Vulnerability and risk

produced by natural hazards

Assoc. prof. dr. eng. Cristian Arion

www.utcb.ro Bucharest
Course 5
 questions
Enumerate the categories of risks?

What are the components of risk assessment?

What are the domains/types of vulnerability important to the community/society?

 questions
Choose the correct phrase:
- the term “return period” is used in relation with the effects and the term “recurrence interval” is used in relation with the
causes.
- the term “return period” is used in relation with the causes and the term “recurrence interval” is used in relation with the
effects.
- the term “return period” and the term “recurrence interval” is used in relation with the causes.
- the term “return period” and the term “recurrence interval” is used in relation with the effects.

Calculate the Mean Recurrence Interval for an action having probability of exceedance of 25% in 75 years.

In Romania, the reference peak ground acceleration, chosen in P100-2014 for each seismic zone, corresponds to the:
- reference return period T=225years, requirement (or equivalently the reference probability of exceedance in 50 years,
P=20%).
- reference return period T=225years, requirement (or equivalently the reference probability of exceedance in 50 years,
P=10%).
- reference return period T=475years, requirement (or equivalently the reference probability of exceedance in 50 years,
P=10%).
- reference return period T=100years, requirement (or equivalently the reference probability of exceedance in 50 years,
P=20%).
 HAZARD

HAZARD, or disaster threat,

“Any [naturally occurring or human-induced]

phenomenon, process or event with the
potential to cause disruption or damage
(loss) to humans and their environment.
In other words, it is a general source of
danger.
Identifying an earthquake-resistant structural solution based on a seismic analysis is called seismic design
(or earthquake resistant design).
Seismic design is enforced by codes (building design codes).
Structures built according to a seismic design code should resist minor earthquakes un-damaged, resist
moderate earthquakes without significant structural damage even though incurring non-structural
damage, and resist severe earthquakes without collapse.
Building codes are ensuring a minimum (mandatory) safety level, but designers and building owners can
always select safer solutions.
Through earthquake resistant design buildings have to resist seismic horizontal forces.
The seismic design was introduced (in most cases) only in the second half of the last century. Many
people, cities and countries have learned, through earthquake disasters, that their not seismically
designed buildings cannot withstand earthquake ground-shaking.
Ground motion does not damage a building by impact (similar to that of the wrecker's ball), or by
externally applied pressure (as by wind), but by internally generated inertia forces caused by the
vibration of the building's mass.
inertia forces caused by the vibration of the building's mass.

Finertia = Mass (M) x Acceleration (A)

Acceleration is the change of velocity (in a certain direction) over time and is an attribute of the seismic input, while
mass is an attribute of the building.

The greater the mass (weight of the building), the greater the internal inertia forces generated.
Lightweight construction with less mass is typically an advantage in seismic design.

The dynamic behaviour of a structure during an earthquake is basically a vibration problem.

The seismic ground motion causes the structure to vibrate and the amplitude, duration and distribution of the dynamic
response are of concern.
The ground motion parameters and other characteristic values at a location due to an earthquake of a given magnitude
may vary strongly. They depend on numerous factors, such as seismic source mechanism, depth and distance to the
site, local soil characteristics (layer thickness, shear wave velocity). In comparison with rock, softer soils are particularly
prone to substantial local amplification of the seismic waves.
Due to all these factors, the earthquake hazard for which a structure should be designed is subject to a high degree of
uncertainty.
The response of a building to the ground motion depends on important structural characteristics (period of vibration,
structural type, ductility, etc).
The response of a building to the ground motion depends on important structural characteristics (period of vibration,
structural type, ductility, etc).

Two methods of analysis are usually used for estimating the design seismic action: the deterministic seismic hazard
analysis DSHA and the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis PSHA.

"If the earthquake loads for an engineering project at a particular site are estimated using DSHA, one or more
earthquake scenarios are defined as part of the process. In the case of one of the postulated earthquakes producing
more severe motions at the site than any of the others, then this will normally be taken as the basis for design. It may
be found, however, that one of the postulated earthquakes may dominate for short period spectral ordinates and
another at long periods, in which case both scenarios may need to be considered to determine which is controlling for
any particular structure. These scenarios can then be used directly to select or generate accelerograms for analysis.

If PSHA has been employed to estimate the earthquake loads, the definition of the design earthquake scenarios is not
straightforward. The difficulty arises from the fact that PSHA involves integration over the effects at the site of all
possible earthquake scenarios affecting the site. Nonetheless, seismic hazard assessment is often performed using a
probabilistic approach and at the same time acceleration time-histories are required as part of the output."
(Bommer et al., 2000)
 Seismic hazard analysis
Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA): involves the development of
a particular seismic scenario, i.e. the postulated occurrence of an earthquake
of a specified size at a specific location (longitude, latitude, magnitude and
depth – are deterministic).
The DSHA is developed in four steps:
 Seismic hazard analysis
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)
 Average
Sursa 3
Sursa 1
M1
f
M3
rate,
log 2 The PSHA (Cornell, 1968,
3
Algermissen et. al., 1982)
Site R
f 1

f 1. Identification and characterization of

R
Sursa 2
M2 Magnitudine earthquake sources
R
Etapa 1 Etapa 2

Parametrul P(Y>y*)
miscarii,
Y
2. Definition of seismicity, i.e.
the temporal distribution of
earthquake recurrence
Distanta, R Valoarea param., y*
Etapa 3 Etapa 4

3. Use predictive (attenuation) 4. Uncertainties in earthquake location, size and

relations for computing ground motion prediction are combined and the
ground motion produced at the outcome is the probability that ground motion
site by earthquakes of any parameter will be exceeded during a particular
possible size occurring at any time period.
possible point in each source
zone;
 Seismic hazard analysis
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)

The PSHA (Cornell, 1968, Algermissen et. al., 1982) is developed in four steps:
1. Identification and characterization of earthquake sources. Besides the
information required in step 1 of DSHA, it is necessary to obtain the
probability distribution of potential rupture location within the source and the
probability distribution of source–to-site distance (longitude, latitude,
magnitude and depth – are random variable);
2. Definition of seismicity, i.e. the temporal distribution of earthquake
recurrence (average rate at which an earthquake of some size will be
exceeded);
3. Use predictive (attenuation) relations for computing ground motion produced
at the site by earthquakes of any possible size occurring at any possible point
in each source zone; uncertainty in attenuation relations is considered in
PSHA;
4. Uncertainties in earthquake location, size and ground motion prediction are
combined and the outcome is the probability that ground motion parameter
will be exceeded during a particular time period.
 Seismic hazard analysis
Earthquake source characterization

The seismic sources can be modeled as:

 point sources – if the source is a short shallow fault
 area sources – if the source is a long and/or deep fault
 volumetric sources.

The recurrence law gives the distribution of earthquake sizes in a given period of time.

Gutenberg & Richter (1944) organized the seismic data in California according to the number of
earthquakes that exceeded different magnitudes during a time period.
The key parameter in Gutenberg & Richter’s work was the mean annual rate of
exceedance, M of an earthquake of magnitude M which is equal to the number of exceedances of
magnitude M divided by the length of the period of time.
The Gutenberg & Richter law is:
lg M = a - b M
 Seismic hazard analysis
The Gutenberg & Richter law is: lg M = a - b M
M - mean annual rate of exceedance of an
earthquake of magnitude M,

M - magnitude,

a and b – numerical coefficients depending

on the data set.

If NM is the number of earthquakes with

magnitude higher than M in T years M =

0 =10a – mean annual number of earthquakes of magnitude greater than or equal to 0

a gives the global seismicity

b – describes the relative likelihood of large to small earthquakes. If b increases the

number of larger magnitude earthquakes decreases compared to those of smaller
earthquakes
b is the slope of the recurrence plot
 Seismic hazard analysis
The Gutenberg & Richter law is: lg M = a - b M

The original Gutenberg & Richter law is unbounded in magnitude terms. This
leads to unreliable results especially at the higher end of the magnitude scale. In
order to avoid this inconsistency, the bounded recurrence law is used.
McGuire and Arabasz, 1990
 Seismic hazard analysis
Predictive relationships (attenuation relations), GMPE

The predictive relationships usually take the form Y = f(M, R, Pi), where Y is a ground
motion parameter, M is the magnitude of the earthquake, R is the source-to-site
distance and Pi are other parameters taking into account the earthquake source, wave
propagation path and site conditions.

The predictive relationships are used to determine the value of a ground motion
parameter for a site given the occurrence of an earthquake of certain magnitude at a
given distance.
 Seismic hazard analysis
Predictive relationships (attenuation relations), GMPE

This report summarizes, in total, the characteristics of 289

empirical GMPEs for the prediction of peak ground
acceleration (PGA) and 188 models for the prediction of
elastic response spectral ordinates.
Review of published data on Seismic
hazard assessment for Romania
 Contents:

I. Review of published international attenuation

relations:
I.1 Subduction source
I.2 Crustal sources

II. Romanian attenuation relations for Vrancea

subcustral sources

III. Comparison
I. Review of published international attenuation relations

I.1 Subduction sources

I.1.1 Crouse (1991)
I.1.2 Molas & Yamazaki (1995)
I.1.3 Youngs, Chiou, Silva & Humphrey (1997)
I.1.4 Drake (2001)

I.2 Crustal sources

I.2.1 Sabetta & Pugliese (1987)
I.2.2 Ambraseys, Boomer (1991)
I.2.3 Theodulidis & Papazachos (1992)
I.2.4 Ambraseys (1995)
I.1 Subduction sources

I.1.1 Youngs, Chiou, Silva & Humphrey (1997)

Earthquakes with Mw³5
(Alaska, Chile, Cascadia, Japonia, Mexic, Peru)

Focal depths between 16 km and 229 km

(shallow and deep subduction)

Site-to-source distances between 10 km and 500 km

Site conditions:
- rock
- hard soil and/or thin soil layer (<20m)
- soil deposits (³20m)

Free field records or in buildings  4 storeys

 For soil sites and intraslab earthquakes

ln( y ) = -0.6687  1.438 M W  C1  C 2 ( 10 - M W )3  C3 ln( rrup  1.097 e0..617 M W )

 0.00648 H  0.3643

y - represents the ground motion parameter

Mw - moment magnitude
rrup - site-to-source distance, km
H - focus depth, km
 = C4 -0.1Mw, standard deviation
C1-C4 - coefficients from regression
Period (s) C1 C2 C3 C4
0 (PGA) 0 0 -2.329
0.1 2.516 -0.0019 -2.697
0.3 0.793 -0.0020 -2.327 1.45
0.5 -0.438 -0.0035 -2.140
1.0 -2.870 -0.0066 -1.785
1.5 -5.101 -0.0114 -1.470 1.50
 For rock sites and intraslab earthquakes

ln( y ) = 0.2418  1.414 M W  C1  C 2 ( 10 - M W )3  C3 ln( rrup  1.7818e0.554 M W )

 0.00607 H  0.3846
y represents the ground motion parameter
Mw - moment magnitude
rrup - site-to-source distance, km
H - focus depth, km
 = C4 -0.1MW, standard deviation
C1-C4 - coefficients from regression
Period (s) C1 C2 C3 C4
0 (PGA) 0 0 -2.552
0.1 1.188 -0.0011 -2.655
0.3 0.246 -0.0036 -2.454 1.45
0.5 -0.400 -0.0048 -2.360
1.0 -1.736 -0.0064 -2.234
1.5 -2.634 -0.0073 -2.160 1.50
 I.1.2 Molas & Yamazaki (1995)

Ground motions with PGA³1cm/s2 (from Japan - JMA stations)

2166 pairs of horizontal ortogonal components
from 387 records at 76 stations

Focal depths between 0.1 km and 200 km

(shallow and deep subduction)

Free field records

log PGA = 0.206 + 0.477 MJ - log R - 0.00144 R + 0.00311 h + ci

MJ is JMA magnitude (MS = 1.27 MJ -1.82)

R - smallest site-to-source distance
(most often hypocentral distance)
h - focus depth
ci - station coefficient (evaluating site ground conditions)
 I.1.3 Crouse (1991)

Based on studies in 1988, underling the dependence

of ground motion parameters with focus depth

Earthquakes with Mw=4.8-8.2

(Alaska, Chile, Cascadia, Japonia, Mexic, Peru)

Focal depths between 0 km and 238 km

(shallow and deep subduction)

Site-to-source distances between 8 km and 866 km

No term for site conditions, but records on hard soil (not rock)

ln PGA = 6.36 + 1.76 MW - 2.73 ln (R + 1.58 e0.608 M W ) + 0.00916 h

lnPGA is very high (0.773)

 I.1.4. Drake (2001)
South American database

Focus depth 70 km  h  150 km

No consideration of site condition

log PGA = 0.33 MW - 1.38 log (R/h)

Very sensible with focus depth
350 350
Mw=7.5 Mw=7.5
300 Mw=7.3 300
Mw=7.3
250 Mw=7.0 250 Mw=7.0
PGA, cm/s2

PGA, cm/s2
Mw=6.7 Mw=6.7
200 200
150 150
100 100
50
50
h=150 k m
0 h=100 k m
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Epicentral distance d, km Epicentral distance d, km
 0.5

0.45 Sabetta & Pugliese, 1987, stiff soil

I.2 Crustal sources 0.4

0.35

0.3

PGA , 'g
I.2.1 Sabetta 0.25

0.2 Ms=6
& 0.15 Ms=6.5
Pugliese, 0.1

0.05
1987 0
1 10 100
Distance, km

Sabetta & Pugliese, 1987

Attenuation of peak r – hypocentral distance Largest component

horizontal acceleration and d - source distance, km 17 accelerograms
velocity from Italian strong- h0 – 5.8km (average value of the 95 earthquakes
motion records depths)
Ms – surface wave magnitude hmax=16 km
Bulletin of Seismological P – 0 (50%); 1 (84%)
Society of America, 77, S – depends on site geology and equals 0 4.6Ms<6.8
1491-1513 for stiff and deep soil sites and 1 2<d<159km
for shallow soil sites
an – in g

log10(an) = -1.562 + 0.306Ms–log10(r) + 0.169S + 0.17P

 0.7
Ambraseys & Bommer, 1991
0.6

0.5

Ms=6
I.2.2 Ambraseys 0.4

PGA , 'g
Ms=6.5
0.3 Ms=7
&
0.2
Brommer, 0.1

1991 0
1 10 100
Distance, km

Ambraseys & Bommer, 1991

The attenuation of ground r – hypocentral distance Largest

accelerations in Europe d - source distance, km component
h0 – 6km (average value of the 219
Earthquake Engineering and depths) accelerograms
Structural Dynamics, 20, 1179- Ms – surface wave magnitude 529 earthquakes
1202 P – 0 (50%); 1 (84%)
an – in g hmax=25 km

4.0Ms<7.3
1<d<313km

log10(an) = -1.09 + 0.238Ms - 0.0005r – log10(r) + 0.28P

 1400
Theodulidis & Papazachos, 1992, rock sites
1200

1000

2
PGA , cm/s
800

I.2.3 Theodulidis 600

Ms=6
Ms=6.5
& 400 Ms=7

Papazachos, 200

1992 0
1 10 100
Distance, km

Theodulidis &Papazachos, 1992

Dependence of strong ground motion r – hypocentral distance Both components

on magnitude-distance, site geology d - source distance, km 40 accelerograms
and macroseismic intensity for shallowh0 –15km (average value of the depths) 61 earthquakes
earthquakes in Greece: I, Peak Ms – surface wave magnitude
horizontal acceleration, velocity and P – 0 (50%); 1 (84%) hmax=31 km
displacement S – depends on site geology and equals 0
for alluvial sites and 1 for rock sites 4.5Ms<7.5
Soil Dynamics and earthquake an – in cm/s2 1<d<236km
Engineering, 11, 387-402

ln(an) = 3.88 + 1.12Ms–1.65ln(r) + 0.41S + 0.708P

 0.9
Ambraseys, 1995
0.8

0.7

0.6

PGA , 'g
0.5
I.2.4 Ambraseys, 0.4
Ms=6
1995 0.3 Ms=6.5
0.2 Ms=7
0.1

0
1 10 100
Distance, km

Ambraseys, 1995

The prediction of earthquake r – hypocentral distance Largest component

peak ground acceleration in d - source distance, km 619 accelerograms
Europe Ms – surface wave magnitude 1260 earthquakes
P – 0 (50%); 1 (84%)
Earthquake Engineering and an – in g hmax=25 km
Structural Dynamics, 24 with h0 = 2.7km
2.0Ms<7.3
1<d<313km

log10(an) = -1.43 + 0.245Ms - 0.00103r – 0.786log10(r) + 0.24P

 0.9
Ambraseys, 1995
0.8

0.7

0.6
PGA , 'g
0.5

0.4
Ms=6
0.3 Ms=6.5
0.2 Ms=7
0.1

0
1 10 100
Distance, km
II. Romanian attenuation relations for Vrancea source

Lungu & Demetriu,1994 ÷ 2003

Demetriu & Lungu, 2004
Epicenters of earthquakes located in Romania 984 -1999
 Catalog of XX century Vrancea earthquakes in Romania

MARZA www.infp.ro
Time Lat. No Long. Eo RADU Catalogue,
Catalogue, Catalogue,
Date 1994
(GMT)
1980 1998
h:m:s
h, km I0 MGR Mw I0 Ms Mw
1903 13 Sept 08:02:7 45.7 26.6 >60 7 6.3 - 6.5 5.7 6.3
1904 6 Feb 02:49:00 45.7 26.6 75 6 5.7 - 6 6.3 6.6
1908 6 Oct 21:39:8 45.7 26.5 150 8 6.8 - 8 6.8 7.1
1912 25 May 18:01:7 45.7 27.2 80 7 6.0 - 7 6.4 6.7
1934 29 March 20:06:51 45.8 26.5 90 7 6.3 - 8 6.3 6.6
1939 5 Sept 06:02:00 45.9 26.7 120 6 5.3 - 6 6.1 6.2
1940 22 Oct 06:37:00 45.8 26.4 122 7/ 8 6.5 - 7 6.2 6.5
1940 10 Nov 01:39:07 45.8 26.7 150 9 7.4 - 9 7.4 7.7
1945 7 Sept 15:48:26 45.9 26.5 75 7/ 8 6.5 - 7.5 6.5 6.8
1945 9 Dec 06:08:45 45.7 26.8 80 7 6.0 - 7 6.2 6.5
1948 29 May 04:48:55 45.8 26.5 130 6/ 7 5.8 - 6.5 6.0 6.3
1977 4 March 19:22:15 45.34 26.30 109 8/ 9 7.2 7.5 9 7.2 7.4
1986 30 Aug 21:28:37 45.53 26.47 133 8 7.0 7.3 - - 7.1
1990 30 May 10:40:06 45.82 26.90 91 8 6.7 7.0 - - 6.9
1990 31 May 00:17:49 45.83 26.89 79 7 6.1 6.4 - - 6.4
 Focal depth Vrancea Focus depth & epicenter location
Longitudine E Latitudine N
26 26.5 27 27.5 45.2 45.4 45.6 45.8 46
0 0

20 20
Epicenter location
40 40

Adancimea focarului, km

Adancimea focarului, km
60 60 46
NE
80 80
NV 1990
100 100 1940
45.8
120 120

Latitude North, °
140 140 1977 1st shock
160 160 45.6
Theoretical
1986
180 180 Center of epicenters
1977 2ndshock
45.4
40 1977 main shock
Intermediate depth Vrancea earthquakes M=7.2
60 1901-1995 45.2
Focus depth h , km .

ln h=-1.046+2.864 ln M w 26.2 26.4 26.6 26.8 27 27.2

80 Longitude East, °

100

120

140
ln h=-0.866+2.864 ln M w
160
6.2
5.9 6.6
6.3 7.0
6.7 7.4
7.1 7.8
7.5
Moment magnitude, M w
 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
Recurrence of Vrancea earthquakes

Model 1, clasic

Model 2, advanced
Truncated Gutenberg-Richter law
(McGuire & Arabasz, 1990)

-  (M w ,max - M w ) -  ( M w - M w0 )
 - M 1 - e tronquee e
n (³ M w ) = e w f ( Mw ) =
-  (M w ,max-M )w0 Mw -  ( M w max - M w0 )
1- e 1- e

• Threshold lower magnitude – Mw,min

• Maximum credible magnitude of the source - Mw,max
36
 Recurrence of Vrancea earthquakes (XXth century)
Sursa Vrancea
Modelul 1
Lungu & Demetriu, 1994
log n(³Mw) = 3.76 – 0.73 Mw

Modelul 2
-1.687(8.1- M w )
8.654 -1.687M w 1 - e
n(³ M w ) = e
1 - e -1.687(8.1-6.3)
• Threshold lower magnitude – Mw,min=6.3
• Maximum credible magnitude of the source - Mw,max=8.1 from:
• Wells and Coppersmith (1994) equations for crustal earthquakes;
• Surface rupture area, SRA and surface rupture length, SRL estimated by
geologists Sandulescu & Dinu SRL  150200 km; SRA  8000 km2
 Variability of magnitude recurrence with Mmin and Mmax
Aldea, 2002

Mag. Intervalul mediu de recurenta Seisme

M T, ani Vrancene
importante
Gutenberg-Richter trunchiata Gutenberg-Richter
M min=5 M min=6 M min=5 M min =6
t =5 t =5 t =6 t =6 t =6 t =6
M min M min M min M min M min M min
t t
=7.8 M max t
=8 M max t
=7.8 M max t
=8 M max t
=7.8 M max =8
M max
³7 53 48 51 47 49 45 40 38 30.08.1986
³ 7.2 87 75 84 73 80 69 57 53 04.07.1977
³ 7.4 159 124 154 121 144 112 81 74 10.11.1940
³ 7.5 234 164 226 160 210 148 97 87 26.10.1802
³ 7.6 386 227 372 222 345 204 116 102
³ 7.7 846 334 817 326 751 297 138 121
³ 7.79 9171 519 8851 506 8105 460 162 140
³ 7.8 550 537 487 164 143
³ 7.9 1207 1177 1063 196 168
³ 7.99 13079 12759 11461 230 196
³8 234 199
Recurrence of Vrancea Magnitude recurrence
earthquakes

0.02 T = 50 yr.
0.015 T = 65 yr.
0.008
T = 125 yr.


1977

1
Vrancea source IMR =
n (³ M )
 Recurrence of Vrancea earthquakes: Results

MRI, years 50 100 225 475

Magnitude
Mw 7.2 – 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 – 8.0

Magnitude
7.0 - 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.6 - 7.7
MG-R

4 March 1977, 10 November 1940,

MG-R = 7.2 MG-R = 7.4 40
 MRI for Vrancea earthquakes

Mw MG-R
~7.9 -

7.6 7.3

7.3 ~7.0

6.0 < MG-R <7.5

Predictive relationships (attenuation relations), GMPE for Vrancea
Attenuation analysis

Data bank:
71 accelerograms recorded in 3 events (1977, 1986, 1990)
at 47 free-field stations in Romania

9 accelerograms from Republic of Moldavia and from Bulgaria

Seismic Rep. of
network Romania Moldova Bulgaria Total
1)
Event INCERC INFP 2) GEOTEC 3)
IGG 4)
4 Martie 1977 1 - - - - 1
30 August 1986 24 8 3 2 - 37
30 Mai 1990 23 10 2 2 5 42
Total 48 18 5 4 5 80
 Directivity of Vrancea seismic hazard
ROMANIA. Maximum peak ground acceleration PGA, cm/s2 recorded during 1977, 1986 and 1990 VRANCEA earthquakes

N
28 29
Ukraine 25 26 27
W E 24
22 23
21
S
48 Botosani
Hungary # Republic of
11.5

Pru
#
Moldova

t
Satu-Mare
PGA, cm/s2 Moldova
Krasnogorka
0 - 75 Iasi &
# Chisinau 82.0
75 - 150 146.4 &
150 - 200 212.8
47 Dochia
200 - 300 # %
Oradea
Cris 50.9
Cluj-Napoca
# Bacau
Seismic stations with %
free-field records:
132.0
Barlad
# Onesti #
INCERC network
Transilvania 232.1 # Adjud 168.6
% INFP network 86.6 #
$ GEOTEC network Banat Cahul
&
Vrancioaia
& R. of Moldova network 1990 % 136.6
& Bulgaria network 46
Mures
Olt · #
157.2 # · Focsani
Timisoara Surduc 1940 %
# $ 297.1
97.2
March 4, 1977 Muntele Rosu
%
·1986
# Ramnicu Sarat
Mw=7.5 Vidra Lotru
Vidraru Arges 79.1 #
158.6 164.0 Tulcea
$
Valenii de Munte#
· 1977 Carcaliu
h=109 km $ % #
14.3 93.6
26.1 186.9 # %
Campina # Istrita
Aug.30, 1986 61.5 109.4
# Baia
Mw=7.2 45 Pitesti # Ploiesti Valahia 90.8 #
h=133 km Peris#
45.8 Dobrogea
223.8
Bolintin Vale #Otopeni 219.8 Fetesti Cernavoda
May 30, 1990 # # # Branesti 100.4 # # 107.1
208.6 Bucuresti 150.8 Calarasi
Mw=7.0 Craiova #
# # Black
h=91 km 194.9 Constanta
Sea
Mw - moment magnitude Yugoslavia
h - focus depth Giurgiu 114.1
#
44 Danube Turnu Magurele & Ruse112.4
# Shabla 32.9
·
# Epicenters of strong 112.2
Kavarna 36.2
&
Vrancea events &
(Mw > 6.9) Bulgaria
Varna 33.6
Provadia 48.2 &
100 0 100 200 Kilometers &
Lungu, Aldea, 1999

ArcView GIS version 3.1, ESRI Inc. CA.

Sectors and directions for attenuation analysis

N-E

Moldova
sector

Bucharest
sector
Cernavoda
sector

S-W
 Predictive relationships (attenuation relations), GMPE for Vrancea
Vrancea attenuation relation,
Lungu & Demetriu 1994 ÷ 2003
Model type - Molas & Yamazaki (1995)

ln PGA = c0 + c1 Mw + c2 lnR +c3R +c4 h + 

PGA is peak ground acceleration at the site
Mw- moment magnitude,
h - focal depth
R - hypocentral distance to the site
c0, c1, c2, c3, c4 - data dependent coefficients
 - random variable with zero mean and  = ln PGA
Regression coefficients

Sector c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 lnPGA
All data 3.098 1.053 -1.000 -0.0005 -0.006 0.502
Bucharest sector 1.685 1.181 -1.000 0.002 -0.005 0.461
Moldova sector 0.144 1.102 -1.000 0.0008 -0.003 0.588
Cernavoda sector 1.565 1.252 -1.000 -0.001 -0.003 0.411
Vrancea attenuation relation,
Demetriu & Lungu, 2003

FORMAT I

log10 PGA =1.33187 + 0.479847Mw - log10 R -0.00029R -0.00392 h

log10 = 0.24

FORMAT II

ln PGA = 4.67303+ 1.1148 Mw - 1.29852ln (R +4.72812e0.30759Mw) - 0.0088 h

ln = 0.56
 ag in Bucharest for MRI = 475 years

Maximum credible Vrancea magnitude Mw,max=8.1

Focal depth, h, km 100 110 120 130 140 150

475
Mean recurrence interval, MRI, years

m 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17

ag, in g units
m+1.0s 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.28

47
III. Comparison
Attenuation curves for subduction sources (mean curves)
Aldea, 2002

350
Youngs et al., 1997
300 Lungu et al., 2000
Drake, 2001
250
Crouse, 1991
2
PGA , cm/s

200

150

100

50 M W =7.5
h=109 k m
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distanta epicentrala D, km
Attenuation curves for subduction sources (mean curves)
Aldea, 2002

250
Youngs et al., 1997
Lungu et al., 2000
200
Drake, 2001
Crouse, 1991
2
PGA , cm/s
150

100

50 M W =7.2
h=133 k m
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distanta epicentrala D, km
Attenuation curves for crustal sources
500

450 Crouse, 1991

Format II, 2003
400
Lungu et al., 2000
350 Format I, 2003

2
PGA , cm/s 300

250

200

150

100

50 M W =7.5 m+ 
0 h=109 k m
0 50 100 150 200 250

Distanta epicentrala D, km
 0.4

0.35 Ambraseys&Bommer, 1991

0.3 Ambraseys, 1995

PGA , 'g 0.25 Sabetta&Pugliese, 1987

0.2 Theodulidis&Papazachos, 1992

0.15

0.1

0.05
Ms =6.5
0
10 100
Distance, km
 0.7
Ambraseys&Bommer, 1991
0.6
Ambraseys, 1995
0.5
Sabetta&Pugliese, 1987

0.4
PGA , 'g
Theodulidis&Papazachos, 1992

0.3

0.2

0.1
Ms =7.0
0
10 100
Distance, km
 Seismic zones end epicenters that affect Romania during
UTCB
the period 984 - 2002 - 54 -
Earthquakes epicenters and some seismic areas of Romania
Fagaras (1550 - 1993) and Banat (1794-2001)
 Recurrence of Banat earthquakes magnitudes
Modelul 1 Banat Sources
log n(³M) = a - b M
Sursa Moldova Noua :
Sursa Timisoara :
log n (³M) = 0.81 - 0.50 M
log n (³M) = 2.34 - 0.74 M
Both Banat sources (togheter):
log n (³M) = 2.52 - 0.75 M

Modelul 2

1 - e -1.70 ( M max - M )
n(³ M ) = e 5.38-1.70 M Timisoara Source
1 - e -1.70 ( M max - M 0 )
-1.15 ( M max - M )
1- e
n(³ M ) = e 1.75 -1.15 M
Moldova Noua Source
1 - e -1.15( M max - M 0 )
Recurrence interval for Banat earthquakes magnitudes

1000

recurentaT,Tyears
mediuinterval,
recurrence , ani 100 Moldova Noua

10 Timisoara
Banat -ambele surse
MeanInterval

1
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2
Magnitudinea , M
MRI for BANAT seismic zones

1
IMR =
n (³ M )
 Recurenta magnitudinilor pentru sursele
seismice ce afecteaza teritoriul Romaniei
Sursa seismica Durata Catalog seismic =a =b
Transilvania 780 ani -3.3553 0.39535 Cataloagele de cutremure utilizate:
Dobrogea 100 ani 3.141 1.446
Shabla 100 ani -0.3585 0.5786
- Cataloagele C. Radu, 1994
Intramoesica 100 ani 1.71588 1.2028 - Catalog INFP
Fagaras 100 ani 1.89134 1.0562
Crisana-Maramures 100 ani 5.2524 2.1130
Timisoara 100 ani 2.7866 1.2067
Moldova Noua 100 ani 1.34471 1.0596
Vrancea 1000ani 3.8998 1.0412
11.9746 2.2641

1 - e -  ( M max - M ) ln M = a ln10 - b ln10 M =  -  M

M = e -  M
1 - e -  ( M max - M min )  = a ln10 = 2.303 a si  = b ln10 = 2.303 b

Legea de recurenta Legea de recurenta

Gutenberg-Richter trunchiata Gutenberg-Richter
(McGuire si Arabasz, 1990)
 Catalog de cutremure pentru zona Fagaras (MW>4)
(1550 - 1993)
Localizare Adancime Magnitudine
Data Lat. Long. h, km Mw
1550/10/26 45.80 24.20 9.9 6.5
1
1571/04/10 45.50 24.60 9.9 6.5
1590/08/10 45.40 24.40 9.9 6.5

Numarul cumulativ de cutremure intr-un an, n(>M w)

FAGARAS - Cat. 100 de ani
1569/08/17 45.40 24.50 9.9 6.4
1916/1/26 45.40 24.60 21.0 6.4
log n(>M w ) =0.8214-0.4587M w
1793/12/08 45.70 24.50 9.9 6.2 0.1
1746/12/07 45.50 24.60 9.9 5.9
1832/02/19 45.40 24.20 9.9 5.6
1826/10/16 45.70 24.50 9.9 5.5
1639/04/09 45.40 24.20 9.9 5.3
1969/4/12 45.25 25.02 8.0 5.2 0.01
1966/6/10 45.10 25.10 32.0 4.6
1894/01/19 45.30 24.60 9.9 4.5
1911/11/17 45.20 24.30 9.9 4.5
1912/3/9 45.20 24.30 9.9 4.5
1940/1/5 45.30 25.20 7.0 4.5 0.001
1898/10/21 45.30 25.20 9.9 4.2 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
1912/3/3 45.20 24.30 9.9 4.2 Magnitudine, M w

1955/12/14 45.40 25.20 9.9 4.2

1942/9/20 45.70 25.20 9.9 4.1
1970/8/4 45.85 25.40 33.0 4.0
 Catalog de cutremure in secolul XX pentru zona Crisana

Data Localizare Adancime Magnitudine

Lat. Long. h, km Mw
1
12/12/1901 47.90 23.10 2.0 3.7
Numarul cumulativ de cutremure intr-un an, n(>Mw)
CRISANA - Cat. 100 de ani 3/1/1902 47.90 24.00 1.0 4.1

log n(>M w ) =2.2807-0.9175M w 4/29/1906 47.30 22.10 10.0 4.2

0.1
3/18/1911 48.00 23.90 6.0 4.0

6/28/1926 48.02 23.71 4.0 3.4

0.01
8/10/1926 48.02 23.70 5.0 4.0

8/22/1935 48.20 23.52 6.0 3.5

9/14/1937 48.21 23.54 7.0 4.3

0.001 11/21/1937 48.22 23.54 4.0 3.7
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Magnitudine, M w 4/5/1963 48.15 24.00 12.0 3.5

6/30/1978 47.69 23.26 10.0 4.0

3/28/1979 47.96 23.62 10.0 3.5

3/8/1979 47.79 23.33 10.0 3.2

3/30/1979 47.95 23.66 33.0 4.5

1/4/1999 47.94 22.92 29.4 3.6

2/25/1989 47.56 22.42 20.1 3.7

GMPE’s Crustal source

Ambraseys N. N., Simpson K.A, Bommer, J.J. (1996)

log10(ag) = c1 + c2Ms + c3r + c4log10(r) + CASA + CSSS

c1 = -1.74, c2 = 0.273, c3 = 0, c4 = -0.954, CA = 0.076, CS = 0.058, h0 = 4.7, =0.25

PGA componenta orizontala - Probabilitate 0.84
ROCK
0.36
0.32
0.28 Ms=4 SA = 0 ; SS = 0
0.24 Ms=4.5
(rock – Vs>750m/s)
PGA ,g

0.2 Ms=5
Ms=5.5
0.16
Ms=6
0.12 PGA componenta orizontala - Probabilitate 0.84
0.08 0.4 SOFT SOIL
0.04 0.36 SA = 0 ; SS = 1
0 0.32
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.28 Ms=4 (soft soil – Vs <360m/s)
Ms=4.5
0.24
PGA ,g
Distanta epicentrala, km Ms=5
0.2 Ms=5.5
0.16 Ms=6
0.12
0.08
0.04
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distanta epicentrala, km
GMPE’s
Vrancea source- Lungu & Demetriu (2000)
lnPGA = 3.098 + 1.053Mw - lnR - 0.0005R - 0.006h

Crustal sources -Ambraseys & Bommer (1991)

log10 PGA = -0.87 + 0.217 M - log10 R - 0.00117 R

PGA componenta orizontala - valori mediane

0.3
Ms=4
0.25
Ms=4.5
0.2 Ms=5
PGA ,g

Ms=5.5
0.15 Ms=6

0.1
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distanta epicentrala, km
 PGA componenta orizontala - valori mediane
0.35

0.3
Mw =7.5 - Vrancea
0.25
Ms=6 - crustal

PGA ,g
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distanta epicentrala, km

PGA componenta orizontala - valori mediane

0.35 Mw =7.5 - Vrancea

0.3 Ms=6 - crustal

0.25
h=10km

PGA ,g
0.2
0.15
0.1
h=100km
0.05
0
1 10 100 1000
Distanta epicentrala, km
 Hazard curve (Cornell, 1968, Cramer, 1996)
Hazard curves
• Vrancea seismic source

P[PGA>PGA*] =  P [ PGA  PGA* M G - R , R ,h ] f ( M ) f ( R ) f ( h ) dM dR dh

Magnitude, focal depth, hypocentral distance
P(PGA>PGA*|m,r) – annual exceedance probability of PGA* for an earthquake of magnitude Mw occurring at
hypocentrale distance R and depth h
(PGA – lognormally distributed)
• Crustal sources

( PGA  PGA*) = M min   P( PGA  PGA* | M , R )  f ( M )  f ( R )dMdR

Magnitude, hypocentral distance

(PGA>PGA*) annual average excedance rate of the PGA*

f(M) probability distribution/density function for magnitudes
f(h) - probability distribution/density function for focal depth
f(R) - probability distribution/density function for hypocentral distance
 Hazard curve (Cornell, 1968, Cramer, 1996)

1.E-01

Annual exceedance rate, (PGA )

PSHA - Bucharest
1.E-02

1.E-03

Vrancea subcrustal source

(Vacareanu & Aldea, 2002)
1.E-04
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
2
PGA , cm/s
 Average
Sursa 3
Sursa 1
M1
f
M3
rate,
log 2 Hazard Analyse
3
Cornell-Mcguire
Site R
f 1

R
f 1. Seismic source
Sursa 2
M2 Magnitudine identification
R
Etapa 1 Etapa 2

Parametrul P(Y>y*)
miscarii,
Y
2. Probabilistic distribution
of the magnitude

Distanta, R Valoarea param., y*

Etapa 3 Etapa 4

3. Finding the attenuation 4. Calculation of the parameters of

relation for the the ground motion for each
parameters of the site (values are defined with
ground motion a probability of unexceedence
on a given period)
UTCB - 67 -
 PSHA and use of GIS technology for evaluation
the influence of Vrancea seismic source
UTCB - 68 -
UTCB - 69 -
UTCB - 70 -
UTCB - 71 -
UTCB - 72 -
The design ground acceleration is given by seismic hazard zonation maps.

The majority of the seismic hazard maps are obtained through the probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis PSHA (as introduced by Cornell, 1968).

One of the first probabilistic seismic hazard maps included in a design code is
the 1976 the US seismic hazard map by Algermissen et al., which depicted the
peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

UTCB - 73 -
 P100-1/2013 Romanian code

Bucuresti ag = 0,30g
Probabilistic zonation of peak ground acceleration for design
74
IMR = 225 years
 P100-1/2013 Harta de hazard seismic

Bucuresti ag = 0,30g

Zonarea valorilor de vârf ale acceleraiei terenului pentru proiectare ag pentru

75
IMR = 225 ani, respectiv 20% probabilitate de depasire în 50 de ani
 PGA, ag used for seismic design

Country ag Corresponding MRI

maxim ag, in years

Greece 0,36g

Italy 0,36g
475
Turkey 0,40g

Slovenia 0,25g

France 0,25g 250

Switzerland 0,16g
475
Germany 0,10g

76
 Level of design seismic hazard defined by the
MRI of the PGA, ag

Mean recurrence Probability of Probability of

interval, MRI, exceedance in exceedance in
years 50 years 1 year
100 years 40 % 1%

225 years 20 % 0,4 %

475 years 10 % 0,2 %

2475 years 2% 0,1 %

77