During the 2002 seismic sequence in Molise (Italy), the town of Bonefro suffered moderate damage (I-MCS = VII) except for two reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. These buildings are located on soft sediments, close to each other and very similar in design and construction. The main difference is the height: the most damaged one (European Macroseismic Scale damage 4) has four stories, whereas the less damaged (EMS damage 2) has three stories. The M 5.4 shock on 31 October damaged both of them. The second shock on I November (M 5.3) increased the damage on the four-story building substantially, just while a 5-min. seismic recording was taken. We analyzed the recorded data by four different techniques: short-time fourier transform (STFT), wavelet transform (WT), horizontal-to vertical spectral ratio (HVSR), and horizontal-to-vertical moving window ratio (HVMWR). All the results agree upon the estimate of the main building frequency before the second shock and upon the shift of frequency due to damage. All the fundamental frequencies (pre-, during, and postdamage) are in the range 2.5-1.25 Hz. The fundamental frequency of the less damaged building was estimated at about 4 Hz. To test if the soil-building resonance effect could have increased the damage, we also evaluated the soil fundamental frequency by three different techniques: noise HVSR, strong motion HVSR of seven aftershocks, and ID modeling based on a velocity profile derived from noise analysis of surface waves (NASW) measurements. The results are again in good agreement, showing that resonance frequencies of the soil and of the more damaged building are very close.

Analysis of RC building dynamic response and soil-building resonance based on data recorded during a damaging earthquake (Molise, Italy, 2002)

MUCCIARELLI, Marco;MASI, Angelo;HARABAGLIA, Paolo;VONA, Marco;PONZO, Felice Carlo;
2004

Abstract

During the 2002 seismic sequence in Molise (Italy), the town of Bonefro suffered moderate damage (I-MCS = VII) except for two reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. These buildings are located on soft sediments, close to each other and very similar in design and construction. The main difference is the height: the most damaged one (European Macroseismic Scale damage 4) has four stories, whereas the less damaged (EMS damage 2) has three stories. The M 5.4 shock on 31 October damaged both of them. The second shock on I November (M 5.3) increased the damage on the four-story building substantially, just while a 5-min. seismic recording was taken. We analyzed the recorded data by four different techniques: short-time fourier transform (STFT), wavelet transform (WT), horizontal-to vertical spectral ratio (HVSR), and horizontal-to-vertical moving window ratio (HVMWR). All the results agree upon the estimate of the main building frequency before the second shock and upon the shift of frequency due to damage. All the fundamental frequencies (pre-, during, and postdamage) are in the range 2.5-1.25 Hz. The fundamental frequency of the less damaged building was estimated at about 4 Hz. To test if the soil-building resonance effect could have increased the damage, we also evaluated the soil fundamental frequency by three different techniques: noise HVSR, strong motion HVSR of seven aftershocks, and ID modeling based on a velocity profile derived from noise analysis of surface waves (NASW) measurements. The results are again in good agreement, showing that resonance frequencies of the soil and of the more damaged building are very close.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
BSSA_Bonefro.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 818.74 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
818.74 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11563/1884
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 77
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 66
social impact