Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bérenger J (1994) A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. J Comput Phys 114:185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlen T, Saenger EH (2006) Accuracy of heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modeling of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 71:T109–T115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:327–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchon M (1981) A simple method to calculate Green’s function for elastic layered media. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:959–971

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 101:2866–2871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton R, Engquist B (1977) Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:1529–1540

    Google Scholar 

  • Collino F, Tsogka C (2001) Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media. Geophysics 66:294–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutant O (1989) Program of numerical simulation AXITRA. Research report, LGIT, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble (in French)

  • Coutant O, Virieux J, Zollo A (1995) Numerical source implementation in a 2D finite difference scheme for wave propagation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1507–1512

    Google Scholar 

  • Day SM, Minster JB (1984) Numerical simulation of attenuated wavefields using a Padé approximant method. Geophys J R Astron Soc 78:105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day SM (1998) Efficient simulation of constant Q using coarse-grained memory variables. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:1051–1062

    Google Scholar 

  • Day SM, Bradley CR (2001) Memory-efficient simulations of anelastic wave propagation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:520–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Center

  • Douglas J, Aochi H (2008) A survey of techniques for predicting earthquake ground motions for engineering purposes. Surv Geophys 29:187–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2:75–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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)

  • Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density—the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39:770–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 91:617–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves RW (1996) Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1091–1106

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves RW, Day SM (2003) Stability and accuracy of coarse-grain viscoelastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:283–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higdon RL (1991) Absorbing boundary conditions for elastic waves. Geophysics 56:231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komatitsch D, Martin R (2007) An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for the seismic wave equation. Geophysics 72:155–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 46:355–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 93:2273–2280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 162:25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2006

  • Levander AR (1988) Fourth-order finite-difference P-SV seismograms. Geophysics 53:1425–1436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, France

  • Madariaga R (1976) Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bull Seism Soc Am 65:163–182

  • 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 37:274–304

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 73:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 98:1811–1836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moczo P, Lucká M, Kristek J, Kristeková M (1999) 3D displacement finite differences and a combined memory optimization. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:69–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Moczo P, Kristek J, Halada L (2000) 3D fourth-order staggered-grid finite-difference schemes: stability and grid dispersion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:587–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 94:760–768

  • 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 92:3042–3066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohminato T, Chouet BA (1997) A free-surface boundary condition for including 3D topography in the finite-difference method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:494–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Saenger EH, Gold N, Shapiro SA (2000) Modeling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite-difference grid. Wave Motion 31:77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sourieau A, Granet M (1995) A tomographic study of the lithosphere beneath the Pyrenees from local and teleseismic data. J Geophys Res 100:18117–18134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey R (1988) Improved transparent boundary formulations for the elastic-wave equation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:2089–2097

    Google Scholar 

  • Virieux J (1984) SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics 49:1933–1942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virieux J (1986) P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics 51:889–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BRGM, 3 Avenue Claude Guillemin, 45000, Orléans, France

    Ariane Ducellier & Hideo Aochi

Authors
  1. Ariane Ducellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hideo Aochi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ariane Ducellier.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (docx 102 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ducellier, A., Aochi, H. Importance of crustal structure and anelastic attenuation for estimating ground motion parameters by finite difference simulation. Bull Earthquake Eng 13, 1893–1911 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9700-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9700-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation