Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 1893–1911 | Cite as

Importance of crustal structure and anelastic attenuation for estimating ground motion parameters by finite difference simulation

  • Ariane DucellierEmail author
  • Hideo Aochi
Original Research Paper

Abstract

We carry out simulations of seismic wave propagation in anelastic media in order to study the relative importance of source parameters as well as viscoelastic structures in affecting the decay of the ground motions. First, we verify the efficiency of the implementation in a finite difference code of two coarse-grain memory variables methods to model the anelastic behavior of the soil. We find that both methods are sufficiently consistent for a quality factor (Q) larger than 20. Then, we study the relative importance of the focal mechanism, the magnitude, the source depth, the crustal structure and the quality factor in affecting the decay of the ground motions. We verify that the magnitude and the focal mechanism of the source do not have a significant effect on the decay, whereas the focal depth is more important in explaining the variations in decay. The variations of the decay depending on the crustal structure are more difficult to assess. For the shorter distances (up to about 20 km), the velocity structure does not have a significant effect on the decay of the ground motions. The effect of the quality factor is perceptible but remains less important than the effect of the focal depth. However, for epicentral distances larger than about 20 km, both the velocity structure and the quality factor begin to affect significantly the decay. The effect of the quality factor on the decay becomes then even more important than the effect of the focal depth. Therefore, a reduction in the standard deviation of GMPEs could possibly be achieved through taking into account appropriate anelastic attenuation for each region considered. The effect of a 3D velocity structure is studied introducing a typical basin structure. The presence of a sedimentary basin can affect the decay even outside the basin. The spatial difference in ground motion is more pronounced in the elastic case than in the anelastic case.

Keywords

Finite difference Strong ground motion Anelastic attenuation Ground motion prediction equations  

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Steven M. Day and Jozef Kristek for providing digital files of the results of their numerical simulations. The authors would like to thank an anonymous reviewer whose comments and remarks helped improving the manuscript. This work was supported under a BRGM internal research fund program.

Supplementary material

10518_2014_9700_MOESM1_ESM.docx (102 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 102 KB)

References

  1. Aochi H, Ducellier A, Dupros F, Delatre M, Ulrich T, De Martin F, Yoshimi M (2013a) Finite difference simulations of the seismic wave propagation for the 2007 Mw6.6 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-Oki earthquake: validity of models and reliable input ground motion in the near field. Pure Appl Geophys 170:43–64. doi: 10.1007/s00024-011-0429-5
  2. Aochi H, Ulrich T, Ducellier A, Dupros F, Michea D (2013b) Finite difference simulations of seismic wave propagation for understanding earthquake physics and predicting ground motions: advances and challenges. J Phys Conf Ser 454:012010. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/454/1/012010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bérenger J (1994) A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. J Comput Phys 114:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohlen T, Saenger EH (2006) Accuracy of heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modeling of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 71:T109–T115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:327–341Google Scholar
  6. Bouchon M (1981) A simple method to calculate Green’s function for elastic layered media. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:959–971Google Scholar
  7. Chen J, Zhao J (2011) Application of the nearly perfectly matched layer to seismic-wave propagation modeling in elastic anisotropic media. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:2866–2871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayton R, Engquist B (1977) Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:1529–1540Google Scholar
  9. Collino F, Tsogka C (2001) Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media. Geophysics 66:294–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa G, Panza GF, Suhadolc P, Vaccari F (1993) Zoning of the Italian territory in terms of expected peak ground acceleration derived from complete synthetic seismograms. J Appl Geophys 30:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coutant O (1989) Program of numerical simulation AXITRA. Research report, LGIT, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble (in French)Google Scholar
  12. Coutant O, Virieux J, Zollo A (1995) Numerical source implementation in a 2D finite difference scheme for wave propagation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1507–1512Google Scholar
  13. Day SM, Minster JB (1984) Numerical simulation of attenuated wavefields using a Padé approximant method. Geophys J R Astron Soc 78:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day SM (1998) Efficient simulation of constant Q using coarse-grained memory variables. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:1051–1062Google Scholar
  15. Day SM, Bradley CR (2001) Memory-efficient simulations of anelastic wave propagation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:520–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Day SM, Bielak J, Dreger D, Graves R, Larsen S, Olsen KB, Pitarka A (2003) Tests of 3D elastodynamic codes: final report for Lifelines Project 1A02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas J, Aochi H (2008) A survey of techniques for predicting earthquake ground motions for engineering purposes. Surv Geophys 29:187–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas J, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) On the incorporation of the effect of crustal structure into empirical strong ground motion estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Douglas J, Aochi H, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2007) The importance of crustal structure in explaining the observed uncertainties in ground motion estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 5:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drouet S, Cotton F, Guéguen P (2010) \(\text{ v }_{{\rm S30}}\), \(\kappa \), regional attenuation and \(\text{ M }_{\rm w}\) from accelerograms: application to magnitude 3–5 French earthquakes. Geophys J Int 182:880–898. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04626.x
  21. Ducellier A, Aochi H (2012) Effects of the interaction of topographic irregularities on seismic ground motion, investigated by the hybrid FD-FE method. Bull Earthq Eng 10:773–792. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9335-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dupros F, Aochi H, Ducellier A, Komatitsch D, Roman J (2008) Exploiting intensive multithreading for efficient simulation of seismic wave propagation. In: 11th international conference on computational science and engineering, pp 253–260, San Paulo, Brazil. doi: 10.1109/CSE.2008.5
  23. Fontes M (2006) Propriétés mathématiques de modèles géophysiques pour l’absorption des ondes. Application aux conditions de bords absorbants. PhD thesis, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, Pau, France (in French)Google Scholar
  24. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density—the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39:770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gottschämmer E, Olsen KB (2001) Accuracy of the explicit planar free-surface boundary condition implemented in a fourth-order staggered-grid velocity-stress finite-difference scheme. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graves RW (1996) Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1091–1106Google Scholar
  27. Graves RW, Day SM (2003) Stability and accuracy of coarse-grain viscoelastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Higdon RL (1991) Absorbing boundary conditions for elastic waves. Geophysics 56:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Komatitsch D, Martin R (2007) An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for the seismic wave equation. Geophysics 72:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kristek J, Moczo P, Archuleta RJ (2002) Efficient methods to simulate planar free surface in the 3D \(4^{{\rm th}}\)-order staggered-grid finite-difference schemes. Stud Geophys Geod 46:355–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kristek J, Moczo P (2003) Seismic-wave propagation in viscoelastic media with material discontinuities: A 3D fourth-order staggered-grid finite-difference modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:2273–2280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krüger OS, Saenger EH, Shapiro SA (2005) Scattering and diffraction by a single crack: an accuracy analysis of the rotated staggered grid. Geophys J Int 162:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lacave C, Lemeille F (2006) Seismic hazard and Alpine valley response analysis: generic valley configurations In: 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 Sept 2006Google Scholar
  34. Levander AR (1988) Fourth-order finite-difference P-SV seismograms. Geophysics 53:1425–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lopes Cardozo GGO (2003) 3-D geophysical imaging and tectonic modeling of active tectonics of the upper Rhine graben region. PhD thesis, Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  36. Madariaga R (1976) Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bull Seism Soc Am 65:163–182Google Scholar
  37. Martin R, Komatitsch D, Gedney SD (2008a) A variational formulation of a stabilized unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer for the isotropic or anisotropic seismic wave equation. Comput Model Eng Sci 37:274–304Google Scholar
  38. Martin R, Komatitsch D, Ezziani A (2008b) An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for seismic wave propagation in poroelastic media. Geophysics 73:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meza-Farjado KC, Papageorgiou AS (2008) A nonconvolutional, split-field, perfectly matched layer for wave propagation in isotropic and anisotropic elastic media: stability analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1811–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moczo P, Lucká M, Kristek J, Kristeková M (1999) 3D displacement finite differences and a combined memory optimization. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:69–79Google Scholar
  41. Moczo P, Kristek J, Halada L (2000) 3D fourth-order staggered-grid finite-difference schemes: stability and grid dispersion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:587–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moczo P, Kristek J, Gális M (2004) Simulation of the planar free surface with near-surface lateral discontinuities in the finite-difference modeling of seismic motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:760–768Google Scholar
  43. Moczo P, Kristek J, Vavryčuk V, Archuleta RJ, Halada L (2002) 3D heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modeling of seismic motion with volume harmonic and arithmetic averaging of elastic moduli and densities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:3042–3066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ohminato T, Chouet BA (1997) A free-surface boundary condition for including 3D topography in the finite-difference method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:494–515Google Scholar
  45. Saenger EH, Gold N, Shapiro SA (2000) Modeling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite-difference grid. Wave Motion 31:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sourieau A, Granet M (1995) A tomographic study of the lithosphere beneath the Pyrenees from local and teleseismic data. J Geophys Res 100:18117–18134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stacey R (1988) Improved transparent boundary formulations for the elastic-wave equation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:2089–2097Google Scholar
  48. Virieux J (1984) SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics 49:1933–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Virieux J (1986) P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics 51:889–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BRGMOrléansFrance

Personalised recommendations