Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 2329–2348 | Cite as

Site characterization of Italian accelerometric stations

  • Chiara Felicetta
  • Maria D’Amico
  • Giovanni Lanzano
  • Rodolfo Puglia
  • Emiliano Russo
  • Lucia Luzi
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The last release of the strong-motion database ITACA (ITalian ACelerometric Archive v 2.1, http://itaca.mi.ingv.it) includes, to date, about 25,222 three-component accelerometric waveforms generated by 1365 earthquakes with magnitude between 3.0 and 6.9 and recorded by 1210 stations in the time frame 1972–2015. One of the main goals of ITACA is to improve the characterization of the recording sites from the geological and geophysical point of view and to provide seismic classification according to Italian seismic code. To this aim, metadata of recording stations are stored in three main thematic levels (topographic features, geological features and geophysical measurements) useful for a large variety of applications in engineering seismology or earthquake engineering. In particular, 206 recording stations have been characterized by quantitative measurements of velocity profiles, conducted through different techniques (active and/or passive), and the VS,30 values are available in ITACA 2.1. Moreover, 357 horizontal to vertical spectral ratios of Fourier spectra of ambient noise and the value of the fundamental frequency are also accessible. All details about the stations contained in the ITACA database are described in specific reports.

Keywords

Site effects Site characterization Strong-motion database Italy 

References

  1. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Senyurt M, Azari Sisi A, Ay BÖ, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (2014) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarello D, Francescone M, Lunedei E, Paolucci E, Papasidero MP, Peruzzi G, Piaruccini P (2016) Seismic characterization and reconstruction of reference ground motion at accelerometric sites of the Italian national accelerometric network (RAN). Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2310-4 Google Scholar
  3. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JR (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoi S, Kunugi T, Fujiwara H (2004) Strong-motion seismograph network operated by NIED: K-NET and KiK-net. J Jpn Assoc Earthq Eng 4(3):65–74. doi:10.5610/jaee.4.3_65 Google Scholar
  5. BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council) (2015) NEHRP: recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2003 Edition. Part 1—provisions, Part 2 commentary; prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Report No. FEMA P-1050/2015 Edition): Washington, DC; 2004Google Scholar
  6. Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Rossi PL (2008) Vs30: proxy for seismic amplification? Seismol Res Lett 79(4):540–543. doi:10.1785/gssrl.79.4.540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Comité Européen de Normalisation Brussels, May, http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/homepage.htm
  8. Chávez-García FJ, Bard PY (1994) Site effects in Mexico City eight years after the September 1985 Michoacan earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 13:229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chávez-García FJ, Stephenson WR, Rodríguez M (1999) Lateral propagation effects observed at Parkway, New Zealand. A case history to compare 1D versus 2D site effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:718–732Google Scholar
  10. Clinton J, Cauzzi C, Fäh D, Michel C, Zweifel P, Olivieri M, Cua G, Haslinger F, Giardini D (2011) The current state of strong motion monitoring in Switzerland. In: Earthquake data in engineering seismology: networks, data management and predictive models. Springer, pp 219–233Google Scholar
  11. CS.LL.PP (2008) DM 14 Gennaio 2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 29 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  12. Di Capua G, Lanzo G, Pessina V, Peppoloni S, Scasserra G (2011a) The recording stations of the Italian strong motion network: geological information and site classification. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1779–1796. doi:10.6092/INGV.IT-CPTI11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Capua G, Peppoloni S, Amanti M, Cipolloni C, Conte G, Avola D, Del Buono A, Borgomeo E, Negri Arnoldi C, Scrivieri S (2011b) Il progetto SEE-GeoForm: uno strumento per la consultazione di dati geologici e di pericolosità sismica riferiti all’intero territorio nazionale. In: Proceedings of the XIV conference ANIDIS, Bari 18–22 September 2011Google Scholar
  14. Di Giacomo D, Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Parolai S, Richwalski SM (2005) Analysis and modeling of HVSR in the presence of a velocity inversion: the case of Venosa, Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:2364–2372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field EH (1996) Spectral amplification in a sediment-filled valley exhibiting clear basin-edge-induced waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:991–1005Google Scholar
  16. Kawase H (1996) The cause of the damage belt in Kobe: the basin-edge effect, constructive interference of the direct S-wave with the basin-induced diffracted/Rayleigh waves. Seismol Res Lett 67:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khazai B, Sitar N (2004) Evaluation of factors controlling earthquake-induced landslides caused by Chi–Chi earthquake and comparison with the Northridge and Loma Prieta events. Eng Geol 71(1–2):79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee VW, Trifunac MD (2010) Should average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil be used to describe seismic amplification? Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1540–1549Google Scholar
  19. Locati M, Gomez-Capera AA, Puglia R, Santulin M (2016) Rosetta, a tool for linking accelerometric recordings and macroseismic observations: description and applications. Bull Earthquake Eng (under review)Google Scholar
  20. Lovati S, Bakavoli MKH, Massa M, Ferretti G, Pacor F, Paolucci R, Haghshenas E, Kamalian M (2011) Estimation of topographical effects at Narni ridge (Central Italy): comparisons between experimental results and numerical modeling. Bull Earthq Eng 9(6):1987–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luzi L, Hailemikael S, Bindi D, Pacor F, Mele F, Sabetta F (2008) ITACA (ITalian ACcelerometric Archive): a web portal for the dissemination of italian strong-motion data. Seismol Res Lett 79(5):716–722. doi:10.1785/gssrl.79.5.716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Gallipoli MR, Bindi D, Mucciarelli M (2011) Proposal for a soil classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to VS,30. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1877–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michel C, Edwards B, Poggi V, Burjánek J, Roten D, Cauzzi C, Fäh D (2014) Assessment of site effects in Alpine regions through systematic site characterization of seismic stations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(6):2809–2826. doi:10.1785/0120140097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pacor F, Paolucci R, Luzi L, Sabetta F, Spinelli A, Gorini A, Nicoletti M, Marcucci S, Filippi L, Dolce M (2011) Overview of the Italian strong motion database ITACA 1.0. Bull Earthq Eng 9(6):1723–1739. doi:10.1007/s10518-011-9327-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paolucci R (2002) Amplification of earthquake ground motion by steep topographic irregularities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1831–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park D, Hashash YMA (2004) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with non linear site effects in the Mississippi embayment. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Paper No 1549 (on CD-Rom)Google Scholar
  27. Pessina V, Fiorini E (2014) A GIS procedure for fast topographic characterization of seismic recording stations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 63:248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pischiutta M, Cultrera G, Caserta A, Luzi L, Rovelli A (2010) Topographic effects on the hill of Nocera Umbra, central Italy. Geophys J Int 182:977–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2013) New code site classification, amplification factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 11(4):925–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Puglia R, Albarello D, Gorini A, Luzi L, Marcucci S, Pacor F (2011) Extensive characterization of Italian accelerometric stations from single-station ambient-vibration measurements. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1821–1838. doi:10.1007/s10518-011-9305-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Régnier J, Laurendeau A, Duval AM, Guéguen P (2010) From heterogeneous set of soil data to VS profile: application on the French permanent accelerometric network (RAP) sites. In: Proceedings of 14 EECE, Ohrid, 30 August–03 September 2010Google Scholar
  32. Rial JA (1996) The anomalous seismic response of the ground at the Tarzana hill site during the Northridge 1994 Southern California earthquake: a resonant, sliding block? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1714–1723Google Scholar
  33. Sandıkkaya MA, Yılmaz MT, Bakır BS, Yılmaz Ö (2010) Site classification of Turkish national strong-motion stations. J Seismol 14(3):543–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seed RB, Dickenson SE, Idriss IM (1991) Pricipal geotechnical aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Soil Found 31(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SESAME (Site effects Assessment using Ambient Excitation) European Project (2005) Deliverable D23.12, Guideline for the implementation of the HV spectral ratio technique on ambient vibration: measurement, processing and interpretation. http://sesame-fp5.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/SES_TechnicalDoc.htm
  36. Seyhan E, Stewart JP, Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Graves RW (2014) NGA-West2 Site database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1007–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steidl JH (2000) Site response in southern California for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6B):S149–S169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart JP, Liu AH, Choi Y (2003) Amplification factors for spectral acceleration in tectonically active regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:332–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wald DJ, Allen TI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1379–1395. doi:10.1785/0120060267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Felicetta
    • 1
  • Maria D’Amico
    • 1
  • Giovanni Lanzano
    • 1
  • Rodolfo Puglia
    • 1
  • Emiliano Russo
    • 2
  • Lucia Luzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, INGVMilanItaly
  2. 2.Centro Nazionale Terremoti, CNTRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations