second european conference on earthquake engineering … 23-29,2014... · second european...

39
SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SEISMOLOGY(2ECEES) NONLINEAR SEISMOLOGY AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING by ISTANBUL . August 25-29, 2014. TURKEY Gheorghe MAMUREANU, Carmen Ortanza CIOFLAN, Alexandru MARMUREANU, Constantin IONESCU, Elena - Florinela MANEA National Institute for Earth Physics, Bucharest, Romania

Upload: nguyenthuy

Post on 10-Mar-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING AND SEISMOLOGY(2ECEES)

NONLINEAR SEISMOLOGY AND THE

IMPLICATIONS ON ENGINEERING

SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING by

ISTANBUL August 25-29 2014 TURKEY

Gheorghe MAMUREANU Carmen Ortanza CIOFLAN

Alexandru MARMUREANU Constantin IONESCU

Elena - Florinela MANEA

National Institute for Earth Physics Bucharest Romania

SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING AND SEISMOLOGY(2ECEES)

ISTANBUL August 25-29 2014 TURKEY

Motto

The nonlinear seismology is the rule

The linear seismology is the exception

Paraphrasing Tullio Levi-Civita Padova

N B All generalizations are false including this onehellip

(Mark Twain)

Robert HOOKE 1635-1703

1660 UT TENSIO SIC VIS bdquoAs is the extension so is the forcerdquo σ = E ε

The leading question is how many cities villages

metropolitan areas etc in seismic regions are

constructed on rock Most of them are located on soil

deposit A soil is of basic type sand or gravel (termed

coarse soils) silt or clay (termed fine soils) etc

ProfPeter M Shearer [710]

(i)- Strong ground accelerations from large earthquakes

can produce a non-linear response in shallow soils

(ii)-When a non-linear site response is present then the

shaking from large earthquakes cannot be predicted by

simple scaling of records from small earthquakes

(iii)-This is an active area of research in strong motion

and engineering seismology

AKI in 1993

bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites appears to

be more pervasive than seismologists used to

thinkhellipAny attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site condition and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo [1]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Soils exhibit a strong non-linear behavior under cyclic

loading conditions In the elastic zone soil particles do not

slide relative to each other under a small stress

increment and the stiffness is at its maxim value The

stiffness begins to decrease from the linear elastic value as

the applied strains or stresses increase and the

deformation moves into the nonlinear elastic zone [349]

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine

the mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in

addition to model the relation between stresses and strains

by using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are not constitutive laws to describe all real

mechanical behaviors of deformable materials like soils

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Figure 1Stiffness degradation curve in terms of shear modulus G and Youngrsquos

modulus E plotted against logarithm of typical strain levels observed during

construction of typical geotechnical structures [69]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 2: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING AND SEISMOLOGY(2ECEES)

ISTANBUL August 25-29 2014 TURKEY

Motto

The nonlinear seismology is the rule

The linear seismology is the exception

Paraphrasing Tullio Levi-Civita Padova

N B All generalizations are false including this onehellip

(Mark Twain)

Robert HOOKE 1635-1703

1660 UT TENSIO SIC VIS bdquoAs is the extension so is the forcerdquo σ = E ε

The leading question is how many cities villages

metropolitan areas etc in seismic regions are

constructed on rock Most of them are located on soil

deposit A soil is of basic type sand or gravel (termed

coarse soils) silt or clay (termed fine soils) etc

ProfPeter M Shearer [710]

(i)- Strong ground accelerations from large earthquakes

can produce a non-linear response in shallow soils

(ii)-When a non-linear site response is present then the

shaking from large earthquakes cannot be predicted by

simple scaling of records from small earthquakes

(iii)-This is an active area of research in strong motion

and engineering seismology

AKI in 1993

bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites appears to

be more pervasive than seismologists used to

thinkhellipAny attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site condition and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo [1]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Soils exhibit a strong non-linear behavior under cyclic

loading conditions In the elastic zone soil particles do not

slide relative to each other under a small stress

increment and the stiffness is at its maxim value The

stiffness begins to decrease from the linear elastic value as

the applied strains or stresses increase and the

deformation moves into the nonlinear elastic zone [349]

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine

the mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in

addition to model the relation between stresses and strains

by using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are not constitutive laws to describe all real

mechanical behaviors of deformable materials like soils

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Figure 1Stiffness degradation curve in terms of shear modulus G and Youngrsquos

modulus E plotted against logarithm of typical strain levels observed during

construction of typical geotechnical structures [69]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 3: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

The leading question is how many cities villages

metropolitan areas etc in seismic regions are

constructed on rock Most of them are located on soil

deposit A soil is of basic type sand or gravel (termed

coarse soils) silt or clay (termed fine soils) etc

ProfPeter M Shearer [710]

(i)- Strong ground accelerations from large earthquakes

can produce a non-linear response in shallow soils

(ii)-When a non-linear site response is present then the

shaking from large earthquakes cannot be predicted by

simple scaling of records from small earthquakes

(iii)-This is an active area of research in strong motion

and engineering seismology

AKI in 1993

bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites appears to

be more pervasive than seismologists used to

thinkhellipAny attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site condition and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo [1]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Soils exhibit a strong non-linear behavior under cyclic

loading conditions In the elastic zone soil particles do not

slide relative to each other under a small stress

increment and the stiffness is at its maxim value The

stiffness begins to decrease from the linear elastic value as

the applied strains or stresses increase and the

deformation moves into the nonlinear elastic zone [349]

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine

the mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in

addition to model the relation between stresses and strains

by using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are not constitutive laws to describe all real

mechanical behaviors of deformable materials like soils

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Figure 1Stiffness degradation curve in terms of shear modulus G and Youngrsquos

modulus E plotted against logarithm of typical strain levels observed during

construction of typical geotechnical structures [69]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 4: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

AKI in 1993

bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites appears to

be more pervasive than seismologists used to

thinkhellipAny attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site condition and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo [1]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Soils exhibit a strong non-linear behavior under cyclic

loading conditions In the elastic zone soil particles do not

slide relative to each other under a small stress

increment and the stiffness is at its maxim value The

stiffness begins to decrease from the linear elastic value as

the applied strains or stresses increase and the

deformation moves into the nonlinear elastic zone [349]

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine

the mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in

addition to model the relation between stresses and strains

by using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are not constitutive laws to describe all real

mechanical behaviors of deformable materials like soils

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Figure 1Stiffness degradation curve in terms of shear modulus G and Youngrsquos

modulus E plotted against logarithm of typical strain levels observed during

construction of typical geotechnical structures [69]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 5: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Soils exhibit a strong non-linear behavior under cyclic

loading conditions In the elastic zone soil particles do not

slide relative to each other under a small stress

increment and the stiffness is at its maxim value The

stiffness begins to decrease from the linear elastic value as

the applied strains or stresses increase and the

deformation moves into the nonlinear elastic zone [349]

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine

the mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in

addition to model the relation between stresses and strains

by using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are not constitutive laws to describe all real

mechanical behaviors of deformable materials like soils

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Figure 1Stiffness degradation curve in terms of shear modulus G and Youngrsquos

modulus E plotted against logarithm of typical strain levels observed during

construction of typical geotechnical structures [69]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 6: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Figure 1Stiffness degradation curve in terms of shear modulus G and Youngrsquos

modulus E plotted against logarithm of typical strain levels observed during

construction of typical geotechnical structures [69]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 7: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

The variation of dynamic torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific strain (γ) for sand and gravel samples with normal

humidity obtained in Hardin amp Drnevich resonant columns (USA patent) from NIEP

Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Normalized values [4-8]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 8: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Keiiti Aki [1]bdquoNonlinear amplification at sediments sites

appears to be more pervasive than seismologists used to

think Any attempt at seismic zonation must take into

account the local site conditions and this nonlinear

amplificationrdquo(Aki1993)

2RDBorcherdt [2] Compared the intensities for the 1906

San Francisco earthquake with the amplification factors

determined from the weak motion generated by

underground explosions in the Nevada test (NTS) and found

without exception that an increase in intensity corresponds

to an increase in the amplification factor (Aki1993 p102

idem)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 9: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From mechanical behavior point of view there are two

main groups of main importance sands and clays

These soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependentrdquoone[11]names used in mechanical

deformable bodies

However the complexity of these ldquosimplerdquo models

exceeds the possibility of solving and requires to introduce

of simplifying assumptions or conditions which are

restricting the loading conditions which makes additional

permissible assumptions

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 10: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Sands typically have low rheological properties and

can be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized using

Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law[2]Theory of

viscoelasticity is approaching completionhellipBoltzmannrsquos formu-

lation of the constitutive relation between stress and strain as

expressed by the convolution integrals (1)amp(2) is general in the sense

that all linear behavior may be characterized by such a relation

Conversely if the response is characterized by one of the convolution

integrals then the Boltzmannrsquos superposition principle is valid

p(t) =

)()( detr (1) amp e(t)=

)()( dptc (2)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 11: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

If the material response is characterized by one of the

convolution integrals then Boltzmanrsquos superposition principle is

valid[2] Nonlinear viscoelastic model Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension and

strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are function of

position x and time t functions that define the viscoelastic body state

For a given time and set t = ct these functions will define a state

elastic body The reduction of viscoelastic states to elastic states is

observed experimentally in samples of clay behaviour subjected to

a triaxial creep tests the isochronous σ(ε) = σ(εt)|t=ct şi or τ(γ) =

τ(γt) |t=ct being tension-strain curves which can be modelled with a

linear elastic model The model presented here is based on reducing

viscoleastice states to elastic states and the nonlinear relaxation

functions K=K (ε t) and G=G (γt) are reduced to nonlinear elastic

modulus functions K = K (ε) and G = G ( γ) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 12: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly Relaxation functions of the nonlinear viscoelastic soil along the

time variable bdquot should contain as arguments the strain tensor

invariants K = K (ε t) and G = G (γ t) Under these conditions the

nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive equations for soils take the

form[34]

t

dsstGt0

)()()(

In these constitutive

equations K(εt) and G(γt) are the nonlinear

relaxation functionshellip

t

dsstKt0

)()()(

and we can accept a strain-

history of form (harmonic amp

stationary)

ε(t)=εoexp(-iωt)

γ(t)=γoexp(-iωt)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 13: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of dynamic torsional modulus function (G

daNcm2) with shear strains(γ) and frequency (ω)[34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 14: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Dependence of torsional damping function (D) with

shear strains (γ) and frequency (ω) [34]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 15: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

1Sand with gravel Gn = 0344 +0656 ( 1+14651 γ0716)

Dn = 1428 -1212 ( 1+243 γ0682)

2Loess Gn = 0107+0903 (1+1312 γ 0682

Dn = 1556 -1367 ( 1+1780 γ 0655)

3Diluvian clay Gn = 0176+0824( 1+27357 γ0986)

Dn = 1085 -0888(1+10674 γ0950)

4Grey marl Gn = 0542 +0468 ( 1+18724 γ073)

Dn = 1711-1476(1+141 γ0593)

5Limestone Gn = 0737+0263(1+3974 γ0456)

Dn = 1902-1627(1+0732 γ0691)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 16: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

In engineering applications we are interested in the soil behavior to earthquakes dangerous frequenciesthat are between 01 and 10 Hz In this domain we can consider Gk and Dk to be constant in relation to frequensy abd will depend of shear strain γThen the dynamic functions are

G(γ) =

20

)(k

k

kG

D(γ) =1 k

k

kD )(20

and all of them are function of shear strains (γ)

developed during of earthquake

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 17: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new way In fact from response spectra we can find all nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong Vrancea earthquake

The

seismic

model

from

source

to

free field

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 18: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

The concept was used also for last Stress Test asked by IAEA

Vienna for Romanian Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant where we

recorded last three deep strong Vrancea earthquakes August

301986 (MW = 71)May 30(MW = 69) and May 311990 (MW = 64)

The authors in order to make quantitative evidence of large

nonlinear effects used introduced and developed the concept of the

nonlinear spectral amplification factor (SAF) as ratio between

maximum spectral absolute acceleration (Sa) relative velocity

(Sv )relative displacement (Sd) from response spectra for a fraction of

critical damping (ζ ) at fundamental period or any period and peak

values of acceleration (amax) velocity (vmax) and displacement (dmax)

respectively from processed strong motion records that are(SAF)a=

Saamax (SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax where amax = yuml(t)max vmax

=x(t)max and dmax = x(t)max[5]

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 19: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea deformation

fronts throughout the ALCADI ndash Pannonian system

VranceaVrancea

AdrianAdrian

AegeanAegean

Strain transfer from the active Adriatic Aegean and Vrancea

deformation fronts through the ALCADI- Pannonia System[6]

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 20: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

Simplified tectonic map of late Neogene Pannonian Basin and

its surroundings[6-8]

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 21: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

Topography and Moho layer and the isosurface of the 22 p-wave

velocity anomaly of the Vrancea area from the seismic tomography

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 22: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 23: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

04031977 1884 440 cms2 233 1214 10252 2287 214

08301986 1091 249 cms2 228 1241 3090 1354 241

05301990 989 280 cms2 283 1000 2800 989 -

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

(β=5) a

04031977 20690 650 cms2 314 1322 8593 2735 322

08301986 9696 255 cms2 262 1583 4036 1534 583

05301990 6621 275 cms2 415 1000 2750 662 -

Table 2Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(N-S Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 10441 217

05301990 6313 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 6963 103

05311990 1590 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 1590 -

Table 3Bucharest-Balta Albă Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44413 λ0=26169

Table 1Bucharest-INCERC Seismic Station(E-W Comp) Φ0 =44442 λ0=26105

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 24: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF) c Sa

(g)

( β=5) a(g)

08301986 837 cms2 295 cms2 352 1235 3643 1033 235

05301990 2150 cms2 800 cms2 372 1169 9352 2513 169

05311990 356 cms2 155 cms2 435 1000 1550 356 -

Table 4Bucharest-Bolintinu Vale Seismic Station(N155E Comp)Φ0 =44444λ0=25757

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8908cmss 345 cms2 387 1217 41986 1044 21

05301990 6313cmss 270 cms2 427 1103 29781 696 10

05311990 1590cmss 75 cms2 471 1000 7500 159 -

Table 5Bucharest- Brăneşti Seismic Station(N107W Comp) Φ0 =44460 λ0=26329

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7107cms2 220 cms2 306 1483 32626 10539 483

05301990 554 cms2 220 cms2 397 1143 25146 6332 143

05311990 121cms2 55 cms2 454 1000 5500 1210 -

Table 6Bucharest-Metalurgiei Seismic Station(N127W Comp) Φ0 =44376 λ0=26119

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 25: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 894cms2 295 cms2 329 1513 44633 13526 513

05301990 1313cms2 590 cms2 449 1109 65431 14561 109

05311990 330 cms2 160 cms2 498 1000 16000 3300 -

Table 7Bucharest-Panduri Seismic Station(N131E Component) Φ0 =44426 λ0=26065

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 8754 395 cms2 451 1142 45109 9997 142

05301990 5680 210 cms2 369 1395 29295 7891 395

05311990 1067 55 cms2 515 1000 5500 1067 -

Table 8Bucharest-Titulescu Seismic Station(N145W Component) Φ0 =44452 λ0=26080

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7960 240 cms2 3015 1276 30624 10164 276

05301990 1147 305 cms2 2659 1447 21078 16597 447

05311990 1948 75 cms2 3850 1000 7500 1948 -

Table 9Bucharest-Carlton Seismic Station(N75E Comp) Φ0 =44436 λ0=26102

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 26: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6910 220 cms2 3183 1334 29348 9217 334

05301990 7423 250 cms2 3368 1260 31500 9353 260

05311990 4711 200 cms2 4245 1000 20000 4711 -

Table 10Galaţi-IPJ(GLT2)Seismic Station(N97WE Comp)Φ0 =45430 λ0=28058

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6410 190cms2 2964 1363 56316 8736 363

05301990 1095 390cms2 3561 1135 44265 12428 135

05311990 4576 185cms2 4042 1000 18500 4576 -

Tabel 11Iaşi-Centru(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47160 λ0=27570

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6818 225 cms2 3300 1293 29092 8815 293

05301990 9722 395 cms2 4063 1050 41475 10208 135

05311990 4944 211 cms2 4267 1000 21100 4944 -

Table 12Iaşi-Copou(IAS2)Seismic Station(N-S Comp)Φ0 =47193 λ0=27562

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 27: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 11380 307 cms2 26982 1329 4086 15146 329

05301990 9025 324 cms2 35869 1000 3240 9025 -

Table 13Bucharest-Măgurele Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =47347 λ0=26030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 2072 730 cms2 3523 1124 8205 23289 124

05301990 726 235 cms2 3236 1224 2876 8886 224

05311990 164 65 cms2 3963 1000 6500 1640 -

Table 14Ploieşti-(PLS)Seismic Station(N100E Comp)Φ0 =44930 λ0=26020

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 7220 292 cms2 40443 1457 42544 10519 457

05301990 13243 684 cms2 51649 1141 78044 15110 241

05311990 6307 372 cms2 58942 1000 37200 6307 -

Table 15Bacău-(BAC2)Seismic Station( E-W Comp)Φ0 =46567 λ0=26900

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 28: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 6278 256 cms2 40777 1420 36352 8914 420

05301990 10006 475 cms2 47471 1219 57902 12197 219

05311990 4973 288 cms2 57912 1000 28800 4973 -

Table 16Cernavoda -(CVD2)Seismic Station(E-W Comp)Φ0 =44340 λ0=28030

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

( β=5)

a

08301986 14070 690 cms2 49040 11435 78901 16089 144

05301990 6241 350 cms2 56080 1000 35000 6241 -

Table 17Craiova-(CRV) Seismic Station (N05E Comp)Φ0 =47321 λ0=23798

Earthquake amax(cms2)

(recorded)

Samax

(β=5)

Samaxamax

(SAF)

c Sa(g)

(β=5)

a

08301986 1403 400 cms2 28510 1215 4860 17046 215

05311990 664 230 cms2 34638 1000 2300 6640 -

Table 18Racircmnicu Sărat -(RMS2)Seismic Station(N55E Comp)Φ0 =45380 λ0=27040

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 29: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

Figure 3The geological structure under Bucharest Isobars

are generally oriented East-West with slope of 8permil down from South

to North In the same direction the thickness of layers becomes

larger[6]

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 30: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

At the same seismic station for example at Bucharest-

Panduri Seismic Station (Table 7) and Figure 3 close to borehole

172 for horizontal components and β=5 damping the values

of the SAF for accelerations are 329 for August 301986

Vrancea earthquake (MW=71) 449 for May 30 1990 (MW=69)

and 498 for May 31 1990 (MW =64) Vrancea earthquake on

May 311990 (MW=64) could be assumed that the response is

still in elastic domain and then we have the possibility to

compare to it In RG 160 SAF= 313 and is constant at allhellip

Damping August 30 1986

(MS=70 Mw=71)

May 301990

(MS=67 Mw =69)

May 311990

(MS=62 Mw =64)

ξ Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmax Samaxamax Sv

maxvmav

2 474 361 558 372 622 484

5 326[313] 269 363[313] 295 416[313] 348

10 243 199 256 214 292 269

20 178 150 182 158 213 186

Table 19 Median values of (SAF) for last three strong Vrancea earthquakes

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 31: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

On the other hand from

Tables 1-19 and Figure 4

we can see that there is a

strong nonlinear depen-

dence of the spectral

amplification factors(SAF)

on earthquake magnitude

for other seismic stations on

Romanian territory on

extra-Carpathian area (Iasi

Bacau Focsani Bucharest-

NIEP NPP Cernavoda

Bucharest-INCERC etc)

SAF=313 (Regulatory Guide 160

of the US Atomic

Commission) amp IAEA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 32: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

CONCLUSIONS

The central question of the discussion was in last time

whether soil amplification is function of earthquake

amplitude dependent The dependence of soil response on

strain amplitude become a standard assumption in the

geotechnical field in earthquake engineering and

engineering seismology

Laboratory data shows a typical stiffness degradation

curve in term of G modulus and increasing of damping

along with strain levels developed during strong

earthquakes In other words a variation of dynamic

torsion modulus function (G daNcm2) and torsion

damping function (G) of specific shear strain (γ)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 33: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Stress and strain states are not enough to determine the

mechanical behavior of soils It is necessary in addition to

model the relation between stresses and deformations by

using specific constitutive laws to soils Currently there are

not constitutive laws to describe all real mechanical

behaviors of deformable materials like soils

Soils although have many common mechanical

properties require the use of different models to describe

behavior difference Soils are simple materials with

memory sands are bdquorate-independentrdquo type and clays are

bdquorate-dependent rdquo

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 34: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Sands typically have low rheological properties and can

be modeled with an acceptable linear elastic model and

clays which frequently presents significant changes over

time can be modeled by a nonlinear viscoelastic model

Viscoelastic material behavior could be characterized

using Boltzmannrsquos formulation of the constitutive law

Displacement vector u the tensors T amp E for tension

and strain in case of nonlinear viscoelastic materials are

function of position x and time t functions that define the

viscoelastic body statehellip

From resonant columns between 01 and 10 Hz

dynamic functions G(γ) and D(γ) are constant and functions

of shear strains (γ)hellip

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 35: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

To avoid these uncertainties we are coming with a new

way In fact from response spectra we can find all

nonlinearities from source to free field for each strong

Vrancea earthquake

The quantitative evidence of large nonlinear effects used

introduced and developed the nonlinear spectral amplification

factor (SAF) concept as ratio between (SAF)a= Saamax

(SAF)v= Sv vmax (SAF)d= Sddmax at fundamental periods

or at any one where amax = yuml(t)max vmax =x(t)max and dmax =

x(t)max

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 36: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

From Tables 1-18 and 19 for median values we can see

that there is a strong nonlinear dependence of the spectral

amplification factors (SAF) for absolute accelerations on

earthquake magnitude for all records made on extra-

Carpathian area from Iasi to Craiova for last strong

Vrancea earthquakes inclusively for NPP Cernavoda site

The amplification factors are decreasing with increasing

the magnitudes of deep strong Vrancea earthquakes and

this values are far of that given by Regulatory Guide 160

of the U S Atomic Energy Commission[12] The spectral

amplification factors(SAF) and in fact the nonlinearity

are functions of Vrancea earthquake magnitude The

amplification factors decrease as the magnitude increases

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 37: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

References [1]AkiA(1993)Local Site Effects on Weak and Strong Ground MotionTectonophysics 218 p93-111 [2] BorcherdtRD(2009)Visoelastiv Waves in Layered MediaCambridge Univ PressISBN 970-521-

89853-9 [3]BratosinD(2002)Elements of Soil Dynamics Romanian Academy Publishing House (in Romanian)

[4]Marmureanu GhBratosin DCioflan CO(2000)The dependence of Q with seismic induced strains and

frequencies for surface layers from resonant columnsPure and Applied Geophysics(PAGEOPH)

Birkhaumluser VerlagBasel2000pp269-279 [5]Mărmureanu G Mişicu M Cioflan C Bălan FS (2005)Nonlinear Seismology-The Seismology of

the XXICentury in Lecture Notes of Earth Sciences Perspective in Modern Seismology vol105 Springer Verlag Heidelberg 47-67

[6]MarmureanuGhCioflan COMarmureanuA2010Researches on local seismic hazard(microzonation) of Bucharest metropolitan area Microzoning maps with accelerations fundamental periods and intensities for maximum Vrancea earthquake magnitude of 75 on Richter scale Tehnopress EdIasi ISBN 978-974 702-809-9 472 pages (in Romanian)

[7]MarmureanuGhCioflanCOMarmureanuA(2012)Nonlinear seismology a realityThe quantitative data EGU General Assembly April 22-272012Section NH4 Vienna Austria

[8]MarmureanuGh MarmureanuACioflanCOIoescuC(2013) Esential Tools to Mitigate Vrancea Strong earthquak Effects on Moldavian Urban Environment Environmental Engrg ampManagement JournalJannuaryVol12No165-79

[9]Mitchell JK SogaK(2005)Fundamentals of Soil Behavior Wiley John Willey amp Sons I N [10]ShererPM(2009)Introduction to Seismology Cambridge University Press [11] TruesdellCNolW(1965)The Nonlinear Field Theories of MechanicsHandbuch der Physik

III3Springer Verlag [12] Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants U S Atomic Commission

Regulatory Guide 160(1973)

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)

Page 38: SECOND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING … 23-29,2014... · second european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology(2ecees) ... second european conference

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE FUTURE

IAHS-IAPSO-IASPEI Joint Assembly

GOTHENBURG July 22-26 2013 SWEDEN

Thank you

for your

attention

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is performed in the frame of the REAKT

Collaborative Project ldquoStrategies and tools for Real Time

EArthquake RisK ReducTion ldquo- FP7 (2012-2014)