HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Di Giacomo, D. Articles by Richwalski, S. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Analysis and Modeling of HVSR in the Presence of a Velocity Inversion: The Case of Venosa, Italy

¹ Department of Stuctures, Soil Dynamics and Engineering Geology
University of Basilicata
85100 Potenza, Italy
 (D.D.G., M.R.G., M.M.)

² GeoForschnungsZentrum
14407 Potsdam, Germany
 (S.P., S.R.)

³ Institute for Environmental Analysis
85050 Tito Scalo (PZ), Italy
 (M.R.G.)

The aim of this work is to check the stability of the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios (HVSRs) calculated at the Venosa station site (Italy). This site lies over a layer of anthropogenic fill (4 m thick), a rigid layer of conglomerates (15 m thick), and a thick layer of clays (about 300 m thick) above the seismic bedrock. The velocity inversion, which takes place at the conglomerates–clays interface, is of main importance for the amplification behavior of this site. We have analyzed nearly 2 years of data, composed of 244 triggered noise records and 44 earthquakes. The results obtained by the two data sets show different site-response characteristics. In particular, the earthquake HVSR is not deamplified in the frequency range 1–8 Hz like the triggered noise HVSR. To find out the origin of this difference, we modeled both the triggered noise and the earthquakes, taking advantage of an improved version of the Thompson–Haskell propagation matrix method. The differences between triggered-noise- and earthquake-amplification functions might be explained by the difference in composition and propagation of the seismic wave fields. Moreover, we show that the nonlinear behavior of the anthropogenic fill might explain the presence of the misfit of the resonance frequency attributed to this layer between triggered noise and earthquakes.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Woolery, R. Street, and P. Hart Evaluation of Linear Site-Response Methods for Estimating Higher-Frequency (> 2 Hz) Ground Motions in the Lower Wabash River Valley of the Central United States Seismological Research Letters, May 1, 2009; 80(3): 525 - 538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Gallipoli and M. Mucciarelli Comparison of Site Classification from VS30, VS10, and HVSR in Italy Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2009; 99(1): 340 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Castellaro, F. Mulargia, and P. L. Rossi Vs30: Proxy for Seismic Amplification? Seismological Research Letters, July 1, 2008; 79(4): 540 - 543. [Full Text] [PDF]