Have a personal or library account? Click to login
DEM modelling of the activation and reactivation of capable faults in a typical Apulian rock succession: the viewpoint of local seismic effect during the 1948 Earthquake (Apulia, Italy) Cover

DEM modelling of the activation and reactivation of capable faults in a typical Apulian rock succession: the viewpoint of local seismic effect during the 1948 Earthquake (Apulia, Italy)

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 47 (2025): Issue 1 (March 2025)
By: Bruno Giovanni and  Guerra Laura  
Open Access
|Feb 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Constitutive elements of a fault zone (from: [10] modified).
Constitutive elements of a fault zone (from: [10] modified).

Figure 2:

Schematic geostructural map of the ‘Candelaro’ fault area (from: [27] modified).
Schematic geostructural map of the ‘Candelaro’ fault area (from: [27] modified).

Figure 3:

Seismicity of the ‘Candelaro’ fault area: a) historical and instrumental seismicity (from: [33, 34] modified) and b) depth and magnitude of earthquakes (from: [39] modified).
Seismicity of the ‘Candelaro’ fault area: a) historical and instrumental seismicity (from: [33, 34] modified) and b) depth and magnitude of earthquakes (from: [39] modified).

Figure 4:

Average input spectra of horizontal and vertical accelerations used for LSR analysis, compared with elastic spectra for rigid substrate of cat. ‘A’ and horizontal topography [52].
Average input spectra of horizontal and vertical accelerations used for LSR analysis, compared with elastic spectra for rigid substrate of cat. ‘A’ and horizontal topography [52].

Figure 5:

Geomechanical model used for numerical simulations.
Geomechanical model used for numerical simulations.

Figure 6:

Models and boundary conditions used in the numerical analyses: a) quasi-static; b) dynamic and LSR (model without pre-existing fault); c) dynamic and LRS (case study with reactivation of a pre-existing normal fault plane 45° dip).
Models and boundary conditions used in the numerical analyses: a) quasi-static; b) dynamic and LSR (model without pre-existing fault); c) dynamic and LRS (case study with reactivation of a pre-existing normal fault plane 45° dip).

Figure 7:

Time histories of the seismic waves input: horizontal ground motion and shear stress (left); vertical ground motion and normal stress (right).
Time histories of the seismic waves input: horizontal ground motion and shear stress (left); vertical ground motion and normal stress (right).

Figure 8:

Displacements, fault core and damage zone extents and plastic states in quasi-static analyses of normal fault generation (left) and reverse fault (right): a–b (dip angle 30°); c–d (dip angle 45°); e–f (dip angle 60°).
Displacements, fault core and damage zone extents and plastic states in quasi-static analyses of normal fault generation (left) and reverse fault (right): a–b (dip angle 30°); c–d (dip angle 45°); e–f (dip angle 60°).

Figure 9:

Dynamic case study analysis of the ‘Candelaro’ active and capable normal fault: a) displacements; b) plastic states.
Dynamic case study analysis of the ‘Candelaro’ active and capable normal fault: a) displacements; b) plastic states.

Figure 10:

Local seismic response (LSR) of the case study: on the left model without a pre-existing fault plane – a) FA in X-acceleration, b) FA in Y-acceleration, c) plastic states; on the right model of the ‘Candelaro’ active and capable normal fault plane – a) FA in X-acceleration, b) FA in Y-acceleration, c) plastic states.
Local seismic response (LSR) of the case study: on the left model without a pre-existing fault plane – a) FA in X-acceleration, b) FA in Y-acceleration, c) plastic states; on the right model of the ‘Candelaro’ active and capable normal fault plane – a) FA in X-acceleration, b) FA in Y-acceleration, c) plastic states.

Quasi-static analyses: failure types, maximum displacement values, extents of fault core and damage zone_

KinematismDip angles (degrees)Type of failureMaximum displacement on the ground level (m)Extent of fault core zone on the ground level (m)Extent of the damage zone on the ground level (m)
Normal fault30Conjugate failure surfaces1.496.509.90
45Single failure surface1.837.709.60
60Conjugate failure surfaces2.587.809.50
Reverse fault30Trailing imbricate fan and conjugate surfaces1.4826.5084.50
45Trailing imbricate fan and conjugate surfaces1.8256.1061.50
60Conjugate failure surfaces2.5720.70163.20

Values of physical–mechanical parameters of limestone, layer discontinuities and faults (from: [14], [16], [18])_

Physical–mechanical parameters for Mohr–Coulomb elasto-plastic criterion
LithotypeNatural unit weight γa (kN/m3)Friction angle φi (degrees)Cohesion ci (MPa)UCS strength σci (MPa)Tensile strength σti (MPa)Young modulus Ei (GPa)Bulk modulus Ki (GPa)Shear modulus Gi (GPa)Dilation angle (degrees)
Altamura Limestone24501369116033257
Mechanical parameters of discontinuities for Mohr–Coulomb ‘area-contact’ criterion
Rock massJoint typeJoint normal stiffness JKN (GPa/m)Joint shear stiffness JKS (GPa/m)Joint tensile strength Jtens (MPa)Joint friction angle Jfric (degrees)Joint cohesion Jcoh (MPa)Layers dip (degrees)Layers spacing (m)Joint dilation angle (degrees)
Altamura LimestoneLayers and faults2491040.70395.2900.807

Input parameters for searching accelerograms in the seismological European Strong-motion database_

Acceleration componentMagnitude rangeEpicentral distance range (km)Site classTopographic classNominal life (years)Usage classLimit stateScaled records
Horizontal5.6–70–20AT150IISLVNo
Vertical5.2–70–30AT150IISLVYes

Dynamic case study analysis of the ‘Candelaro’ active and capable normal fault: failure type, displacement values, extents of fault core and damage zone_

KinematismDip angles (degrees)Type of failureDisplacement in depth along the fault plane UDEC simulation (m)Displacement on the ground level UDEC simulation (m)Displacement on the ground level equation [2] (m)Displacement along the fault plane - Hanks and Kanamori’s equation (m)
Normal fault45Conjugate surfaces ‘Graben o flower structure’0.80–1.300.1–0.20.120.92

Minimum, maximum and residual values of calcarenite physical–mechanical parameters (from: [5], [15], [17], [23], [26], [59])_

Physical–mechanical parameters for Mohr–Coulomb Strain-Softening criterion
LithotypeNatural unit weight γa (kN/m3)Porosity nmin - nmax (%)Imbibition coefficient Cimin - Cimax (%)Friction angle φres - φmax (degrees)Cohesion cres - cmax (MPa)UCS strength σcmax (MPa)Tensile strength σtres - σtmax (MPa)Young modulus Emax (GPa)Bulk modulus Kmax (GPa)Shear modulus Gmax (GPa)Dilation angle Δres - Δmax (degrees)
Gravina Calcarenite1935 – 5015 – 4030 – 380.13 – 0.292.00.11 – 0.263.52.91.33 – 5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2025-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 16
Submitted on: Oct 10, 2023
|
Accepted on: Dec 16, 2024
|
Published on: Feb 14, 2025
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
active and capable faults,
distinct element numerical analysis,
Local Seismic Response (LSR),
seismic vulnerability,
hydrogeological vulnerability
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2025 Bruno Giovanni, Guerra Laura, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 47 (2025): Issue 1 (March 2025)Next article