Natural Hazards

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 1707–1728 | Cite as

Investigation of the variability of strong ground motions from Vrancea earthquakes

  • Florin Pavel
  • Radu Vacareanu
  • Constantin Ionescu
  • Mihail Iancovici
  • Mihai Sercaianu
Original Paper

Abstract

A systematic investigation of the applicability of several ground motion prediction models for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source is conducted in this research. Two ground motion prediction models recommended by previous evaluations (Vacareanu et al. in Bull Earthq Eng 11(6):1867–1884, 2013a; Pavel et al. in Earthq Struct 6(1):1–18, 2014), as well as two new state-of-the-art ground motion prediction equations (Vacareanu et al. in J Earthq Eng, 2013b; Earthq Struct 6(2):141–161, 2014) are tested using an increased strong ground motion database consisting of 150 recordings from Vrancea subcrustal earthquakes. The evaluation is performed by using several goodness-of-fit parameters from the literature. Moreover, the applicability of the single-station sigma method is also investigated by using the same strong ground motion database recorded in 30 seismic stations from southern and eastern Romania. The influence of the soil conditions on the numerical results obtained in this study is investigated and discussed using the results provided by the analysis of variance method. The impact of the single-station standard deviation on the levels of seismic hazard is also assessed in this study, and the results show, in the analyzed cases, significant reductions of the hazard levels.

Keywords

Ground motion prediction equation Residuals Single-station sigma ANOVA Standard deviation Hazard curve 

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Hollenback JC (2012) Application of single-station sigma ground motion prediction equations in practice. Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, paper no. 2536Google Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2006) Influence of long-period filter cut-off on elastic spectral displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1145–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreescu MM, Demetrescu C (2001) Rheological implications of the thermal structure of the lithosphere in the convergence zone of the Eastern Carpathians. J Geodyn 31:373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang AHS, Tang WH (2007) Probability concepts in engineering. Emphasis on applications to civil and environmental engineering. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson G (2006) Single station sigma. Bull Seism Soc Am 96(2):446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson G, Boore D (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(4):1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauval C, Tasan H, Laurendeau A, Delavaud E, Cotton F, Guéguen F, Kuehn N (2012) On the testing of ground-motion prediction equations against small-magnitude data. Bull Seism Soc Am 102(5):1994–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boore D (2005) Erratum: equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 76:368–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequence. Soil Dyn and Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen L, Faccioli E (2013) Single-station standard deviation analysis of 2010–2012 strong-motion data from the Canterbury region, New Zealand. Bull Earthq Eng 11(5):1617–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delavaud E, Cotton F, Akkar S, Scherbaum F, Danciu L, Beauval C, Drouet S, Douglas J, Basili R, Sandikkaya A, Segou M, Faccioli E, Theodoulidis N (2012) Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe. J Seismol 16(3):451–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dinter G, Nutto M, Schmitt G, Schmitt U, Ghitau D, Marcu C (2001) Three-dimensional deformation analysis with respect to plate kinematics in Romania. Rep Geodesy 2:1–21Google Scholar
  13. Douglas J, Gehl P (2008) Investigating strong-ground motion variability using analysis of variance and two-way-fit plots. Bull Earthq Eng 6:389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1:2004. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. Gusev A, Radulian M, Rizescu M, Panza G (2002) Source-scaling of intermediate-depth Vrancea earthquakes. Geophys J Intern 151:879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ismail-Zadeh A, Müller B. Wenzel F (2005) Modelling of descending slab evolution beneath the SE Carpathians: implications for seismicity. In: Wenzel F (ed): Perspectives in modern seismology. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences 105: 203–223, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. Ismail-Zadeh A, Matenco L, Radulian M, Cloetingh S, Panza G (2012) Geodynamics and intermediate-depth seismicity in Vrancea (the south-eastern Carpathians): current state-of-the art. Tectonophysics 530–531:50–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer S (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin PS, Lee CT (2008) Ground-motion attenuation relationships for subduction-zone earthquakes in Northeastern Taiwan. Bull Seism Soc Am 98(1):220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marmureanu G, Cioflan CO, Marmureanu A (2010) Research regarding the local seismic hazard (microzonation) of the Bucharest metropolitan area (in Romanian). Tehnopress, IasiGoogle Scholar
  21. McGuire R (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull Seism Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284Google Scholar
  22. McGuire R (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute MNO-10Google Scholar
  23. Müller B, Heidbach O, Negut M, Sperner B, Buchmann T (2010) Attached or not attached—evidence from crustal stress observations for a weak coupling of the Vrancea slab in Romania. Tectonophysics 482(1–4):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ordaz M, Martinelli F, D’Amico V, Meletti C (2013) CRISIS2008: a flexible tool to perform probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. Seismol Res Lett 84(3):495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ornthammarath T, Douglas J, Sigbjörnsson R, Lai CL (2011) Assessment of ground motion variability and its effects on seismic hazard analysis: a case study for Iceland. Bull Earthq Eng 9:931–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Arion C, Neagu C (2014) On the variability of strong ground motions recorded from Vrancea intermediate-depth earthquakes. Earthq Struct 6(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radulian M, Mândrescu N, Popescu E, Utale A, Panza G (2000) Characterization of Romanian seismic zones. Pure Appl Geophys 157:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F, Bonilla F (2011) Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bull Seism Soc Am 101(2):1242–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodriguez-Marek A, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA, Akkar S, Al Atik L, Edwards B, Montalva GA, Dawood HM (2013) A model for single-station standard deviation using data from various tectonic regions. Bull Seism Soc Am 103(6):3149–3163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Russo RM, Mocanu V, Radulian M, Popa M, Bonjer KP (2005) Seismic attenuation in the Carpathian bend zone and surroundings. Earth Planet Sci Lett 237:695–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scassera G, Stewart J, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F (2009) A comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seism Soc Am 99(5):2961–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004) On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull Seism Soc Am 94(6):2164–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen E (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seism Soc Am 99(6):3234–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trendafilovski G, Wyss M, Rosset P, Marmureanu G (2009) Constructing city models to estimate losses due to earthquakes worldwide: application to Bucharest, Romania. Earthq Spec 25(3):665–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Aldea A (2013a) On the selection of GMPEs for Vrancea subcrustal seismic source. Bull Earthq Eng 11(6):1867–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vacareanu R, Radulian M, Iancovici M, Pavel F, Neagu C (2013b) Fore-arc and back-arc ground motion prediction model for Vrancea intermediate depth seismic source. J Earthq Eng (submitted)Google Scholar
  37. Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Lungu D, Iancovici M, Demetriu S, Aldea A, Arion C, Neagu C (2013c) Uniform hazard spectra for cities in Romania. Proceedings of the international conference on earthquake engineering SE-50 EEE, Skopje, Macedonia, Paper no. 164Google Scholar
  38. Vacareanu R, Demetriu S, Lungu D, Pavel F, Arion C, Iancovici M, Aldea A, Neagu C (2014) Empirical ground motion model for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source. Earthq Struct 6(2):141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wald DJ, Allen TI (2007). Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull Seism Soc Am 97(5):1379–1395Google Scholar
  40. Weidle C, Wenzel F, Ismail-Zadeh A (2007) t*—an unsuitable parameter to characterize anelastic attenuation in the Eastern Carpathians. Geophys J Int 170:1139–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S (2012) A new method for ranking and weighting of earthquake ground-motion prediction models. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 39:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Youngs RR, Chiou SJ, Silva WJ, Humphrey JR (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seism Res Lett 68(1):58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao J, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio H, Somerville P, Fukushima Y, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seism Soc Am 96(3):898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florin Pavel
    • 1
  • Radu Vacareanu
    • 1
  • Constantin Ionescu
    • 2
  • Mihail Iancovici
    • 1
  • Mihai Sercaianu
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of Civil Engineering BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.National Institute for Earth Physics (NIEP)Bucharest-MăgureleRomania

Personalised recommendations