1887
Volume 16, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Barreiro is an urban county located in the Lisbon metropolitan area (Portugal) with several hazardous industrial facilities. This area shows a moderate seismicity, but due to its geotectonic location, it has been subject in the past to earthquakes responsible for high social and economic losses. Earthquakes that occurred in 1531 (Mw ≈ 6.6), 1755 (M ≥ 8) and 1909 (Mw ≈ 6) are examples of destructive events that hit Barreiro. In this study, we present an analysis of ambient vibration measurements together with local geology and geotechnical properties of the shallower units. Horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratio (H/V) computed from ambient vibrations, shear wave velocity profiles, and value distributions were compared with the geological and geotechnical properties of the shallower units, looking for potential site effects.

Geotechnical characterisation was based on the analysis of 289 logs and 1109 Standard Penetration Tests. A total of 214 refraction microtremor measurements were performed, obtaining profiles and values for 34 different sites. The results from ambient vibration records carried out at 136 sites (Vicêncio, Teves‐Costa and Sá Caetano 2015) were also used. Spatial distributions of profiles, values, the thickness of the shallow formations, the number of blows from Standard Penetration Tests (NSPT values), and H/V peak frequencies are presented and discussed. Correlations between these parameters were established. Three areas prone to seismic amplification, for frequencies between 2.5 Hz to 8 Hz, were identified. Ground classification was performed according to Eurocode 8 using the estimated values. The results will be made available to the Barreiro municipality for support of land and emergency planning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2018006
2018-04-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. (1957). Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special reference to microtremors.Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute Tokyo University25, 415–457.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BarrosJ., GandolfoO. and RochaR.2012. Determination of the maximum shear modulus using MASW. XVI Brazilian congress on soils mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Porto de Galinhas, PE, Brazil.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BooreD.2004. Can site response be predicted?Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 1—41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BooreD., JoynerW. and FumaiT.1997. Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work.Seismological Research Letters68, 128—153.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BorcherdtR.1970. Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America60, 29—61.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CarvalhoJ.2013. Seismic refraction profile performed in Setubal. Laboratòrio Nacional de Engenharia e Geologia, Lisbon, Portugal.(unpublished report, in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CarvalhoJ., Teves‐CostaP., AlmeidaL. and AlmeidaI.2016. Seismic susceptibility map for Cascais County (Portugal): a simple approach.Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment75(3), 1227—1249.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chävez‐GarciaF.J. and BardP.‐Y.1994. Site effects in Mexico City eight years after the September 1985 Michoacàn earthquakes.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering13, 229—247.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CustòdioS., DiasN., CarrilhoF., GòngoraE., RioI., MarreirosC. et al. 2015. Earthquakes in western Iberia: improving the understanding of lithospheric deformation in a slowly deforming region.Geophysical Journal International203, 127—145.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DeMetsC., GordonR. and ArgusD.2010. Geologically current plate motions.Geophysical Journal International181, 1—80.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DiasJ., RodriguesA. and MagalhäesF.1997. Evolution of the coastline, in Portugal, since the last maximum glacial: synthesis of knowledge.Estudos do Quaternario1, 53—66. (in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DuvalA.‐M., VidalS., MéneroudJ.‐P., SingerA., De SantisF., RamosC. et al. 2001. Caracas, Venezuela, site effect determination with micro‐tremors.Pure and Applied Geophysics158, 2513—2523.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. FreitasR., AlcantaraM., RodriguesF. and PedroC.2014. Geological and geotechnical characterisation of Baixa de Alcantara (Lisbon), for the unevenness of the railway of Alcantara. 14th national congress on geotecnics, Covilhä, Portugal.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GandolfoO.2011. Seismic tests (refraction using P and S waves and surface wave tests) for the geotechnical characterisation of a landfill. 12th international congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Geocontrole
    Geocontrole1982. Processing of the geological and geotechnical information for Barreiro Quimigal E.P. Internal Report.(unpublished report, in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GiammarinaroS., TertullianiA., GalliG. and LetaM.2005. Investigation of surface geology and intensity variability in the Palermo, Italy, urban area after the 6 September 2002 earthquake.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95(6), 2318—2327.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Google Earth
    Google Earth2014. Barreiro 38°41'07.35”N, 9°05'36.74”W. 3D map, buildings data layer (viewed 31 September 2016). http://www.google.com/earth/index.html.
  18. INE
    INE2011. Population Census 2011. National Institute of Statistics, Portugal. http://censos.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpgid=censos2011_apresentacao&xpid=CENSOS.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. IPQ
    IPQ2010. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, NP—EN 1998–1. Instituto Portuguès da Qualidade, Portugal. (in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. KeceliA. and CevherM.2015. Soil predominant period and resonance relation of building height.Jeofizik17, 59—67.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KramerS.L.1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall, 653p.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LNEC
    LNEC1998. Determination of the shear and longitudinal waves velocities in the Terreiro do Paco subway station. Metropolitano de Lisboa, E.P. Laboratòrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LNEC
    LNEC2006. Seismic tests between drilling holes at the site of the new paper factory at Mitrena, in Setubal. Laboratòrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal. (in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LopesI.2005. Geotechnical characterization of soils in the range of small deformations—Application of the surface wave method. PhD thesis, Faculdade de Cièncias, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LouieJ.N.2001. Faster, better:shear‐wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction microtremor arrays.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America91, 347—364.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McNamaraD., StephensonW., OdumJ. and WilliamsR.2014. Site response in the eastern United States: a comparison of VS30 measurements with estimates from horizontal: vertical spectral ratios.The Geological Society of America Special Paper 509.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. MirzaogluM. and DykmenÜ.2003. Application of microtremor to seismic microzoning procedure.Journal of the Balkan Geophysical Society6(3), 143—156.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MucciarelliM. and GallipoliM.2006. Comparison between VS30 and other estimates of site amplification in Italy. 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. NakamuraY.1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface.Quartely Report of the Railway Technical Research Institute30(1), 25—30.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. NakamuraY.2008. On the H/V spectrum. 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. NavarroM. and Garcia‐JerezA.2012. Analysis of site effects, building response and damage distribution observed due the 2011 Lorca, Spain. Earthquake. 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. NavarroM., VidalF., FericheM., EnomotoT., SänchezF. and MatsudaI.2004. Expected ground—RC building structures resonance phenomena in Granada City (Southern Spain). 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. OdumJ., StephensonW., WilliamsR. and Hillebrandt‐AndradeC.2013. VS30 and spectral response from collocated shallow, active, and passive‐source Vs data at 27 sites in Puerto Rico.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, 2709—2728.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. OhoriM., NobataA. and WakamatsuK.2002. A comparison of ESAC and FK methods of estimating phase velocity using arbitrarily shaped microtremor analysis.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92, 2323—2332.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. OkadaH.2003. The microtremor survey method.American Geophysical Monograph 12, Society of Exploration Geophysicist, 135 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. OliveiraC.S. and NavarroM.2010. Fundamental periods of vibration of RC buildings in Portugal from in‐situ experimental and numerical techniques.Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering8, 609—642.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. OliveiraR., Seco e PintoP., RebeloV. and RodriguesV.1997. Geological and geotechnical studies for the Vasco da Gama Bridge Project in Lisbon. Invited Conference. 6th national congress on geotechnics, Lisbon, Portugal.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  38. OzalaybeyS., ZorE., ErgintavS. and TapirdamazM.2011. Investigation of 3‐D basin structures in the Izmit Bay area (Turkey) by single‐station microtremor and gravimetric methods.Geophysical Journal International186, 883—894.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. PaisJ., MonizC., CabralJ., CardosoJ.L., LegoinhaP., MachadoS. et al. 2006. Geological map of Portugal 1:50, 000, 34‐D (Lisboa), Instituto Nacional de Engenharia, Tecnologia e Inovacäo, Lisbon, Portugal.(in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  40. PanchaA., AndersonJ., LouieJ. and PullammanappallilS.2008. Measurement of shallow shear wave velocities at a rock site using the ReMi technique.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering28, 522—535.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. ParkC., MillerR. and XiaJ.1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW).Geophysics64, 800–808.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. ParolaiS., BormannP. and MilkereitC.2002. New relationships between Vs, thickness of sediments, and resonance frequency calculated by the H/V ratio of seismic noise for the Cologne area (Germany).Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92(6), 2521–2527.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. PeiD., LouieJ.N. and PullammanappallilS.K.2007. Application of simulated annealing inversion on high‐frequency fundamental‐mode Rayleigh wave dispersion curves.Geophysics72(5), R77‐R85.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. PullammanappallilS.K. and LouieJ.N.1994. A generalized simulated annealing optimization for inversion of first‐arrival times.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America84, 1397–1409.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. RosenbladL. and LiJ.2009. Comparative study of refraction micotremor (ReMi) and active source methods for developing low‐frequency surface wave dispersion curves.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics14, 101–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. RoserJ. and GosarA.2010. Determination of VS30 for seismic ground classification in the Ljubljana area, Slovenia.Acta Geotechnica Slovenica1, 61–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. RossetP., Bour‐BelvauxM. and ChouinardL.2015. Microzonation models for Montreal with respect to VS30.Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13, 2225–2239.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. RouxO., CornouC., JongmansD. and SchwartzS.2012. 1‐D and 2‐D resonances in an Alpine valley identified from ambient noise measurements and 3‐D modeling.Geophysical Journal International191, 579–590.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. SantistebanI., MunozA., CarbóA. and RuizM.2012. Comparative analysis of SASW, ReMi and crosshole techniques resolution to recognize the stiffness profile in an urban terrain. 7th Spanish‐Portuguese assembly on geodesy and geophysics, San Sebastian, Spain.(in Spanish)
    [Google Scholar]
  50. SilvaV., CrowleyH., VarumH. and PinhoR.2015. Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal.Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13, 429–457.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. StephensonW., LouieJ., PullammanappallilS., WilliamsR. and OdumJ.2005. Blind shear‐wave velocity comparison of ReMi and MASW results with boreholes to 200 m in Santa Clara Valley: implications for earthquake ground‐motion assessment.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95, 2506–2516.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. StephensonW., OdumJ., McNamaraD., WilliamsR. and AngsterS.2015. Ground‐motion site effects from multimethod shear‐wave velocity characterization at 16 seismograph stations deployed for aftershocks of the August 2011 Mineral, Virginia earthquake.Geological Society of America Special Papers509, 47–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. StrobbiaC. and CassianiG.2011. Refraction microtremors: data analysis and diagnostics of key hypotheses.Geophysics76, 11–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. ThorsonJ. and ClaerboutJ.1985. Velocity stack and slant stochastic inversion.Geophysics50(12), 2727–2741.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. VicéncioH.2017. Site effects for Barreiro and Setubal Councils in relation with seismic risk. PhD thesis, Faculdade de Ciéncias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 355p. (in Portuguese)
    [Google Scholar]
  56. VicéncioH., Teves‐CostaP. and Sä CaetanoP.2015. Geotechnical and geological characterization and ambient vibration study of shallow geological units in Barreiro and Setubal Areas (Portugal).Procedia Earth and Planetary Science15, 187–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. WatheletM., JongmansD. and OhrnbergerM.2005. Direct inversion of spatial autocorrelation curves with the neighborhood algorithm.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95, 1787–1800.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. ZywickiD.2007. The impact of seismic wavefield and source properties on ReMi estimates.Proceedings Innovate Applications of Geophysics in Civil Engineering, Reston, VA.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2018006
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2018006
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Non‐invasive methods; Site effects; VS profiles

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error