Marco Vona

Prof. Dr. Marco Vona

School of Engineering – University of Basilicata
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

24Years (2003-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2010 in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FBF. Braga
F. Braga
VMV. Manfredi
V. Manfredi
AMA. Masi
A. Masi
ASA. Salvatori
A. Salvatori
Marco VonaMarco Vona
Marco Vona

1 February 2006 in Engineering Structures
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MDMauro Dolce
Mauro Dolce
Andreas KapposAndreas Kappos
Andreas Kappos
AMAngelo Masi
Angelo Masi
GPGregory Penelis
Gregory Penelis
Marco VonaMarco Vona
Marco Vona

1 January 2003 in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MDMauro Dolce
Mauro Dolce
AMAngelo Masi
Angelo Masi
MMMaria Marino
Maria Marino
Marco VonaMarco Vona
Marco Vona

18 December 2008 in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MGMaria Rosaria Gallipoli
Maria Rosaria Gallipoli
MMMarco Mucciarelli
Marco Mucciarelli
Marco VonaMarco Vona
Marco Vona

1 October 2004 in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMM. Mucciarelli
M. Mucciarelli
AMA. Masi
A. Masi
MGMaria Rosaria Gallipoli
Maria Rosaria Gallipoli
PHP. Harabaglia
P. Harabaglia
Marco VonaMarco Vona
Marco Vona
MDM. Dolce
M. Dolce
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.\ud \ud 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

18 June 2009 in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AMAngelo Masi
Angelo Masi
Marco VonaMarco Vona
Marco Vona