Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 2007–2029 | Cite as

Comparison of 3D, 2D and 1D numerical approaches to predict long period earthquake ground motion in the Gubbio plain, Central Italy

  • Chiara Smerzini
  • Roberto Paolucci
  • Marco Stupazzini
Original Research Paper

Abstract

In this work we studied the performance of different numerical approaches to simulate the large amplifications of long period earthquake ground motion within the Gubbio plain, a closed-shape intra-mountain alluvial basin of extensional tectonic origin in Central Italy, observed during the Umbria-Marche 1997 seismic sequence. Particularly, referring to the Sep 26 1997 Mw6.0 mainshock, we considered the following numerical approximations: (a) 3D model, including a kinematic model of the extended seismic source, a layered crustal structure, and the basin itself with a simplified homogeneous velocity profile; (b) 2D model of a longitudinal and transversal cross-section of the basin, subject to vertical and oblique incidence of plane waves with time dependence at bedrock obtained by the 3D simulations; (c) 1D model. 3D and 2D numerical simulations were carried out using the spectral element code GeoELSE, exploiting in 3D its implementation in parallel computer architectures. 3D numerical simulations were successful to predict the observed large amplification of ground motion at periods beyond about 1 s, due to the prominent onset of surface waves originated at the southern edge of the basin and propagating northwards. More specifically, the difference of 3D vs 2D results is remarkable, since the latter ones fail to approach such large amplification levels, even when an oblique incidence of plane waves is considered.

Keywords

Strong ground motion simulations Alluvial basins Complex site effects Surface waves High performance computing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bielak J, Loukakis K, Hisada H, Yoshimura C (2003) Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, part I: theory. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(2): 817–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bindi D, Parolai S, Cara F, Di Giulio G, Ferretti G, Luzi L, Monachesi G, Pacor F, Rovelli A (2009) Site amplification observed in the Gubbio basin, Central Italy: hints for lateral propagation effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(2A): 741–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bindi D, Luzi L, Massa M, Pacor F (2010) Horizontal and vertical ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian Accelerometric Archive (ITACA). Bull Earthquake Eng 8: 1209–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bindi D, Luzi L, Pacor F, Paolucci R (2011) Identification of accelerometric stations in ITACA with anomalous seismic response. Bull Earthquake Eng. This special issueGoogle Scholar
  5. Casarotti E, Stupazzini M, Lee S, Komatitsch D, Piersanti A, Tromp J (2007) CUBIT and seismic wave propagation based upon the spectral-element method: an advanced unstructured mesher for complex 3D geological media. In: Brewer ML and Marcum D (eds) Proceedings of 1th international meshing roundtable. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E (2008) Broadband (0.05 to 20 s) prediction of displacement response spectra based on worldwide digital records. J Seismol 12: 453–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi Y, Stewart J, Graves R (2005) Empirical model for basin effects accounts for basin depth and source location. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(4): 1412–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day SM, Graves R, Bielak J, Dreger D, Larsen S, Olsen KB, Pitarka A, Ramirez-Guzman L (2008) Model for basin effects on long-period response spectra in Southern California. Earthq Spectra 24: 257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faccioli E, Maggio F, Paolucci R, Quarteroni A (1997) 2D and 3D elastic wave propagation by a pseudo-spectral domain decomposition method. J Seismol 1(3): 237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher JB, Wen KL (2005) Strong ground motion in the taipei basin from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(4): 1428–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishman KL, Ahmad S (1995) Seismic response for alluvial valleys subjected to SH, P and SV waves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14: 249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furumura T, Hayakawa T, Nakamura M, Koketsu K, Baba T (2008) Development of Long-period Ground Motions from the Nankai Trough, Japan, Earthquakes: Observations and Computer Simulation of the 1944 Tonankai (MW8.1) and the 2004 SE Off-Kii Peninsula (MW7.4) Earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys: 1–23Google Scholar
  13. Furumura T, Hayakawa T (2007) Anomalous propagation of long-period ground motions Recorded in Tokyo during the 23 October 2004 MW 6.6 Niigata-ken Chuetsu, Japan, Earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(3): 863–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graves RW, Pitarka A, Somerville PG (1998) Ground-motion amplification in the Santa Monica area: effects of shallow basin-edge structure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(5): 1224–1242Google Scholar
  15. Graves RW, Wald DJ (2004) Observed and simulated ground motions in the San Bernardino basin region for the hector mine, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(1): 131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartzell S, Frazier GA, Brune JN (1978) Earthquake modeling in a homogeneous half-space. Bull Seismol Soc Am 68: 301–316Google Scholar
  17. Haskell NA (1953) The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered media. Bull Seismol Soc Am 43(1): 17Google Scholar
  18. Hernandez B, Cocco M, Cotton F, Stramondo S, Scotti O, CourboulexF Campillo M, Campillo F (2004) Rupture history of the 1997 Umbria-Marche (Central Italy) main shocks from the inversion of GPS, DInSAR and near field strong motion data. Ann Geophys 47: 1355–1376Google Scholar
  19. Koketsu KM, Miyage H (2008) A seismological overview of long-period ground motion. J Seismol 12: 133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koketsu K, Hatayama K, Furumura T, Ikegami Y, Akiyama S (2005) Damaging long-period ground motions from the 2003 MW 8.3 Tokachi-oki, Japan, earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 76: 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Komatitsch D, Vilotte JP (1998) The spectral element method: an efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2D and 3D geological structures. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88: 368–392Google Scholar
  22. Kosloff R, Kosloff D (1986) Absorbing boundaries for wave propagation problems. J Comp Phys 63: 363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu SW, Datta SK, Bouden M, Shah AH (1991) Scattering of obliquely incident seismic waves by a cylindrical valley in a layered half-space. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20: 859–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mai M (2004) SRCMOD: online database of finite source rupture models, http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/srcmod/
  25. Mirabella F, Ciaccio MG, Barchi MR, Merlini S (2004) The Gubbio normal fault (Central Italy): geometry, displacement distribution and tectonic evolution. J Struct Geol 26: 2233–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miyake H, Koketsu K (2005) Long-period ground motions from a large offshore earthquake: the case of the 2004 off the Kii peninsula earthquake, Japan. Earth Planets Space 57: 203–207Google Scholar
  27. Olsen KB, Nigbor R, Konno T (2000) 3D viscoelastic wave propagation in the upper borrego valley, California, constrained by borehole and surface data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90: 134–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pacor F, Bindi D, Luzi L, Parolai S, Marzorati S, Monachesi G (2007) Characteristics of strong ground motion data recorded in the Gubbio sedimentary basin (Central Italy). Bull Earthquake Eng 5: 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paolucci R (1999) Numerical evaluation of the effect of cross-coupling of different components of ground motion in site response analyses. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(4): 877–887Google Scholar
  30. Paolucci R, Maffeis A, Scandella L, Stupazzini M, Vanini M (2003) Numerical prediction of low-frequency ground vibrations induced by high-speed trains at Ledsgaard, Sweden. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23: 425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paolucci R, Spinelli D (2006) Ground motion induced by train passage. ASCE J Eng Mech 132(2): 201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paolucci R, Pacor F, Puglia R, AmeriG, Cauzzi C, MassaM (2010) Record processing in ITACA, the newItalian strong-motion database. In: Akkar S et al (ed) Earthquake data in engineering seismology, Chapter 8, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, 14. Springer, pp 99–113Google Scholar
  33. Pucci S, De Martini M, Pantosti D, Valensise G (2003) Geomorphology of the Gubbio basin (Central Italy): understanding the active tectonics and earthquake potential. Ann Geophys 46(5): 837–864Google Scholar
  34. Smerzini C (2010) The earthquake source in numerical modeling of seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous earth’s media. PhD thesis, ROSE School, IUSS, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  35. Steidl JH, Tumarkin AG, Archuleta RJ (1996) What is a reference site?. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6): 1733–1748Google Scholar
  36. Stupazzini M, Paolucci R, Igel H (2009) Near-fault earthquake ground motion simulation in the Grenoble Valley by a high-performance spectral element code. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(1): 286–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomson WT (1950) Transmission of elastic waves trough a stratified solid medium. J Appl Phys 21: 89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wald DJ, Graves RW (1998) The seismic response of the Los Angeles basin, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(2): 337–356Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Smerzini
    • 1
  • Roberto Paolucci
    • 1
  • Marco Stupazzini
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Structural EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Munich REMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations