Integrated geophysical-geological model for seismic local site response: the Caldes alpine slope case (Southern Alps, NE Italy)

  • Jacopo Boaga
  • Michela Carrer
  • Fabio Fedrizzi
  • Silvana Martin
  • Alfio Viganò
Original Article


We present the seismic local response analysis of an alpine slope based on an integrated geophysical and geological model. The studied site is located in Caldes, in the lower Val di Sole valley in the Trentino region, Southern Italian Alps. Caldes represents the typical alpine valley formed by glacial and fluvio-glacial processes characterized by complex geomorphological, lithological and tectonic settings. A detailed reconstruction of the valley slope geology (subsoil geometry and stratigraphy) was obtained using electrical tomography resistivity soundings, controlled source multi-channel analysis of surface waves, microtremor single station measurements, borehole investigations, and geotechnical analyses on undisturbed samples. The geological model was shaken with real accelerometric series to obtain 1D (linear equivalent approach) and 2D (finite element approach) local seismic responses. The results, considering the uncertainties of the geophysical measurements, show different seismic responses between 1D and 2D approaches due to relevant geometrical amplifications, with clearer variations in the 2D approach. The comparison of the results with the building code design spectra shows the limits of the simplified approaches, suggesting that detailed characterizations are necessary, especially for such populous alpine environments.


Slope seismic response Geophysical prospecting Shear-wave velocity measurements Seismic hazard 



The authors thank the Geological Survey of the Autonomous Province of Trento, particularly Claudia Tomazzolli and Bruno Ercolani (Geotechnical Laboratory) and Paolo Trainotti. Authors also thank Dr. Nancy Jenkins for the language revision.

Supplementary material

12665_2015_5082_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (269 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 268 kb)


  1. Aki K, Larner K (1970) Surface motion of a layered medium having an irregular interface due to incident plane SH waves. J Geophys Res 75:933–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonnefoy-Claudet S et al (2004) Simulation of seismic ambient noise: I. results of H/V and array techniques on canonical models. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference in earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, August 2004, Paper # 1120Google Scholar
  3. Assimaki D, Gazetas G, Kausel E (2005) Effects of local soil conditions on the topographic aggravation of seismic motion: parametric investigation and recorded field evidence from the 1999 Athens earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1059–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bard PY (1994) Effects of surface geology on ground motion: recent results and remaining issues. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bard PY, Bouchon M (1985) The two dimensional resonance of sediment-filled valleys. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:519–540Google Scholar
  6. Bard PY, Riepl-Thomas J (2000) Wave propagation in complex geological structures and their effects on strong ground motion. In: Kausel E, Manolis GD (eds) Wave motion in earthquake engineering, international series on advances in earthquake engineering. WIT Press, Southampton, Boston, pp 37–95Google Scholar
  7. Bardet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH (2000) EERA: a computer program for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analyses of layered soils deposits. University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  8. Binley A (2011) ProfileR. Accessed 4 Dec 2011
  9. Boaga J (2013) An efficient tool for cultural heritage seismic soil classification: frequency-time analysis method in Venice historical center and its lagoon (Italy). Geosci J 17:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boaga J, Vignoli G, Cassiani G (2011) Shear wave profiles from surface wave inversion: the impact of uncertainty onto seismic site response analysis. J Geophys Eng. doi: 10.1088/1742-2132/8/2/004 Google Scholar
  11. Boaga J, Renzi S, Vignoli G, Deiana R, Cassiani G (2012) From surface wave inversion to seismic site response prediction: beyond the 1D approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 36:38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Baize S, Bonilla LF, Berge-Thierry C, Pasten CR, Campos J, Volant P, Verdugo R (2009) Site effect evaluation in the basin of Santiago de Chile using ambient noise measurements. Geophys J Int 176:925–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boschi E, Guidoboni E, Ferrari G, Valensise G, Gasperini P (1997) Catalogo dei forti terremoti in Italia dal 461 a.C. al 1990. ING-SGA, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  14. Castellaro S, Mulargia F (2009) The effect of velocity inversions on H/V. Pure Appl Geophys 166:567–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dal Piaz GV, Castellarin A, Martin S, Selli L, Carton A, Pellegrini GB, Casolari E, Daminato F, Montresor L, Picotti V, Prosser G, Santuliana E, Cantelli L (2007) Note Illustrative della Carta Geologica d’Italia alla scala 1:50.000: Foglio n. 42 Malé. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Geologico. APAT, Servizio Geologico d’Italia, RomaGoogle Scholar
  16. Denolle MA, Dunham EM, Prieto GA, Beroza GC (2014) Strong motion prediction using virtual earthquakes. Science 343:399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field EH, Jacob K (1993) The theoretical response of sedimentary layers to ambient seismic noise. Geophys Res Lett 20:2925–2928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galgaro A, Boaga J, Rocca M (2013) HVSR technique as tool for thermal-basin characterization: a field example in N–E Italy. Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-013-2838-5 Google Scholar
  19. García-Jerez A, Luzón F, Navarro M, Pérez-Ruiz JA (2006) Characterization of the sedimentary cover of the Zafarraya Basin, Southern Spain, by means of ambient noise. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:957–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelagoti F, Kourkoulis R, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2012) Nonlinear dimensional analysis of trapezoidal valleys subjected to vertically propagating SV waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:999–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gruppo di Lavoro MS (2008) Indirizzi e criteri per la microzonazione sismica. Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province autonome - Dipartimento della protezione civile, RomaGoogle Scholar
  22. Guillier B, Cornou C, Kristek J, Moczo P, Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Bard P-Y, Fah D (2006) Simulation of seismic ambient vibrations: does the H/V provide quantitative information in 2D-3D structures? In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion, Grenoble, France, 29 August–1 September, Paper 185Google Scholar
  23. Hudson MB, Beikae M, Idriss IM (1994) QUAD4M, a computer program to evaluate the seismic response of soil structure using finite element procedures and incorporating a compliant base. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California. Davis, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Ibs-von Seht M, Wohlenberg J (1999) Microtremor measurements used to map thickness of soft sediments. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:250–259Google Scholar
  25. Idriss IM, Sun JI (1992) SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California. Davis, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Idriss I, Lysmer J, Hwang R, Seed HB (1973) QUAD-4: a computer program for evaluating the seismic responses of soil structures by variable damping finite element procedure. Report No. EERC-73/13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010) REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 8:339–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Itasca Consulting Group Inc (1997) FLAC3D: fast lagrangian analysis of continua in 3 dimensionsGoogle Scholar
  29. Jongmans DD, Pitilakis K, Demanet D, Raptakis D, Riepl J, Horrent C, Tsokas G, Lontzetidis K, Bard P-Y (1998) EURO-SEISTEST: determination of the geological structure of the Volvi graben and validation of the basin response. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:473–487Google Scholar
  30. Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremors. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(1):228–241Google Scholar
  31. Kramer S (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Sddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  32. Lachetl C, Bard P-Y (1994) Numerical and theoretical investigations on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamura’s technique. J Phys Earth 42:377–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lai C, Rix G (1998) Simultaneous inversion of rayleigh phase velocity and attenuation for near-surface site characterization. Report No. GIT-CEE/GEO-98-2. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  34. Le Roux O, Cornou C, Jongmans D, Schwartz S (2012) 1-D and 2-D resonances in an Alpine valley identified from ambient noise measurements and 3-D modeling. Geophys J Int 191(2):579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levshin AL, Pisarenko V, Pogrebinsky G (1972) On a frequency-time analysis of oscillations. Ann Geophys 28:211–218Google Scholar
  36. Makra K, Raptakis D, Chavez-Garcia FJ, Pitilakis K, (2002) How important is the detailed knowledge of a 2D soil structure for site response evaluation? In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Monego M, Cassiani G, Deiana R, Putti M, Passadore G, Altissimo L (2010) Tracer test in a shallow heterogeneous aquifer monitored via time-lapse surface ERT. Geophysics. doi: 10.1190/1.3474601 Google Scholar
  38. Naganoh M, Kagami H, Muratami H (1993) Effects of surface and subsurface irregularities. In: Earthquake motions and ground conditions, Chapter 3.3. Architectural Institute of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremors on the ground surface. Q Rep RTRI Jpn 30:25–33Google Scholar
  40. Nogoshi and Igarashi (1970) On the propagation characteristics of the microtremors. J Seismol Soc Jpn 24:24–40Google Scholar
  41. Nunziata C, Costa G, Natale M, Panza GF (1999) FTAN and SASW methods to evaluate Vs of neapolitan pyroclastic soils. Earthq Geotechnol Eng 1:15–19Google Scholar
  42. Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1999) Multi-channel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64:800–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Penck A, Brückner E (1909) Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter. In: Die Eiszeiten in den Südalpen und im Bereich der Ostabdachung der Alpen, Bd. 3. Tauchnitz, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  44. Rollins KM, Evans MD, Diehl NB, Daily WD (1998) Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotechnol Geoenviron Eng 124:396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  46. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1969) Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes. J Soil Mech Found Div 95:99–138Google Scholar
  47. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report no. UCB/EERC-70/10. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  48. SESAME (2004) Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations. Measurements, processing and interpretation, SESAME European research project; WP12 Deliverable D23.12. European commission: Research General Directorate. Project no. EVG1-CT-2000-0026 SESAMEGoogle Scholar
  49. Stokoe KH, Isenhower WM, Hsu JR (1980) Dynamic properties of offshore silty samples. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual offshore technology conference, Houston, TexasGoogle Scholar
  50. Stokoe KH, Darendeli MB, Andrus RD, Brown LT (1999) Dynamic soil properties: laboratory, field and correlations studies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  51. Valyus VP, Keilis-Borok VI, Levshin AL (1968) Determination of the velocity profile of the upper mantle in Europe. Nauk SSR 185:564–567Google Scholar
  52. Viganò A, Bressan G, Ranalli G, Martin S (2008) Focal mechanism inversion in the Giudicarie-Lessini seismotectonic region (Southern Alps, Italy): insights on tectonic stress and strain. Tectonophysics 460:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Viganò A, Scafidi D, Martin S, Spallarossa D (2013) Structure and properties of the Adriatic crust in the central-eastern Southern Alps (Italy) from local earthquake tomography. Terra Nova 25:504–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vucetic R, Dobry M (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotechnol Geoenviron Eng 117:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yokota K, Imai T, Konno M (1981) Dynamic deformation characteristics of soils determined by laboratory tests. OYO Tech Rep 3:13–37Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacopo Boaga
    • 1
  • Michela Carrer
    • 2
  • Fabio Fedrizzi
    • 3
  • Silvana Martin
    • 1
  • Alfio Viganò
    • 4
  1. 1.Dipartimento di GeoscienzeUniversità di PadovaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.SNAMSan Donato MilaneseItaly
  3. 3.Servizio GeologicoProvincia Autonoma di TrentoTrentoItaly
  4. 4.Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica SperimentaleSezione CRSUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations