Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70147411

Ground motions recorded in Rome during the April 2009 L’Aquila seismic sequence: site response and comparison with ground‐motion predictions based on a global dataset

Abstract

The mainshock and moderate‐magnitude aftershocks of the 6 April 2009 M 6.3 L’Aquila seismic sequence, about 90 km northeast of Rome, provided the first earthquake ground‐motion recordings in the urban area of Rome. Before those recordings were obtained, the assessments of the seismic hazard in Rome were based on intensity observations and theoretical considerations. The L’Aquila recordings offer an unprecedented opportunity to calibrate the city response to central Apennine earthquakes—earthquakes that have been responsible for the largest damage to Rome in historical times. Using the data recorded in Rome in April 2009, we show that (1) published theoretical predictions of a 1 s resonance in the Tiber valley are confirmed by observations showing a significant amplitude increase in response spectra at that period, (2) the empirical soil‐transfer functions inferred from spectral ratios are satisfactorily fit through 1D models using the available geological, geophysical, and laboratory data, but local variability can be large for individual events, (3) response spectra for the motions recorded in Rome from the L’Aquila earthquakes are significantly amplified in the radial component at periods near 1 s, even at a firm site on volcanic rocks, and (4) short‐period response spectra are smaller than expected when compared to ground‐motion predictions from equations based on a global dataset, whereas the observed response spectra are higher than expected for periods near 1 s.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 41.67086022030498° to 42.03807425331983° latitude; 12.18658447265625° to 12.726287841796875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Arrigo Caserta, David M. Boore, Antonio Rovelli, Aladino Govoni, Fabrizio Marra, Gieseppe Della Monica, Enzo Boschi. 2013-06-07. Ground motions recorded in Rome during the April 2009 L’Aquila seismic sequence: site response and comparison with ground‐motion predictions based on a global dataset. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120153

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗