Simplified seismic soil classification: the Vfz matrix

Site effect assessment studies aim at predicting the effect of seismic shaking on structures by modeling the subsoil as an oscillator coupled to another oscillator representing the construction. The resulting amplification functions and response spectra depend on so many strong assumptions and parameters that, in the standard engineering practice, simplified seismic classifications appear preferable to complex modeling procedures which can only offer an illusory better accuracy. Since stratigraphic seismic amplification is not properly related to the absolute rigidity of subsoil but to impedance contrasts, the standard simplified approaches based on the ‘average’ rigidity of subsoil in the first few meters (e.g. Vs30) can hardly be effective. Here it is proposed a simplified soil classification approach that takes into account the basic Physics of seismic amplification and its parameters, i.e. the average shear wave velocity of the cover layer, the resonance frequency and the impedance contrast between the cover and the bedrock, which we summarize as VfZ. A possible classification approach is illustrated through a set of examples.

[1]  Peter Bormann,et al.  IASPEI New Manual of seismological observatory practice(NMSOP) , 2002 .

[2]  S. Day.  RMS response of a one-dimensional half-space to SH , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[3]  Kinya Miura,et al.  Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping , 2002 .

[4]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  The effect of Quaternary alluvium on strong ground motion in the Coyote Lake, California, earthquake of 1979 , 1981 .

[5]  Kenneth W. Campbell,et al.  Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration , 1981 .

[6]  K. Aki,et al.  Quantitative Seismology, 2nd Ed. , 2002 .

[7]  Jian Zhang,et al.  An Empirical Site-Classification Method for Strong-Motion Stations in Japan Using h/v Response Spectral Ratio , 2006 .

[8]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  A study on the response of a soft basin for incident S, P, and Rayleigh waves with special reference to the long duration observed in Mexico City , 1989 .

[9]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures , 2007 .

[10]  S. Kramer.  Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 1996 .

[11]  Y Nakamura,et al.  A METHOD FOR DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ESTIMATION OF SUBSURFACE USING MICROTREMOR ON THE GROUND SURFACE , 1989 .

[12]  J. Hosken,et al.  Ricker wavelets in their various guises , 1988 .

[13]  H. Bolton Seed,et al.  Soil moduil and damping factors for dynamics response analyses , 1970 .

[14]  Cécile Cornou,et al.  Effects of Love Waves on Microtremor H/V Ratio , 2008 .

[15]  Giorgio Cassiani,et al.  Shear wave profiles from surface wave inversion: the impact of uncertainty on seismic site response analysis , 2011 .

[16]  John G. Anderson.  Physical Processes That Control Strong Ground Motion , 2007 .

[17]  Michael W. Asten,et al.  Comparison of Shear-velocity Profiles of Unconsolidated Sediments Near the Coyote Borehole (CCOC) Measured with Fourteen Invasive and Non-invasive Methods Editorial , 2005 .

[18]  Roger D. Borcherdt,et al.  Estimates of Site-Dependent Response Spectra for Design (Methodology and Justification) , 1994 .

[19]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  ESTIMATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA AND PEAK ACCELERATIONS FROM WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN EARTHQUAKES: AN INTERIM REPORT PART 2 , 1993 .

[20]  Dario Albarello,et al.  Comment on “Seismic Hazard Assessment (2003–2009) for the Italian Building Code” by Massimiliano Stucchi, Carlo Meletti, Valentina Montaldo, Helen Crowley, Gian Michele Calvi, and Enzo Boschi , 2012 .

[21]  Mihailo D. Trifunac,et al.  Should average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil be used to describe seismic amplification? , 2010 .

[22]  P. Bard,et al.  Rayleigh-wave dispersion curve: a proxy for site effect estimation? , 2011 .

[23]  H. Crowley,et al.  Seismic Hazard Assessment (2003–2009) for the Italian Building Code , 2011 .

[24]  Silvia Castellaro,et al.  Vs30: Proxy for Seismic Amplification? , 2008 .

[25]  Masata Sugito,et al.  FREQUENCY DEPENDENT EQUI-LINEARIZED TECHNIQUE FOR SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF MULTI-LAYERED GROUND , 1994 .

[26]  F. Mulargia,et al.  VS30 Estimates Using Constrained H/V Measurements , 2009 .

[27]  A. Pagliaroli,et al.  Numerical Evaluation of Topographic Effects at the Nicastro Ridge in Southern Italy , 2011 .

[28]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Amplification Factors for Spectral Acceleration in Tectonically Active Regions , 2003 .

[29]  Raymond B. Seed,et al.  New Site Coefficients and Site Classification System Used in Recent Building Seismic Code Provisions , 2000 .

[30]  John W. Curtis.  A Multi~Trace Synthetic Seismogram Generator , 1975 .

[31]  B. Endrun.  Love wave contribution to the ambient vibration H/V amplitude peak observed with array measurements , 2011 .

[32]  Eduardo Kausel,et al.  Seismic simulation of inelastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping , 2002 .

[33]  Experimental Uncertainty on the Vs(z) Profile and Seismic Soil Classification , 2009 .

[34]  Jonathan D. Bray,et al.  An Empirical Geotechnical Seismic Site Response Procedure , 2001 .

[35]  Stratos Zacharopoulos,et al.  Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations measurements, processing and interpretation , 2004 .