|Titre||Increasing seismic safety by combining engineering technologies and seismological data, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security|
|Auteur||Mucciarelli, M (éd.); Herak, M (éd.); Cassidy, J (éd.)|
|Source|| 2009, 382p., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9196-4 Accès ouvert|
|Séries alt.||Secteur des sciences de la Terre, Contribution externe 20080289|
|Media||papier; en ligne; numérique|
|Province||Colombie-Britannique; Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Québec; Nouveau-Brunswick; Nouvelle-Écosse; Île-du-Prince-Édouard; Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador; Territoires du Nord-Ouest; Yukon; Nunavut;
|SNRC||1; 2; 3; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 62; 63; 64; 65;
66; 67; 68; 69; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 92; 93; 94; 95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 102; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 114O; 114P; 115; 116; 117; 120; 340; 560|
|Lat/Long OENS||-141.0000 -50.0000 90.0000 41.7500|
|Sujets||secousses séismiques; dégât causés par les tremblements de terre; magnitudes des séismes; mécanismes de tremblement de terre; risque de tremblement de terre; études séismiques; foyers des séismes;
sismicité; sismographes; réseau sismique; séismologie; séismologie des secousses fortes; géologie de l'environnement; géophysique|
|Illustrations||cartes de localisation; tableaux|
|Programme||Réduction des risques dus aux aléas naturels |
|Diffusé||2009 01 01|
|Résumé||(disponible en anglais seulement)|
This publication summarises discussions and presentations made by 30 engineers and seismologists from 14 countries. Under the title "Increasing Seismic Safety
by Combining Engineering Technologies and Seismological Data", we grouped several topics to be discussed together by engineers and seismologists:
After three days of lectures and discussions, participants agreed on the following answers to the
questions posed before the workshop:
Q - Can we use ambient noise for building and soil characterization, and to extract useful information for engineers?
A - There is general agreement that noise allows the estimation of fundamental
frequency of soils and mode shapes for linear elastic-behaving buildings. There is no consensus on the use of amplitudes retrieved from HVSR for soils. Investigation should be devoted to understand why in some cases there is a good agreement with SSR
while in other cases HVSR fails to predict spectral amplitudes. More reliable classification schemes of soil aimed to seismic code can be obtained including soil fundamental frequency together with other parameters (e.g. Vs30). Noise measurements may
help to export soil classification systems and building period-to-height relationships from one region to another. Furthermore, it is desirable to develop relationships to extrapolate determination of fundamental frequencies during stronger shaking
from those determined using low-amplitude (ambient noise) data.
Q - How can we tell apart a frequency decrease due to a distributed damage, concentrated damage, or time-varying building and soil behaviour? How to couple soil and building
A - At the moment there are very few data available to reach an answer. It would be desirable to have public links to data in order to allow different groups to share information. Moreover, long term building monitoring
will provide control points for comparison and to envisage which strategy is better for single structures or large sets of buildings. In order to facilitate this, specific recommendations for permanent monitoring arrays ought to be
Q - Which is the role of transients in ambient noise analysis?
A - There is no consensus in the seismological community about the effects of transients on noise measurement in the free-field. For engineering purposes,
transient in buildings are standard practice (e.g. vibrodyne and shock tests, wind gusts). This is one of the topics that point out the need for standardised techniques of data collection and processing on soil and in buildings.
Q - Can we
quantify the influence of existing buildings on ground-motion recordings (both of noise and of earthquakes)?
A - At the moment there is empirical evidence of the importance of the effect a single building on free-field recordings, while only
numerical evidence is provided for the effect of a large set of building. To achieve also experimental evidence, new monitoring strategies have to be implemented, as well as dedicated data-processing techniques. In addition, transients in recorded
strong-motion responses of buildings may indicate damage and propagation of damage. Uncertainty still exists for soil structure interaction, if it is visible in noise measurements or it becomes evident only with strong motion.
Q - To which
extent is soil-building resonance a cause of damage enhancement?
A - There is general agreement that soil-building resonance can be a cause of damage enhancement. There are suggestions that peculiar damage patterns (e.g. the collapse of a
single building in a set of identical ones) could be due to city-soil interaction. There is the need to better quantify the occurrence of resonance taking into account the time-varying, non-linear behaviour of soil and building subjected to strong