Bi-normalized response spectra and seismic intensity in Bucharest for 1986 and 1990 Vrancea seismic events
- 125 Downloads
The Vrancea subcrustal earthquakes of August 30, 1986 and May 30, 1990 are the two most recent seismic events that have occurred in Romania with moment magnitudes M W ≥ 6.9. The spectral analysis of the strong ground motions recorded in Bucharest reveals that despite small differences in magnitude between the 1986 and 1990 earthquakes, their frequency contents are very different, sometimes even opposing. The main focus of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the response spectra in terms of the bi-normalized response spectra (BNRS) proposed by Xu and Xie (2004 and 2007) for strong ground motions recorded in Bucharest during these two seismic events. The mean absolute acceleration and relative velocity response spectra for the two earthquakes are discussed and compared. Furthermore, the mean bi-normalized absolute acceleration and normalized relative velocity response spectra with respect to the control period T C are computed for the ground motions recorded in Bucharest in 1986 and 1990. The predominant period T P is also used in this study for the normalization of the spectral period axis. Subsequently, the methodology proposed by Martinez-Perreira and Bommer (1998) is applied in order to estimate the seismic intensity of the two events. The results are discussed and several conclusions regarding the possibility of using the bi-normalized response spectra (BNRS) are given.
Keywordsresponse spectra bi-normalized response spectra dynamic amplification factor control period damage potential parameters
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Araya R and Saragoni GR (1984), “Earthquake Accelerogram Destructiveness Potential Factor,” Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA, pp. 835–842.Google Scholar
- Arias A (1970), “A Measure of Earthquake Intensity,” In RJ Hansen, ed., Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 438–483.Google Scholar
- Eurocode 8 (2004), Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance — Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings.Google Scholar
- Gazetas G (2012), “Some Presumptions on the Nature of Base Excitation May Erroneously Affect the Response of Strongly Inelastic Systems,” Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Keynote & invited lecture.Google Scholar
- Kramer S (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.Google Scholar
- Lungu D, Cornea T, Aldea A and Zaicenco A (1997), “Basic Representation of Seismic Action” in Lungu D, Mazzolani F and Savidis S, eds, Design of Structures in Seismic Zones: Eurocode 8 — Worked Examples. (TEMPUS PHARE CM Project 01198: Implementiong of structural Eurocodes in Romanian Civil Engineering standards) Bridgeman Ltd., Timisoara, Romania, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
- Lungu D, Demetriu S and Cornea T (1992), “Frequency bandwidth of Vrancea Earthquakes and the 1991 Edition of Seismic Code in Romania,” Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 10: 5633–5638.Google Scholar
- Lungu D, Vacareanu R, Aldea A and Arion C (2000), Advanced Structural analysis, Conspress, Bucharest.Google Scholar
- Martinez-Pereira A and Bommer J (1998), “What is the Near-field?”, In: E Booth, ed., Seismic Design Practice into the Next Century, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 245–252.Google Scholar
- Newmark N and Hall WJ (1969), “Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities,” Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2: B5.1–12.Google Scholar
- Newmark N and Hall WJ (1982), “Earthquake Spectra and Design,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
- P100-1/2006 (2006): Code for Seismic Design — Part I — Design Prescriptions for Buildings, Ministry of Transports, Constructions and Tourism.Google Scholar
- Pavel F (2012), “The Effects of the Intensity and of the Frequency Contents of Seismic Motions on the Nonlinear Structural Response,” PhD thesis, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest (in Romanian).Google Scholar
- Pavel F, Aldea A and Vacareanu R (2013a), “Near-field Strong Ground Motion Records from Vrancea Earthquakes,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Earthquake Engineering SE-50EEE, Skopje, Macedonia, Paper No. 190.Google Scholar
- Pavel F and Lungu D (2012), “Frequency Content Indicators of Strong Ground Motions,” Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal. Paper no. 2372.Google Scholar
- Pomonis A, Coburn A and Ledbetter S (1990), “The Vrancea, Romania Earthquakes of 30–31 May 1990 — A Field Report by E.E.F.I.T.,” E.E.F.I.T., London, U.K.Google Scholar
- Shake Map Atlas, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/atlas.php.
- Sokolov V, Boese M and Wenzel F (2008), “Shakemap Methodology Based on Fourier Amplitude Spectra and Its Application for the Case of Vrancea Earthquakes in Romania,” Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
- Vanmarcke EH (1976), “Structural Response to Earthquakes,” In C Lomnitz, E Rosenblueth, eds, Seismic Risk and Engineering Decisions, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 287–338.Google Scholar