Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 293–316 | Cite as

3D basin-shape ratio effects on frequency content and spectral amplitudes of basin-generated surface waves and associated spatial ground motion amplification and differential ground motion

  • Kamal
  • J.P. Narayan
Original Article

Abstract

This paper presents the effects of basin-shape ratio (BSR) on the frequency content and spectral amplitudes of the basin-generated surface (BGS) waves and the associated spatial variation of ground motion amplification and differential ground motion (DGM) in a 3D semi-spherical (SS) basin. Seismic responses were computed using a recently developed 3D fourth-order spatial accurate time-domain finite-difference (FD) algorithm based on the parsimonious staggered-grid approximation of the 3D viscoelastic wave equations. The simulated results revealed the decrease of both the frequency content and the spectral amplitudes of the BGS waves and the duration of ground motion in the SS basin with the decrease of BSR. An increase of the average spectral amplification (ASA), DGM and the average aggravation factor (AAF) towards the centre of the SS basin was obtained due to the focusing of the surface waves. A decrease of ASA, DGM and AAF with the decrease of BSR was also obtained.

Keywords

3D viscoelastic finite-difference simulation Basin-generated surface waves Basin-shape ratio effects Aggravation factors Differential ground motion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the two unknown reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which led a great improvement in the manuscript. The authors are also thankful to the Ministry of Earth Sciences, New Delhi for financial assistance through Grant Number MES-484-EQD.

References

  1. Bakir BS, Ozkan MY, Ciliz S (2002) Effects of basin-edge on the distribution of damage in 1995 Dinar, Turkey earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bard PY, Bouchon M (1980a) The seismic response of sediment filled valleys, part 1. The case of incident SH-waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1263–1286Google Scholar
  3. Bard PY, Bouchon M (1980b) The seismic response of sediment filled valleys, part 2. The case of incident P and SV-waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1921–1941Google Scholar
  4. Bard PY, Bouchon M (1985) The two-dimensional resonance of sediment filled valleys. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:519–541Google Scholar
  5. Bard PY, Gariel JC (1986) The seismic response of two-dimensional sedimentary deposits with large vertical velocity gradients. Bull Seismol Soc Am 76:343–366Google Scholar
  6. Clayton RW, Engquist B (1977) Absorbing boundary condition for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:1520–1540Google Scholar
  7. Delavaud, E., Cupillard, P., Festa, G., Vilotte, J.P., 2006. 3D spectral element method simulations of the seismic response in the Caracas basin. Third International Symposium on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion Grenoble, FranceGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhakal YP, Yamanaka H (2013) An evaluation of 3-D velocity models of the Kanto basin for long-period ground motion simulations. J Seismol. doi: 10.1007/s10950-013-9373-4 Google Scholar
  9. Emmerich H, Korn M (1987) Incorporation of attenuation into time domain computations of seismic wave fields. Geophysics 52:1252–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field EH (1996) Spectral amplification in a sediment-filled valley exhibiting clear basin-edge induced waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:991–1005Google Scholar
  11. Gil-Zepeda SA, Luzon F, Aguirre J, Morales J, Sanchez-Sesma FJ, Ortiz-Aleman C (2002) 3D Seismic response of the deep basement structure of the Granada basin (Southern Spain). Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:2163–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graves RW, Pitarka A, Somerville PG (1998) Ground motion amplification in the Santa Monica area: effects of shallow basin edge structure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:1224–1242Google Scholar
  13. Hallier S, Chaljub E, Bouchon M, Sekiguchi H (2008) Revisiting the basin-edge effect at Kobe during the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 165:1751–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Israeli M, Orszag SA (1981) Approximation of radiation boundary conditions. J Comput Phys 41:115–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kristeck J, Moczo P (2003) Seismic wave propagation in viscoelastic media with material discontinuities—a 3 D 4th order staggered grid finite difference modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:2273–2280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar S, Narayan JP (2008) Implementation of absorbing boundary conditions in a 4th order accurate SH-wave staggered grid finite difference program with variable grid size. Acta Geophysica 56:1090–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee J (2013) Earthquake site effect modeling in the Granada basin using a 3-D indirect boundary element method. Phys Chem Earth. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2013.03.003 Google Scholar
  18. Lee SJ, Chen HW, Huang BS (2008) Simulations of strong ground motion and 3D amplification effect in the Taipei basin by using a composite grid finite-difference method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1229–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moczo P, Bard PY (1993) Wave-diffraction, amplification and differential motion near strong lateral discontinuities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:85–106Google Scholar
  20. Moczo P, Kristek J, Vavrycuk V, Archuleta RJ, Halada L (2002) 3D heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modelling of seismic motion with volume harmonic and arithmetic averaging of elastic moduli and densities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:3042–3066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Narayan JP (2003) 2.5D Simulation of basin-edge effects on the ground motion characteristics. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science (Earth Planet Sci) 112:463–469Google Scholar
  22. Narayan JP (2005) Study of basin-edge effects on the ground motion characteristics using 2.5-D modeling. Pure Appl Geophys 162:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Narayan, J.P., Kamal, 2014. Simulation of pseudo-azimuthal effects of the incident body waves on the basin-generated surface waves using an improved viscoelastic 3D finite-difference algorithm (revised version submitted).Google Scholar
  24. Narayan JP, Kumar S (2008) A 4th order accurate SH-wave staggered grid finite-difference program with variable grid size and VGR-stress imaging technique. Pure Appl Geophys 165:271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Narayan JP, Kumar S (2009) Effects of soil layering on the characteristics of basin-edge induced surface waves and associated spatial Variability and aggravation factor. Acta Geophysica 57:294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narayan, J.P., Kumar, V., 2012. Numerical study of effects of synclinal basement topography on ground motion characteristics. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal, (Paper No. 3144), September 24–28.Google Scholar
  27. Narayan, J.P., Kumar, V., 2014. P-SV wave time-domain finite-difference algorithm with realistic damping and a combined study of effects of sediment rheology and basement focusing. Acta Geophysica. Acta Geophys., 62(3) (DOI: 10.2478/s11600-013-0199-9)Google Scholar
  28. Olsen KB (2000) Site amplification in the Los Angeles Basin from three-dimensional modeling of ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oprsal I, Fah D, Mai PM, Giardini D (2005) Deterministic earthquake scenario for the Basel area: simulating strong motions and site effects for Basel, Switzerland. Journal of Geophysics Research 110:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park R, Billings IJ, Clifton GC, Cousins J, Filliatrault A, Jennings DN, Jones LCP, Perrin ND, Ronney SL, Sinclair J, Spurr DD, Tanaka H, Walker G (1995) The Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake of 17 January 1995. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 28:1–98Google Scholar
  31. Pitarka A, Irikura K, Iwata T, Sekiguchi H (1998) Three dimensional simulation of the near fault ground motion for 1995, Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe), Japan earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:428–440Google Scholar
  32. Romanelli F, Panza GF, Vaccari F (2004) Realistic modelling of the effects of asynchronous motion at the base of bridge piers. J Seismol Earthq Eng 6:19–28Google Scholar
  33. Roten D, Fah D, Olsen KB, Giardini D (2008) A comparison of observed and simulated site response in the Rhone valley. Geophys J Int 173:958–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smerzini C, Villani M (2012) Broadband numerical simulations in complex near-field geological configurations: the case of the 2009 Mw 6.3 L’Aquila Earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:2436–2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earthquake EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations