when the zero losses have been sorted out and the ew cases o total loss are resolved by replacing DF = 1 with a lower value
as later explained and justifed. For a given building typology, the orm or shape o the beta distribution is however perceived to be
related to the ground motion intensity. A model that takes this into account is the beta regression model proposed by Ferrari and
Cribari-Neto [11]. To work with parameter structure that ft the beta regression Ferrari and Cribari-Neto use the “mean” and the
“precision” as model parameters which can easily be transormed to more common defnitions o the density parameters i needed.

8
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Table 5
Building typologies based on GEM taxonomy [15] and seismic code categories [14].

Full names Short names (in this study)

CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDN,CDL RCNo-Low Code

CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDM,CDH RCMod-High Code
W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDN,CDL WNo-Low Code
W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDM,CDH WMod-High Code
MR + CBH + MOC/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDN,CDL MRNo-Low Code

Based on their defnition the probability density unction, expected value and variance o the beta distribution, are respectively given
as:
Γ(φ)
f (x; μ, θ) = xμφ1 (1  x)(1μ)φ1 0<x<1
Γ(μφ)Γ(1  μ)φ
E[x] = μ 0<μ<1 (3)
μ(1  μ)
Var[x] = φ>0
1+φ

where μ is the mean value; φ is the precision, and Γ(⋅) is the gamma unction [11]. To consider that the shape o the distribution change
with the intensity o the ground motion a beta regression model uses link unctions, g1(⋅) and g2(⋅) to connect μ and φ, with linear
predictors, η1 and η2 that are commonly unctions o a one or more explanatory variables:
g1 (μ) = η1
(4)
g2 (φ) = η2
The link unctions must be strictly monotonic and twice dierentiable. In this study, the logit link unction was adopted or μ and
the log link unction or φ:
( )
μ
g1 (μ) = logit(μ) = log = η1
1μ (5)
g2 (φ) = log(φ) = η2
Having determined the main properties o the statistical model, the linear predictors η1 and η2 need to be expressed as unctions o
the explanatory variables. As mentioned beore the building typologies were treated independently to have maximum exibility or the
regression parameters but at same time to keep the model simple and exclude categorial explanatory variables. Only one explanatory
variable was used or the linear predictors η1, i.e., PGA like in Res. [10,12]. I the residuals appear to be randomly distributed, the use
o a constant precision is adequate or the linear predictor η2 or the precision. Based on observations and arguments put orward in
Re. [10], a constant precision model was adopted or φ in this study:
η1 = θ0 + θ1 × log(PGA)
(6)
η2 = θ 0
′

here θ0, θ1, and θ’0, are the parameters o the beta regression model which are calibrated separately or each building typology as
mentioned beore. Log-transormed PGA has been reported (see, or example [10]) to provide better ft or the linear predictor η1.

4.3. Combination o the logistical and the beta regression models

The fnal step in creating the vulnerability model or each building typology is to combine the discrete logistical regression model
and the beta regression model to obtain the fnal zero-inated beta regression model defned by fve parameters in each case (β1 , β2 ,
θ1 , θ2 , θ,0 ). The expected value and the variance o the DF are given as [13]:

E[DF] = p · μ (7)

μ · (1  μ)
Var[DF] = p · + (1  p) · p · (μ)2 (8)
φ+1
The total probability theorem can then be used to compute desired prediction interval [12]:
P[X < x] = 1 + p ·(FX (x, μ, φ)  1) (9)

where FX(x,μ,φ) is the beta cumulative distribution unction (CDF) or a given building typology or case. Eq. (9) can also be used to
construct ragility curves by defning threshold values, x, or exceeding a damage state or given IM (see section 5.2).

5. Results and discussion

The outcome o data exploration in section 3 is that it is sensible to classiy the loss data based on earthquake size as well as status o

9
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 6. Probability o getting DF > 0 as a unction o PGA or three dierent building typologies in South Iceland based on logistic regression models o the 2000
dataset (solid lines) and 2008 dataset (dotted lines).

Table 6
Number o buildings in each typology class (Ntot) and number o damaged buildings (Ndam), and estimated model parameters and standard error (SE), or the 2000 and
2008 loss dataset.

Ntotal Ndam β0 β1 θ0 θ1 ′
θ0

Estim. SE Estim. SE Estim. SE Estim. SE Estim. SE

2000 dataset:
RCNo-Low Code 1665 346 3.471 0.152 12.85 0.81 1.597 0.044 0.304 0.027 1.450 0.027
RCMod-High Code 775 85 3.638 0.216 10.46 1.02 2.490 0.145 0.316 0.088 2.673 0.102
WNo-Low Code 692 89 3.804 0.256 11.61 1.27 1.590 0.067 0.304 0.041 1.498 0.043
WMod-High Code 1047 129 3.569 0.189 6.73 0.59 2.752 0.111 0.071 0.081 2.405 0.084
MRNo-Low Code 443 110 3.025 0.259 11.37 1.35 0.360 0.031 0.724 0.020 1.012 0.017
2008 dataset:
RCNo-Low Code 1112 634 2.405 0.183 7.245 0.461 2.260 0.032 0.303 0.037 2.682 0.024
RCMod-High Code 1003 546 2.346 0.191 5.952 0.421 2.900 0.029 0.321 0.038 3.742 0.026
WNo-Low Code 649 299 1.424 0.194 2.876 0.392 2.297 0.056 0.148 0.060 2.365 0.046
WMod-High Code 1623 694 1.968 0.136 4.324 0.315 3.001 0.011 0.232 0.012 3.635 0.010
MRNo-Low Code 359 209 1.940 0.285 5.937 0.692 1.446 0.077 0.268 0.084 1.255 0.050

seismic codes. We note here that the eect o earthquake size is potentially reected in other ground shaking parameters such as
duration, Arias Intensity, etc., but in lack o appropriate and local ground motion prediction models or such parameters and or
comparative purpose, a simple classifcation based on earthquake size is used in this study. Based on data exploration described in
section 3.2, two code classes are defned or RC buildings, one consisting o CDN and CDL and the other consisting o CDM and CDH.
For masonry buildings, a single class consisting o CDN and CDL is defned. This results in fve building typologies. The ull names and
short names o the building typologies based on the GEM nomenclature and code status as defned in Crowley et al. (2021) is given in
Table 5. Calibrating the model parameters independently or the 2000 and the 2008 dataset thereore results in 10 parameter sets (5
typologies × 2 datasets = 10 cases).

5.1. Vulnerability model

The logistic regression model was ftted by using the glm( ) unction in the R package [31]. The null-hypotheses (β0 = 0 and β1 = 0)
could be rejected with low p-values or both regression coefcients in all the cases. Fig. 6 compares the logistic models or the 2000 and
2008 datasets. The probability o loss occurrence at high PGA is signifcantly higher in the 2000 dataset than in the 2008 dataset. For
lower PGAs, the trend is reversed. The reason or this dierence is not clear but maybe related to dierent attitude and lower threshold
or owners to report minor damages in the 2008 event compared to the 2000 events.
The scatter in the data, i.e., a wide range o DF or a given ground motion intensity, is a challenge in calibrating conditional beta
regression models. The DF or a great majority o the buildings exposed to low intensity shaking was low, but there were some
buildings with much higher losses. When losses were in the range o 50–70% or higher o the replacement value or a given property,
ull replacement value was paid to the owner, making the eective DF equal to 1.0 in the loss database. This means that the DF in some
o these cases does not reect the actual damage and this also creates outliers that aect the regression. It can also be underlined that
no buildings suered ull or partial collapse. To account or these outliers, as was done in Re. [12], all data points with DF > 0.85 were

10
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 7. Comparison o the vulnerability model rom the two datasets. The dots show the mean DF based on the loss data within each acceleration bin. The PGAs o the
binned data are average values in each bin. (see Fig. 4).

replaced with a max value o DFmax = 0.85. In the 2000 dataset this was done or 15 RC, 5 timber and 13 masonry buildings, and in the
2008 dataset or 4 RC, 7 timber, and 12 masonry buildings.
Another important issue is weighting o loss data beore ftting the conditional beta model. Newer buildings have higher
replacement value than older buildings. Replacement value is also aected by building size. These issues are not reected in the
normalised DF but aect the prediction o total accumulated loss. It is thereore sensible to put the suered losses in the context o the
replacement value o the property by introducing a suitable weighting scheme, see also [12]. The ollowing actor, wi, was used to
weight the DF o each property, i, beore the conditional beta model was calibrated.
RVi
wi = (10)
RVmin

where RVi is the replacement value or property i and RVmin is the lowest replacement value among all properties in the same building
typology. The more expensive buildings thereore get a higher weight in the regression than the low-cost properties. Having modifed
the max DF value (DFmax = 0.85) and included the weighting (Eq. (10)), the betareg( ) unction in the R package was used to estimate
the regression parameters o the beta model [31].
The model parameters or the 10 cases are given in Table 6.
The curves or the mean DF based on the vulnerability model or each dataset (2000 and 2008) and or each building typology are
shown on Fig. 7. The dots show the observed average DF in the same our PGA bins as given in Fig. 4. The PGA value (x-coordinate) or
each dot was ound by averaging PGA or all data points within the corresponding bin. The mean curves ft the aggregated data points
quite well but at same time it must be underlined that the distribution around the mean is quite wide.
The curves show a considerable dierence in the mean DF curves between the 2000 and 2008 dataset. Furthermore, the timber
buildings show better perormance than the RC-buildings. The outstanding perormance o the timber buildings can be explained by
very high prescribed wind loads in Iceland, (Vb0 = 36 m/s or the entire country [29]). Light-weight timber houses are thereore

11
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Table 7
Ratio o predicted mean DF to mean DF rom loss data (RDF), or the fve building typologies and the two datasets. Weighting based on Eq. (10) was used in the regression
and DFmax = 0.85.

RCLowCode RCHighCode WLowCode WHighCode MRLowCode

2000 0.91 0.92 0.81 0.89 0.87

2008 1.09 0.97 1.09 0.94 1.16

Table 8
Ratio o predicted accumulated loss to actual accumulated loss (RLoss) or the fve building typologies and the two datasets. Weighting based on Eq. (10) was used in the
regression and DFmax = 0.85.

Dataset RCLowCode RCHighCode WLowCode WHighCode MRLowCode

2000 1.19 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.11

2008 1.09 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.13

Table 9
Defnitions o threshold values or exceeding a given damage states in ESRM20 [19] and in this study.

European Seismic Risk Model This study

Damage state E[DF] COV DF

Slight damage (DS1) 0.05 0.30 0.05

Moderate damage (DS2) 0.20 0.20 0.20
Extensive damage (DS3) 0.60 0.10 0.60
Complete damage (DS4) 1.00 0.00 –

Fig. 8. Fragility curves based on the statistical model or RC buildings (let) based on the 2000 dataset and (right) based on the 2008 dataset. Both curves or no-code &
low code (upper panel) and or moderate-code & high code (lower panel) are shown. high code buildings are shown. For comparison ragility unctions rom ESRM20 are
shown (CR_LWAL-DUL_H1 (upper panel) and CR_LWAL-DUM_H1 (lower panel)).

12
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 9. Fragility curves based on the statistical model or timber buildings (let) based on the 2000 dataset and (right) based on the 2008 dataset. Both curves or no-
code & low code (upper panel) and or moderate-code & high code (lower panel) are shown. For comparison ragility unctions rom ESRM20 are shown (W_LFM-
DUL_H1 (upper panel) and W_LFM-DUM_H1 (lower panel).

strongly built and well suited to withstand both wind and earthquake orces.
The ratio o predicted mean DF (using the statistical model) to the observed mean DF rom the loss data, RDF, are shown in Table 7
or all the 10 cases. Furthermore, the ratio o predicted loss to real estimated loss, RLoss, are shown in Table 8. The overall predicted loss
is 13.8% higher than the observed loss or the 2000 dataset and 4,8% higher or the 2008 dataset.
In summary, Fig. 7, and Tables 7 and 8 indicate that the models ft the data quite well and give air predictions.

5.2. Fragility unctions and comparison to ESRM20

From the vulnerability model, it is straightorward to construct ragility unction using Eq. (9). To do this, it is necessary to defne a
quantifable description o the damage states in orm o loss bins. It is also inormative to compare the local unctions developed in this
study to ragility unctions rom other studies. Here, unctions obtained rom the fnal vulnerability models in the European Seismic
Risk Model (ESRM20) (https://eu-risk.eucentre.it/physical-vulnerability) will be used [19]. The ESRM20 unctions are based on
analytical models and the cloud analysis approach. Each unction defnes the probability that the corresponding damage state will be
reached or exceeded. The threshold value or exceedance o given damage state is defned by expected value, E[⋅] o the DF, and the
coefcient o variation, COV, whilst in this study the threshold is given by point value o the DF, i.e. the upper limit o the bin or given
damage state (Table 9).
Prior to the comparison one must select a building class rom ESRM20 ragility unction database that are closest to the building
classes used in this study. Only comparison or RC and timber buildings will be shown, which are most common building classes in
Iceland. For the RC no-code and low-code buildings (CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDN,CDL) in this study, the CR_LWAL-DUL_H1 class
rom the ESRM20 dataset was selected and compared to calibrated ragility unctions rom both the 2000 and the 2008 dataset. For RC
moderate-code and high-code (CR + CIP/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDM,CDH), the CR_LWAL-DUM_H1 rom the ESRM20 dataset was
selected. For timber buildings, there is no class reecting structural wall system, LWAL, so instead a moment rame, LFM, building class
was adopted. For no-code and low-code timber buildings (W + WLI/LWAL/HBET:2,1 – CDN,CDL) in this study the W_LFM-DUL_H1
rom ESRM20 was used, and or moderate-code and high-code buildings the W_LFM-DUM_H1 rom ESRM20 was used. The com-
parison must be done with caution because, the status o seismic codes is not directly addressed in the ESRM20 database but instead
classes reer to ductility class, i.e DUL and DUM above means low-ductility class and medium ductility class, respectively. Ductility
class and code status are not necessarily related, i.e., high code buildings might belong in the low ductility class. The ragility unctions

13
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

Fig. 10. Comparison o vulnerability unctions in this study to with or (let) the 2000 dataset and (right) 2008 dataset or both RC buildings (upper panel) and timber
buildings (lower panel) to selected ESRM20 vulnerability unctions indicated in the legend.

and the comparison or RC buildings is shown in Fig. 8. As an example, the probability o exceeding DS1 and DS2 is much higher in this
study compared to ragility unctions rom ESRM20 at the lower PGAs. The dierence is more in the 2000 dataset than in the 2008
dataset. The ragility unctions and the comparison or timber buildings is shown in Fig. 9. Here, the ESRM20 ragility unctions are in
general higher than the local ragility curves. Again, the dierence is more or the 2008 dataset.
Similarly, i the vulnerability unctions rom this study (Fig. 7) are compared to the ESRM20 unctions the dierence is considerable
(Fig. 10). At low PGA the ESRM20 models are predicting much lower losses or RC buildings than the local models. In addition, the
shape o the curves is quite dierent. The dierence or the timber buildings is also large. The dierence can be partly explained by the
act that the global ESRM20 unctions are entirely based on analytical models where the losses are related to the deormations o the
structural elements whilst orm the loss data it can be seen that large proportion o the losses are related to non-structural losses,
especially in the 2008 dataset (Fig. 4) [8].

6. Conclusions
This paper compares structural losses in residential buildings in two strong seismic events in the South Iceland Seismic Zone. The
frst event is a sequence that consisted o a Mw 6.52 and a Mw 6.44 event occurring in 17th and June 21, 2000, respectively. The
second event is a Mw 6.30 earthquake occurring on the May 29, 2008. These events aected and damaged similar building typologies
in towns and arms in South Iceland. Complete loss datasets consisting o property registers data and loss data or insurance payments
exist or each o these events. Each dataset includes nearly 5000 residential buildings.
This study explores and compares the losses suered by residential buildings during these events rom dierent angles. To acilitate
vulnerability modelling and comparison with similar structures, the GEM taxonomy is used to classiy the aected buildings and in
addition the status o seismic codes (no-, low-, moderate- and high-code) is used to subclassiy them in the two loss datasets. A novel
statistical vulnerability models based on zero-inated beta regression [12] were calibrated rom the 2000 and the 2008 datasets. These
models are denoted as ICE2000VM and ICE2008VM.
One o the main fndings o the study is the dierences in loss patterns, and resulting vulnerability models, o buildings aected by
the June 2000 (Mw~6.5) and the May 2008 events (Mw6.3). The losses caused by the 2000 events (larger magnitude) is substantially
higher. The results show that two earthquakes that produce similar PGA can have very dierent impact on structures. An ideal in-
tensity measure should reect the eect o earthquake size, source-to-site distance, and other local eatures that might aect ground
shaking intensity and duration and control the structural damage. This study demonstrates the limitation o PGA as a ground motion
IM or the Icelandic building-by-building loss data which was obtained rom a housing stock o similar nature exposed to earthquakes

14
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

o dierent sizes. It is important to report the observed discrepancy in the loss pattern because it highlights the pitalls o combining
loss data rom dierent-sized earthquakes in vulnerability modelling with simple intensity measures such as PGA. This all points
towards a need or better ground motion intensity measures that can capture the event size eect better. At same time it could be useul
and inormative to use the available subclassifcation o the loss data (see section 2.4) to model separately the structural and non-
structural losses (and subclasses herein) rather than only working with one loss parameter (DF) that includes all kinds o losses.
This is a challenge or urther research.
The loss data and the calibrated vulnerability models showed consistently that moderate-code and high-code buildings showed
better perormance than no-code and low-code buildings, which is expected, but important to report. Timber/wood constructions
showed overall the best perormance and masonry buildings the poorest perormance. Nevertheless, no residential buildings collapsed
during these events.
Finally, there was a considerable dierence in the local vulnerability model developed in this study to global models (ESRM20
[19]) or similar building classes which points out the importance o applying local loss models when available.
Owing to the dierences in the two models, or seismic risk assessment in Iceland, it is recommended that ICE2000VM is used or
scenarios with Mw in the range 6.4–6.6 and the ICE2008VM or those with Mw range 6.2–6.4. These dierences also highlight the
uncertainties associated with extrapolating the models to earthquake o other size. Future studies on the loss data need to search or
ground motion intensity parameter (s) than can either by themselves or in a set explain the losses observed during these events in-
dependent o the size o the earthquakes.

Author statement
Bjarni Bessason: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - Original drat preparation. Rajesh Rupakhety: Writing -
Reviewing and Editing, Jón Örvar Bjarnason: Writing - Reviewing and Editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing fnancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
inuence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Natural Catastrophe Insurance o Iceland or placing the earthquake damage database and other relevant
inormation at their disposal. This research was supported by the Icelandic Research Fund (grant no. 218149–051), and the University
o Iceland Research Fund.

References
[1] P. Einarsson, Plate boundaries, rits and transorms in Iceland, Jokull 58 (2008) 35–58.
[2] K. Jónasson, B. Bessason, Á. Helgadóttir, P. Einarsson, G.B. Gudmundsson, B. Brandsdóttir, K.S. Vogjörd, K. Jónsdóttir, A harmonised instrumental earthquake
catalogue or Iceland and the northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 2021, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 (2021) 2197–2214, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-2197-
2021.
[3] R. Sigbjörnsson, J.Th Snæbjörnsson, S.M. Higgins, B. Halldórsson, S. Ólasson, A note on the Mw6.3 earthquake in Iceland on 29 May 2008 at 15:45 UTC, Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 7 (1) (2009) 113–126, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9087-0.
[4] Natural Catastrophe Insurance o Iceland, 2021. http://www.nti.is/en/. (Accessed 10 September 2021).
[5] Registers Iceland, 2021. http://www.skra.is/english. (Accessed 10 September 2021).
[6] T. Rossetto, D. D’Ayala, I. Ioannou, A. Meslem, Evaluation o existing ragility curves, in: K. Pitilakis, H. Crowley, A.M. Kaynia (Eds.), SYNER-G: Typology
Defnition and Fragility Curves or Physical Elements at Seismic Risk, Geotechnical, vol. 27, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, 2014, pp. 1–28, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6.
[7] B. Bessason, J.Ö. Bjarnason, A. Gudmundsson, J. Sólnes, S. Steedman, Probabilistic earthquake damage curves or low-rise buildings based on feld data, Earthq.
Spectra 28 (4) (2012) 1353–1378, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000082.
[8] B. Bessason, J.Ö. Bjarnason, A. Gudmundsson, J. Sólnes, S. Steedman, Analysis o damage data o low-rise buildings subjected to a shallow Mw6.3 earthquake,
Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 66 (2014) 89–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.025.
[9] B. Bessason, J.Ö. Bjarnason, Seismic vulnerability o low-rise residential buildings based on damage data rom three earthquakes (Mw6.5, 6.5 and 6.3), Eng.
Struct. 111 (2016) 64–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.008.
[10] I. Ioannou, B. Bessason, I. Kosmidis, J.Ö. Bjarnason, T. Rossetto, Empirical seismic vulnerability assessment o Icelandic buildings aected by the 2000 sequence
o earthquakes, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16 (12) (2018) 5875–5903, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0413-x.
[11] S.L.P. Ferrari, F. Cribari-Neto, Beta regression or modelling rates and proportions, 2004, J. Appl. Stat. 31 (7) (2004) 799–815, https://doi.org/10.1080/
0266476042000214501.
[12] B. Bessason, J.Ö. Bjarnason, R. Rupakhety, Statistical modelling o seismic vulnerability o RC, timber and masonry buildings rom complete empirical loss data,
Eng. Struct. 209 (2020), 109969, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109969.
[13] R. Ospina R, S.L.P. Ferrari, A general class o zero-or-one inated beta regression models, Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 56 (2012) 1609–1623, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.csda.2011.10.005.
[14] H. Crowley, V. Despotaki, V. Silva, J. Dabbeek, X. Romão, N. Pereira, J.M. Castro, J. Daniell, E. Veliu, H. Bilgin, C. Adam, M. Deyanova, N. Ademovic, J. Atalic,
A. Karatzetzou, B. Bessason, V. Shendova, A. Tiganescu, D. Toma-Danial, Z. Zugic, S. Akkar, U. Hancilar, Model o seismic design lateral orce levels or the
existing reinorced concrete European building stock, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19 (2021) 2839–2865, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01083-3.
[15] S. Brzev, C. Scawthorn, A.W. Charleson, L. Allen, M. Greene, K. Jaiswal, V. Silva, GEM building taxonomy version 2.0, GEM Technical Report 2013-02 (2013).
[16] H. Crowley, D. Rodrigues, V. Silva, V. Despotaki, L. Marins, X. Romão, J.M. Castro, N. Pereira N, A. Pomonis, A. Lemoine, A. Roullé, B. Tourlière, G. Weatherill,
K. Pitilakis, L. Danciu, A.A. Correira, S. Akkar, U. Hancilar, P. Covi, The European Seismic Risk Model 2020 (ESRM20), 2nd International Conerence on Natural
Hazards and Inrastructure, ICONHIC, 2019.
[17] V. Silva, D. Amo-Oduro, A. Calderon, C. Costa, J. Dabbeek, V. Despotaki, L. Martins, M. Pagani, A. Rao, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, Development o a global
seismic risk model, D, Earthq. Spectra 36 (1 suppl) (2020) 372–394, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019899953, 2020.

15
B. Bessason et al. Journal of Building Engineering 46 (2022) 103806

[18] S. Molina, D.H. Lang, C. Lindholm, Selena - an open-source tool or seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure, Comput. Geosci.
36 (2010) 257–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006.
[19] L. Martins, V. Silva, Development o a ragility and vulnerability model or global seismic risk analyses, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-020-00885-1.
[20] Ó. Thórarinsson, B. Bessason, J.Th Snæbjörnsson, S. Ólasson, R. Sigbjörnsson, G. Baldvinsson, The South Iceland earthquakes 2000: strong motion
measurements, in: Proceedings o the 12th European Conerence on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 321, Paris, France, 2002.
[21] B. Halldórsson, R. Sigbjörnsson, The Mw6.3 Ölus earthquake at 15:45 UTC on 29 May 2008 in South Iceland: ICEARRAY strong-motion recordings, Soil Dynam.
Earthq. Eng. 29 (2009) 1073–1083, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.12.006.
[22] R. Rupakhety, R. Sigbjörnsson, Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) or inelastic response and structural behaviour actors, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 7 (3)
(2009) 637–659, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9105-x.
[23] S. Ólasson, Attenuation o earthquake waves, in: J. Sólnes, F. Sigmundsson, B. Bessason (Eds.), Natural Hazard in Iceland, Volcanic Eruptions and Earthquakes,
University o Iceland Press and Natural Catastrophe Insurance o Iceland, 2013 (in Icelandic).
[24] E. Tryggvason, S. Thoroddsen, S. Thórarinsson, Report on earthquake risk in Iceland, Icelandic J. Eng. Tímarit Verkrædingaélags Íslands. 43 (1958) 81–97.
[25] ÍST 13, Earthquakes, Loads and Design Rules, Icelandic Industrial Development Agency/Idnthróunarstoun Íslands. Reykjavík, Iceland, 1976.
[26] ÍST 13, Earthquakes, Loads and Design Rules, Icelandic Industrial Development Agency/Idnthróunarstoun Íslands. Reykjavík, Iceland, 1989.
[27] CEN Eurocode 8, Design o Structures or Earthquake Resistance, European Standard, European Committee or Standardisation, Brussels, 2004.
[28] SI, National, Application Documents (NAD) or Iceland, Standards Council o Iceland/Stadlarád Íslands (SI), 2002.
[29] SI, Icelandic National Annexes to EUROCODES, Standards Council o Iceland/Stadlarád Íslands (SI), 2010.
[30] R. Rupakhety, R. Sigbjörnsson, S. Ólasson, Damage to residential buildings in Hveragerdi during the 2008 Ölus Earthquake: simulated and surveyed results,
Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14 (7) (2016) 1945–1955, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9783-5.
[31] R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment or Statistical Computing, R Foundation or Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020. https://www.R-project.
org/.

16