The scope of this work is to examine the influence of the uncertainty in soil modeling on numerical ground response estimates through a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. This allows identification of those parameters with the largest effect on both soil amplification (quantified here by a frequency-independent factor, Fa) and fundamental frequency, f0. Although extensively examined in previous articles, the effect of the input motion is also analyzed. The uncertainty affecting the shear wave velocity (VS) profile was found to be the factor contributing most to the uncertainty of both Fa and f0. The soil thickness was also found to play a key role, particularly in those cases where bedrock depth is unknown or largely uncertain. Although of secondary importance compared to the effect of VS on Fa and f0, the influence of the input motion cannot be neglected; rather it becomes predominant with regard to the uncertainty affecting frequency-dependent shaking parameters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkiK., 1993. Local site effects on strong ground motion, Tectonophysics218, 93–112.
2.
AmbraseysN. N., SimpsonK. A., and BommerJ. J., 1996. Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics25, 371–400.
3.
BakerJ. W., and CornellC. A., 2006. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics35, 1077–1095.
4.
BaraniS., 2007. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA): Declustering, Logic Tree, Sensitivity, and Treatment of Uncertainties, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Genoa, Italy, available at http://www.dipteris.unige.it/personale.html, 96 pp.
5.
BaraniS., SpallarossaD., BazzurroP., and EvaC., 2007. Sensitivity analysis of seismic hazard for Western Liguria (North Western Italy): A first attempt towards the understanding and quantification of hazard uncertainty, Tectonophysics435, 13–35.
6.
BaraniS., De FerrariR., FerrettiG., and EvaC., 2008a. Influence of soil property uncertainties on ground motion amplification, in Proceedings, 31st Assembly of the European Seismological Commission - ESC08, Hersonissos, Greece, 49–58.
7.
BaraniS., De FerrariR., FerrettiG., and EvaC., 2008b. Assessing the effectiveness of soil parameters for ground response characterization and soil classification, Earthquake Spectra24, 565–597.
8.
BaraniS., SpallarossaD., and BazzurroP., 2009. Disaggregation of probabilistic ground motion hazard in Italy, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 2638–2661.
9.
BaraniS., De FerrariR., FerrettiG., and SpallarossaD., 2010a. Calibration of soil amplification factors for real-time ground motion scenarios in Italy, in Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, California, Paper No. 6.09b.
10.
BaraniS., BazzurroP., and PelliF., 2010b. A probabilistic method for the prediction of earthquake-induced slope displacements, in Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, California, Paper No. 4.31b.
11.
BardetJ. P., and TobitaT., 2001. NERA: A computer program for nonlinear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits, University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering, 46 pp.
12.
BazzurroP., and CornellC. A., 2004. Ground motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 2090–2109.
13.
BazzurroP., and CornellC. A., 1999. Disaggregation of seismic hazard, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America89, 501–520.
14.
BenjaminJ. R., and CornellC. A., 1970. Probability, Statistics, and Decisions for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 640 pp.
15.
BurattiN., StaffordP. J., and BommerJ. J., 2011. Earthquake accelerogram selection and scaling procedures for estimating the distribution of drift response, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 345–357.
16.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN), 2003. prENV 1998-1 – Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Draft No. 4, Brussels, Belgium.
17.
CornellC. A., 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America58, 1583–1606.
18.
De LucaF., IervolinoI., and CosenzaE., 2009. Unscaled, scaled, adjusted, and artificial spectral matching accelerograms: Displacement- and energy-based assessment, in Proceedings, XIII ANIDIS Conference, Bologna, Italy.
19.
FotiS., Lo PrestiD., PallataO., RainoneM., and SignaniniP., 2002. Indagini geotecniche e geofisiche per la caratterizzazione del sito di Castelnuovo Garfagnana, Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica3, 42–60 (in Italian).
20.
GrünthalG., and WahlströmR., 2001. Sensitivity of parameters for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using a logic tree approach, Journal of Earthquake Engineering5, 309–328.
21.
HancockJ., BommerJ. J., and StaffordP. J., 2008. Numbers of scaled and matched acceler-ograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37, 1585–1607.
22.
Ibs-von SehtM., and WohlenbergJ., 1999. Microtremor measurements used to map thickness of soft sediments, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America89, 250–259.
23.
IdrissI. M., and SunJ. I., 1992. User's manual for 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.
24.
IervolinoI., and CornellC. A., 2005. Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures, Earthquake Spectra21, 685–713.
25.
KalkanE., and ChopraA. K., 2010. Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake Records for Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Structures, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010, 127 pp.
26.
KottkeA., and RathjeE. M., 2008. A semi-automated procedure for selecting and scaling recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis, Earthquake Spectra24, 911–932.
27.
KramerS. L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 653 pp.
McGuireR. K., 1995. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85, 1275–1284.
30.
McGuireR. K., 2008. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Early history, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37, 329–338.
31.
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2008). Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, D.M. 14 Gennaio 2008, Supplemento ordinario alla Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 29, 4 Febbraio 2008 (in Italian).
32.
PelliF., ManginiM., BazzurroP., EvaC., SpallarossaD., and BaraniS., 2006a. PSHA in northern Italy accounting for non-linear soil behaviour and epistemic uncertainty, in Proceedings, First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology - ECEES, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No. 1464.
33.
PelliF., ManginiM., and BazzurroP., 2006b. A simplified approach for site amplification assessment in non-linear soil deposits, in Proceedings, Third International Symposium on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, Grenoble, France, Paper No. 90.
34.
PressW. H., TeukolskyS. A., VetterlingW. T., and FlanneryB. P., 1992. Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
35.
PrietoJ. A., and RamosA. M., 2006. Influence of uncertainty of soil damping and degradation shear modulus curves of deep deposits on the earthquake mitigation cost, in Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering – 8 NCEE, San Francisco, CA, 10 pp.
36.
RabinowitzN., and SteinbergD. M., 1991. Seismic hazard sensitivity analysis: a multi-parameter approach, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America81, 796–817.
37.
ReyJ., FaccioliE., and BommerJ. J., 2002. Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) and response spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European Strong-Motion database, Journal of Seismology6, 547–555.
38.
SchnabelP. B., LysmerJ., and SeedH. B., 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, CA.
39.
Senior Seismic Hazards Analysis Committee, 1997. Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and the Use of Experts, Report No. NUREG/CR6372, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 256 pp.
40.
SESAME Working Group, 2004. Guidelines for the Implementation of the H/V Spectral Ratio Technique on Ambient Vibrations Measurements, Processing and Interpretation, SESAME (Site EffectS assessment using AMbient Excitations) European Research Project, Deliverable D23.12, available at http://sesame-fp5.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/Papers/HV_User_Guidelines.pdf.
41.
ShomeN., CornellC. A., BazzurroP., and CarballoJ. E., 1998. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear response, Earthquake Spectra14, 469–500.
42.
SpallarossaD., and BaraniS., 2007. Disaggregazione della pericolosità sismica in termini di M-R-∊, DPC-INGV S1 Project, available at http://esse1.mi.ingv.it/d14.html/.
43.
Von ThunJ. L., RochimL. H., ScottG. A., and WilsonJ. A., 1988. Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams, in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II – Recent Advance in Ground motion Evaluation, Geotechnical Special Publication20, ASCEE, New York, 463–481.
