Advertisement

Strong Motion Instrumentation for Structures of Civil Engineering and Economical Aspects of Planning of Territory of Big Cities

  • V. Zaalishvili
  • I. Timchenko
  • V. Kacharava
  • Z. Zaalishvili
Chapter
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NSSE, volume 373)

Abstract

A number of strong earthquakes have taken place in last several years, and they were characterized by suddenly high peak values of accelerations (0.4–2.0 g). The existing position of structural engineers and scientists at the usage of so-called design accelerations is based on rather formal connection between acceleration and seismic intensity. So, according to Mercalli seismic scale (MMI), the design acceleration, which corresponds to earthquake intensity 9 degrees, has changed 5 times (from 0.1 to 0.5g) over the last 40 years. From the other side during high accelerations (2.0g, Nortridge, 1995 etc.) the intensity has reached even above-mentioned intensity of 9. At the same time a buildings designed at the intensity of 7 (e.g. 0.1g), very often can endure the seismic intensity of 9 degrees (0.4g, Sakhalin, 1995).

The existing factors of seismic hazard are correlated badly with instrumental characteristics of earthquakes. All above-mentioned sets the problem for selection of parameter. which is directly connected with destructive seismic effect.

Based at this and other views, the paper shows necessity of such type of equipment (strong motion instrumentation) which will give opportunity to test the reaction of buildings at seismic effect accurately, based on direct energy parameters or more closely on parameter which characterizes seismic effect (acceleration, velocity etc.),

In the regions with low seismic intensity (Georgia), which means the country where the return period of strong earthquakes is rather long, it should be used the equipment (strong motion instrumentation) which would have widen working characteristics, in order to accept the weak signals.

The paper contains economical aspects of planning of urban areas, based on hazard mitigation and vulnerability of buildings and structures in the case of their provision by corresponding strong motion instrumentation. The following part contains considerations about the creation of monitoring instrumental systems in buildings and at major structures of urban areas of Georgia.

Keywords

Ground Motion Seismic Hazard Seismic Effect Peak Ground Acceleration Strong Earthquake 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ambraseys N.N. Dynamics and response of foundation Materials in Epicentral Regions of Strong Earthquakes. Proc. World,Conference Earthguake Eng., 5 th, Rome 1973, pp. 115–119.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aptikaev F.F. On the Correlation of MM Intensity with Parameters of Ground Skating. Proc. VII Europ. Gonf. Earth. Eng. Greece, v. 2, 1981, pp. 117–126.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arefiev S., Parini I., Romanov A., Mayer-Rosa D., Smith P. The Ratchi (Georgia. USSR) — Earthquake of 29 April 1991: Strong Motion Data of Selected Aftershocks. 3 May–30 June 1991, Aug. 1991, vol. 1, Zurich, 211p.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arias A.A. Measure of Earthquake Intensity. — Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants. MIT. PRESS. USA, 1970, pp. 438–483.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bender B. Incorporating acceleration variability into Seismic Hazard Analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74, N 4, 1984, pp.l451–1462.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castellany A., Petrini V. Research Activity on Decign Response Spectra for Italian Sites. Proc. World. Conf. Earth. Engineering, 5-th, Rome 1973, pp. 1210–1213.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chinnery M. A. Earthquake Magnitudeand Source Parameters. Bulle tin of the Seismological Society of America, 59, 1969, pp. 1969–1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evemden J.F., Hibbard R.R., Schneider J.F. A model for Predicting Seismic Intensity. Proc. World. Conf. Earthq. Engineering 5-th, Rome, 1973, pp. 1684–1687.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finn Liam W.D., Iai S., Matsunavga Y. Effect of Site Conditions of Ground Motions. Proc. 10-th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, abstract, vol.2, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fukushima I., Tanaka T. A new attenuation relation for Peak Horizontal Acceleration of Strong Earthquake Ground Motion in Japan. Shimizu Technical Research Bulletin, No 10, Tokyo, March 1991, pp.1–11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fukushima I., Tanaka T. A new attenuation relation for Peak Horizontal Acceleration of Strong Earthquake Ground Motion in Japan. Bull. of the Seismological Society of America, 1990, 80, N 4, pp. 757–783Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grandori E.G., Tagliani A. A method for the magnitude Distribution Estimate. 10-th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, abstract, vol.1, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Idriss I.M., Seed H.B. An Analysis of Ground Motions During the 1957 San. Francisko Earthquake. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. 58, 1968 pp. 2013–2032.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iida K. Earthquake Magnitude, Earthquake Fault and Source Dimensions. Journal Earth Science, Nagoya Univ., 13, 1965, pp. 115–132.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiremidjian A, Shah H.C. Probabilistic Site-Dependent Response Spectra. Structural Division Proceedings of Society Civil Engineering, 1980, 106, No.1, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kudo K. Topics of Effects of Surface Geology on Strong-Ground Motion from the Recent Earthquakes in Japan and the activity of Japanes Working Group on Effects on Surface Geology. Proc. 10-th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, vol 4, 1995, p. 2635–2641.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moinfar A. A., Nadersadeh A. Strong Motion Characteristics and Acceleration Distribution During the Manjil, IRAN Earthquake of 20 June 1990. Proc. 10-th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, abstract, vol. 1, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Omote S., Yoshimura K. Considerations on Earthquake Force Evalu ation. Proc. World Conf. Earthq. Eng., 5-th, Rome, 1973, pp. 1688–1691.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reiter L. Earthquake Hazard Analysis. Golumbia Univ. Press, New York, 1991, 245 p.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seed H.B., Romo M.P., Sun J.I., Jaime A., Lysmer J. The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985 Relationships Between Soil Conditions and Earthquake Ground Motion. Earthquake Spectra — 4, N 4, 1988, pp. 687–789.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trifunac M.D. Characterization of Responce Spectra by Parameters Governing. The Cross NANURE of Earthquake source mechanisms. Proc. World Conf. Earth. Eng. 5-th, Rome, 1973, pp. 1688–1691.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wen K.L., Yeh Y.T Seismic Velocity Structure Beneath the SMART 1 ARRAY. Bulletin of the Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, vol. 4, Dec. 1984, pp. 51–72.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaalishvili V.B. The Influence of Engineering and Geologic Features of Soil Layer on the Formation of Wave Field Created by Impulse and Vibration Sources. Proceedings of the 9-th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4 A, Moscow, 1990, pp. 169–175.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zaalishvili V.B. Modem Concept of Seismic Microzoning. Proceedings of the 11-th European Conference on Earthquake. Engineering, Sept. 6–11, Paris, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Zaalishvili
    • 1
  • I. Timchenko
    • 1
  • V. Kacharava
    • 1
  • Z. Zaalishvili
    • 1
  1. 1.Center of Applied Geophysics, Engineering Seismology and Seismic Protection of Structures of Georgian Geophysical SocietyInstitute of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering of Georgian Academy of ScienciesTbilisiGeorgia

Personalised recommendations