Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The possible use of equivalent homogeneous subsoil models for 1D seismic response analyses in seismic microzonation studies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 25 January 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

The possibility is here explored to use an ‘equivalent’ homogeneous configuration to simulate 1D seismic response of heterogeneous engineering-geological bodies when relatively weak seismic impedance contrasts internal to the bodies (it was assumed a shear wave velocity variation between the alternating layers equal to 150 m/s) only exist above the seismic bedrock. This equivalent configuration is obtained by considering an equivalent Vs value the harmonic average of the actual Vs values and a linear combination of G/G0 and D curves relative to the lithotechnical components present in the actual configuration. To evaluate feasibility of this approach, a wide set of numerical simulations was carried out by randomly generating subsoil layering including sequences of alternating thin layers of geotechnical units (e.g. sands and clays) each characterized by a characteristic nonlinear curve. Outcomes of these simulations are compared with those provided by considering a single homogeneous layer characterized by equivalent nonlinear curves obtained as a weighted average of the original curves. By comparing the heterogeneous and the homogeneous columns seismic response in terms of amplification factors and fundamental period, the results confirm the possibility to model a 1D column characterized by a generic lithostratigraphic succession with an equivalent one without introducing significative errors that, at least for the studied cases, do not exceed the 6%. This conclusion is substantially confirmed by extending the comparison to a real case, i.e., the 113 m-thick heterogeneous soil profile at Mirandola site (Northern Italy), presented in the last part.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Acunzo G, Pagliaroli A, Scasserra G (2014) In-spector: un software di supporto alla selezione dei accelerogrammi naturali spettrocompatibili per analisi geotecniche e strutturali. In: 33 ◦ Convegno Nazionale GNGTS, Bologna 25–27 novembre 2014, vol. 2, pp. 107–114 (ISBN:978–88–940442–2–5).

  • Albarello D, Socco VL, Picozzi M, Foti S (2015) Seismic Hazard and land management policies in Italy: the role of seismic investigations. First Break 33:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albarello D (2017) Extensive application of seismic microzoning: methodological and socio-political issues in the Italian experience. Boll Geofis Teor Appl 58(4):253–264. https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amanti M, Chiessi V, Muraro C, Puzzilli L, Roma M, Catalano S, Romagnoli G, Tortorici G, Cavuoto G, Albarello D, Fantozzi PL, Paolucci E, Pieruccini P, Caprari P, Mirabella F, Della Seta M, Esposito C, Di Curzio D, Francescone M, Pizzi A, Macerola L, Nocentini M, Tallini M (2020) Geological and geotechnical models definition for 3rd level SM studies in Central Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 18:5441–5473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00843-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalano S, Grassi S, Imposa S, Tortorici G, Cavuoto G, Di Fiore V, Alleanza GA, Chiaradonna A, De Silva F, D’Onofrio A, Silvestri F, Romagnoli G (2019) The subsoil model for seismic microzonation study: The interplay between geology, geophysics and geotechnical engineering -. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions–Silvestri & Moraci (Eds) © 2019 Associazione Geotecnica Italiana. Proceeding of the VII ICEGE 7th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Rome, Italy, 17–20 June, pp 948–959. ISBN 978-0-367-14328-2

  • Fabozzi S, Porchia A, Fierro T, Peronace E, Pagliaroli A, Moscatelli M (2019a) Seismic compression susceptibility in dry loose sandy and silty soil in a seismic microzonation perspective. Eng Geol 264(2020): 105324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105324.

  • Fabozzi S, Porchia A, Fierro T, Peronace E, Pagliaroli A, Moscatelli M (2019b) Simplified charts to evaluate settlements from seismic compression in dry loose sand. In: VII Italian Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG). Geotechnical Research for Land Protection and Development. Politecnico di Milano Polo territoriale di Lecco, Italy, 3–5 Luglio 2019. In book: Geotechnical Research for Land Protection and Development doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21359-6_11

  • Fabozzi S, Catalano S, Falcone G, Pagliaroli A, Peronace E, Porchia A, Romagnoli G, Moscatelli M (2021) Stochastic approach to study the site response in presence of shear wave velocity inversion: application to seismic microzonation studies in Italy. Engineering Geology 280(2021): 105914 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105914

  • Foti S, Passeri F, Rodriguez-Marek A (2019) Uncertainties and variabilities in seismic ground response analyses. In: VII international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions. Rome, Italy, ISBN 978-0-367-14328-2.

  • Garofalo F, Foti S, Hollender F, Bard PY, Cornou C, Cox BR, Dechamp A, Ohrnberger M, Perron V, Sicilia D, Teague D, Vergniault C (2016) InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 82: 241–254

  • Giallini S, Paolucci E, Sirianni P, Albarello D, Gaudiosi I, Polpetta F, Simionato M, Stigliano F, Tsereteli N, Gogoladze Z, Moscatelli M (2021) Reconstruction of a reference subsoil model for the seismic Microzonation of Gori (Georgia): a procedure based on principal component analysis (PCA. Bull Seismol Soc Am 111(4):1921–1939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YMA, Phillips C, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. In: 5th International conference in recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO

  • Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Ilhan O, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2017) DEEPSOIL 7.0, user manual

  • Imposa S, Lombardo G, Panzera F, Grassi S (2018) Ambient vibrations measurements and 1D site response modelling as a tool for soil and building properties investigation. Geosciences (Switzerland) 8(3):87

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA, Thompson EM, Baise LG (2013) Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site-response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1733–1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Hashash YMA, Stewart JP, Rathje EM, Harmon JA, Musgrove MI, Campbell KW, Silva WJ (2016) Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent- linear 1-D site response analyses. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1845–1865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 653

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini M., Skrame K., Simionato M., Muçi R., Gaudiosi I., Moscatelli M., Daja S. (2021) Site characterisation in Durrës (Albania) from a seismic microzonation perspective. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata. 62(1): 33–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0344

  • Moscatelli M, Pagliaroli A, Mancini M, Stigliano F, Cavuoto G, Simionato M, Peronace E, Quadrio B, Tommasi P, Cavinato GP et al (2012) Integrated subsoil model for seismic microzonation in the Central Archaeological Area of Rome (Italy). Disaster Advances 5:109–124. ISSN 0974–262X

  • Moscatelli M, Albarello D, ScarasciaMugnozza G, Dolce M (2020) The Italian approach to seismic microzonation. Bull Earthq Eng 18:5425–5440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00856-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NTC (2018) CS.LL.PP. Decreto Ministeriale: norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Gazz. Uff. della Repubb. Ital. n. 42, 20 febbraio, Suppl. Ordin. n. 8. Ist. Polig. Rome e Zecca dello Stato S.p.a

  • Pagliaroli A, Lanzo G, Tommasi P, Di Fiore V (2014a) Dynamic characterization of soils and soft rocks of the Central Archeological Area of Rome. Bull Earthq Eng (2014) 12:1365–1381. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9452-5

  • Pagliaroli A, Moscatelli M, Raspa G, Naso G (2014b) Seismic microzonation of the Central Archaeological Area of Rome: results and uncertainties. Bull Earthquake Eng 12:1405–1428. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9480-1

  • Pagliaroli A (2018) Key issues in Seismic Microzonation studies: lessons from recent experiences in Italy. Riv Italiana Di Geotecnica - Italian Geotech J 1(2018):5–48. https://doi.org/10.19199/2018.1.0557-1405.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panzera F, Rigano R, Lombardo G et al (2011) The role of alternating outcrops of sediments and basaltic lavas on seismic urban scenario: the study case of Catania, Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 9:411–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9202-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panzera F, Lombardo G (2013) (2013) Evaluation of building dynamic properties through in situ experimental techniques and 1D modeling: the example of Catania, Italy. Phys Chem Earth 63:136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pergalani F, Pagliaroli A, Bourdeau C, Compagnoni M, Lenti L, Lualdi M, Madiai C, Martino S, Razzano R, Varone C, Verrubbi V (2020) Seismic microzoning map: approaches, results and applications after the 2016–2017 Central Italy seismic sequence. Bull Earthq Eng 18:5595–5629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00640-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathje EM, Kottke AR, Trent WL (2010) Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:607–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollins KM, Evans MD, Diehl III, NB, WDD (1998) Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotech Geoenviron 124:396–405. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:5(396)

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB197869.xhtml

  • SM Working Group (2015) Guidelines for seismic microzonation. In: Conference of regions and autonomous Provinces of Italy – Civil Protection Department, Rome. https://www.centromicrozonazionesismica.it/it/download/category/9-guidelines-forseismic-microzonation

  • Stokoe KH, Darendeli MB, Menq FY, Choi WK (2004) Comparison of the Linear and nonlinear dynamic properties of Gravels, Sands and Clays. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering (ICSDEE) and 3rd international conference on geotechnical engineering (ICEGE), University of California, Berkeley (USA), 7–9 Gennaio 2004, Doolin et al. (eds), Stallion Press, Singapore

  • TCSM (2020) Technical Commission for Seismic Microzonation. Graphic and Data Archiving Standards. Version 4.2 (in Italian). National Department of Civil Protection. Rome. https://www.centromicrozonazionesismica.it/it/download/category/38-standardms-42

  • TCSM (2021) Technical Commission for Seismic Microzonation. Guidelines for the realization of the engineering geological map for seismic microzonation (in Italian “Linee guida per la realizzazione della Carta Geologico-Tecnica per la Microzonazione Sismica con adattamento ai contesti vulcanici. Versione 1.0”). National Department of Civil Protection. Rome. http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/documents/20182/0/LG+per+la+realizzazione+della+CGT-MS+con+adattamento+ai+contesti+vulcanici+vers_1.0/fc705ef2-497d-47cf-ae97-393dace88e83

  • Tertulliani A, Arcoraci L, Berardi M, Bernardini F, Brizuela B, Castellano C, Del Mese S, Ercolani E, Graziani L, Maramai A, Rossi A, Sbarra M, Vecchi M (2012) The Emilia 2012 sequence: a macro-seismic survey. Ann Geophys 55:4. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsereteli N, Moscatelli M, Albarello D, Gaudiosi I, Giallini S, Gogoladze Z, Polpetta F, Simionato M, Stigliano F, Svanadze D, Danciu L, Varazanashvili O, Gaprindashvili G (2021) Preliminary results of site effects assessment in Mtskheta (Georgia). In: Bonali FL, Pasquaré Mariotto F, Tsereteli N (eds) Building knowledge for geohazard assessment and management in the caucasus and other orogenic regions. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2046-3_19

  • Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117:89–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the Italian Civil Protection Department within the project “Contratto concernente l’affidamento di servizi per il programma per il supporto al rafforzamento della Governance in materia di riduzione del rischio sismico e vulcanico ai fini di protezione civile nell’ambito del PON Governance e Capacita Istituzionale 2014-2020 CIG6980737E65” (Massimiliano Moscatelli scientific coordinator). The authors want to thank Gianluca Acunzo from the Institute of Environmental Geology and Geoengineering of the National Research Council of Italy, author of NC92soil software used in this work. Many thanks for his support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Geology and Geoengineering, National Research Council of Italy, Rome, Italy

    Stefania Fabozzi, Dario Albarello, Alessandro Pagliaroli & Massimiliano Moscatelli

  2. Department of Physics, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Dario Albarello

  3. Department of Engineering and Geology, University of Chieti Pescara G. D’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy

    Alessandro Pagliaroli

Authors
  1. Stefania Fabozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dario Albarello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Pagliaroli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Massimiliano Moscatelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefania Fabozzi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14120 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fabozzi, S., Albarello, D., Pagliaroli, A. et al. The possible use of equivalent homogeneous subsoil models for 1D seismic response analyses in seismic microzonation studies. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 2259–2281 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01273-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01273-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation