Abstract
The present study addresses verification of average seismic shear-wave velocity from the surface to a depth of 30 m (VS30) as a suitable proxy for a seismic amplification. For this purpose, we used instrumentally homogeneous and spatially dense seismic network WEBNET (West Bohemia Seismic Network), designed to monitor an intraplate earthquake swarm activity in the West Bohemia/Vogtland region (Czech Republic/Germany). Using a Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) shear-wave velocity models and parameters VS30 and H800 (depth of Vs > 800 m/s) were obtained at 17 WEBNET sites. VS30 were compared with (i) H800 and (ii) determined bedrock densities. To understand the relation between VS30 and site amplification, VS30 values were correlated with amplitudes of two earthquakes: (1) Mw 6.4 Petrinja, Croatia (12/2020) and (2) Mw 4.2 SE of Vienna, Austria (03/2021) both recorded by the WEBNET. The correlation analysis examined four categories of seismic waves in nine frequency windows and described the relation between amplification and VS30 using newly defined regression model. The results show that for the regression model, the frequency window with the highest correlation is in the 1–3 Hz range, and this dependence is statistically best observed in the full wave record. The amplification generally decreases with increasing VS30. However, a large scatter in amplification within Eurocode 8 category B is observed. Based on the observations a new general approach is put forward to finely indicate the relation between amplification and VS30 and the use of other site proxies is discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The local near-surface geology plays an important role in ground motion since it may amplify seismic waves from incoming earthquakes (Borcherdt 1970; Borcherdt and Gibbs 1976; Borcherdt and Glassmoyer 1992; Boore 2004; Towhata 2008). Shear wave velocity (VS), unlike P-wave velocity, is directly related to the shear modulus of the soil skeleton (Foti et al. 2014; Shearer and Orcutt 1987). Therefore, VS of subsurface soil is considered to be the key factor for an accurate evaluation of the site response (Stokoe et al. 1994; Tokimatsu 1997; Wald and Mori 2000) and is widely used for site characterization (Borcherdt 1994; Xia et al. 1999; Derras et al. 2017; Hollender et al. 2018). The average shear-wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m (VS30) was initially introduced to provide uniform definitions of site classes (Borcherdt 1992, 1994; Dobry et al. 2000), and to estimate site response: National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) building code provisions (BSSC 1994) or Eurocode 8 provision (CEN 2004).
Several studies described a consistent correlation between VS30 and site response (Borcherdt 1994; Hartzell et al. 2001; Rošer and Gocar 2010; Rastogi et al. 2011; Boore et al. 2011; Sairam et al. 2011, 2019) and as Borcherdt (2012) noted, correlations of VS30 with strong-motion spectral amplification measurements, empirical amplifications inferred from ground motion prediction equations, and average shear-wave velocity at other depths have established VS30 as a robust single parameter for characterizing site response.
Some studies questioned the ability of VS30 to solely capture the complexity of site effects (Steidl 2000; Di Giacomo et al. 2005; Wald and Mori 2000; Lee and Trifunac 2010, Farrugia et al. 2021). Ghanbari et al. (2018) warned practitioners against solely relying on the VS30 in ground motion response studies because of possibly oversimplifying the subsurface profile. Anbazhagan et al. (2011) discussed in detail the correlation between amplification and shear wave velocities with the conclusion that site response amplification is much more than empirical values for same shear wave velocity. Anbazhagan et al. (2018) noted that a direct correlation of the site response and VS30 for shallow bedrock sites may result in an overestimation of soil average velocity values and an underestimation of site effects and suggested preferably determining amplification (one of the site responses effects) by using average shear wave velocity up to bedrock (VSbedrock). This parameter characterizes a substantial part of the environment responsible for amplification. However, as noted by Foti et al. (2018) and referred to by Garofalo et al. (2016), while the average velocities within the first tens of metres are rather well determined by surface wave methods, the determination of VSbedrock has greater uncertainties. Gallipoli and Mucciarelli (2009) performed a microzonation study in Italy and noticed that VS10 could predict site classification with the same efficiency as VS30 and thus can be a substitute for it.
Some studies proposed improving the evaluation process by using VS30 in combination with other parameters such as fundamental resonance frequency of the site f0 (Luzi et al. 2011), depth at which the shear wave velocity profile exceeds 800 m/s H800 (Derras et al. 2017) or S-wave impedance (Shingaki et al. 2018). Paolucci et al. (2021) proposed H800 and VS,H (average Vs to a depth of H, where H is conditional on H800) as a new proxy in the draft Part 1 of Eurocode 8.
However, one of the strongest dismissals of VS30 as an amplification proxy came from Castellaro et al. (2008), who reanalysed the empirical bases of the correlation between VS30 and amplification from Borcherdt (1994) and claimed that seismic amplification is too complex to be related only to the VS30. Nevertheless, Borcherdt (2012) replied that Castellaro et al. (2008) used incorrect assumptions leading to a misapplication of the regression model. One of the most serious concerns raised by Castellaro et al. (2008) is the large scatter of empirical data used by Borcherdt (1994) to derive the regression models. Since one of the reasons for such scatter could be the data quality, we decided to carry out a study on a dataset recorded by an instrumentally homogeneous and spatially dense seismic network. Earthquake recordings from the West Bohemia Seismic Network (WEBNET) were correlated with VS30 estimated at the seismic station locations by the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW). For a more comprehensive analysis of the VS30 site proxy suitability we used two additional parameters characterizing the near-surface geology: (i) H800 determined by surface wave analysis using MASW and (ii) bedrock densities estimated by Blížkovský et al. (1981).
2 Site description
The West Bohemia/Vogtland region (Fig. 1) on the Czech–German border was selected for the analysis. It forms the western section of the Bohemian Massif and is located in the transition zone between three distinct Variscan structural units: the Teplá-Barrandian in the centre of the region, the Moldanubian in the south-east and the Saxothuringian in the north-west (Babuška et al. 2007; Fischer et al. 2014). The area is intersected by two main neotectonic structures: the Eger rift, a 300 km long and 50 km wide ENE–WSW trending zone (Dèzes et al. 2004; Blecha et al. 2009, 2018; Fischer et al. 2014), and by the Mariánské Lázně fault striking NNW–SSE with a length of 100 km (Prodehl et al. 1995; Bankwitz 2003). In terms of seismicity, the West Bohemia/Vogtland region is characterized by the frequent occurrence of weak earthquake swarm events, mostly of magnitudes ML ≤ 3.5 (Fischer et al. 2010, 2014). The predominant part of the present seismic activity in the region is roughly defined by the area between 49.9° to 51.0°N and 12.0° to 12.8°E and is characteristically spatially and temporarily clustered (Fischer and Bachura 2014). The prevailing lithologies of bedrock are Proterozoic and early Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks with low and medium grades of metamorphosis (Czech Geological Survey 2004).
The main reason for choosing this region for VS30 verification is the presence of the West Bohemia Seismic Network (WEBNET) which provides high quality earthquake catalogues. This is given by an instrumentally homogeneous and spatially dense seismic network primarily designed to monitor weak events of local seismicity (Institute of Geophysics AS CR 1991; Horálek et al. 2000; Fischer et al. 2010, 2014; Fischer and Bachura 2014).
The construction of the WEBNET began after the significant earthquake swarm in 1985/1986 (Horálek and Vavryčuk 1987; Horálek et al. 2000). The network currently covers over 900 km2 and currently consists of 25 temporary and permanent stations and ensures an appropriate spatial and azimuthal coverage of the focal area, especially with respect to the main, active Nový Kostel zone (Fischer et al. 2010). WEBNET stations are equipped with broadband, three-component, weak motion seismometers, mostly Guralp CMG-3ESPC. The basic station parameters were described by Fischer et al. (2010), the updated information and earthquake catalogues are available from the website of the Geophysical Institute of the CAS (https://www.ig.cas.cz/en/observatories/local-seismic-network-webnet). Seventeen representative and accessible WEBNET stations were chosen for this study, as depicted on the map in Fig. 1.
The use of data from a well-established seismic network offers a significant advantage: individual stations are well calibrated, ensuring reliable amplitude values. However, a drawback of such networks arises from the preference for locating stations on hard bedrock to achieve optimal sensor-ground coupling. Consequently, it is anticipated that very low VS30 values may not be present in the datasets.
3 Data analysis
3.1 Surface waves analysis and VS30 determination
In order to obtain shear wave velocity (VS) models and estimate VS30 for 17 WEBNET station sites, a Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) was performed. The method was introduced by Park et al. (1998, 1999) as a tool for elastic property of near-surface materials investigation. The complete MASW process consists of (i) multichannel surface-wave data acquisition, (ii) dispersion analysis and (iii) inversion analysis leading to the VS model (Fig. 2).
Due to its simplicity, MASW has found wide applications such as bedrock mapping (Miller et al. 1999; Park 2016), marine environments investigation (Kaufmann et al. 2005), landslides (Strelec et al. 2017), karst investigation (Debeglia et al. 2006) and in particular site characterization and VS30 estimation (Hollender et al. 2018; Olafsdottir et al. 2019, Gaytan et al. 2020). Incorporating basic MASW analysis into standard refraction surveys can reduce solution ambiguity and enhance knowledge without incurring additional costs (Mazanec and Valenta 2023).
Although the analysis of Comina et al. (2011) confirmed the robustness of surface wave testing for estimating VS30 and the uncertainty in the VS30 measurements using MASW was quantified at only 5–6% (Moss 2008), standard MASW approach suffers from several shortcomings. Dal Moro (2014, 2023) warned that subjective interpretation of the vertical component of Rayleigh wave phase velocity spectrum may lead to mode misidentification, especially when analysing only fundamental mode. Dal Moro also highlighted the risk of non-uniqueness of the solution obtained from the inversion of only one observable. A possible remedy for the above shortcomings could be joint analysis of actively acquired MASW data with passively acquired ambient vibration data using one of the robust methods (Aki 1957; Asten et al. 2006; Cho et al. 2013) or incorporation of Love wave or group velocity (Safani et al. 2005; Dal Moro and Mazanec 2024) into the analysis.
However, if the acquisition of ambient noise is not possible and/or only vertical geophones are available, standard MASW may yield reliable results, if only the analysis is performed cautiously and the limitations (such as near/far-field effects, complex multimodal dispersion spectra, penetration depth and resolution limits given by the acquisition geometry, etc.) are considered and obeyed. With the addition of a few shots within the profile, a P-wave velocity refraction tomography cross-section can be obtained as an addition for the MASW (Mazanec and Valenta 2023).
In the WEBNET stations sites data acquisition was carried out using a 24-channel linear receiver array with 4.5 Hz vertical geophones. Receiver spacing varied from 3 to 5 m according to local spatial and morphology conditions. To achieve a high signal/noise ratio (Foti et al. 2018), eight vertically stacked sledgehammer (10 kg) impacts on the metal plate were performed at two shot points with different offsets (usually 2.5 and 10 m) at both ends of each profile. In addition, for seismic refraction tomography, shot gathers were acquired from five shot points within the seismic profiles. The length of the seismic records was 1 or 2 s to record all the generated wave types (Fig. 2).
The common shot gather data from opposite ends of the profile were transformed into the phase velocity-frequency domain using the Phase-Shift method (Park et al. 1998) and a Rayleigh wave dispersion spectrum was generated. Next, the observed dispersion curves were extracted using the fundamental mode picking in the frequency range from 5 to 45 Hz (Figs. 2 and 3). This was usually done for all four source positions and the resulting dispersion curve is their average.
In the inversion analysis, a starting theoretical VS model was first created, then a theoretical dispersion curve representing the model was obtained. The non-linear least squares method (LSM) iteratively seeks the VS profile with the dispersion curve best matching with the observed dispersion curve in the least squares sense and subsequently modifies the theoretical model in an iterative way. During the inversion process the smoothness of the velocity model was controlled by regularization to reduce the risk of over-parametrization. The root means square error (RMSE) of the final VS model defines the matching error between the two dispersion curves.
To further reduce the ambiguity of dispersion curve inversion, the resulting velocity models were cross-validated using the results of P-wave velocity refraction tomography (retrieved from the same datasets extended by additional shot points inside the profile). Finally, the average shear wave velocity of the upper 30 m was estimated using the following formula (Eq. 1):
where hi and vi denote the thickness and the shear wave velocity for the i-th formation or layer, in a total of N. H800 values were retrieved from the Vs models as a depth at which the shear wave velocity profile exceeds the value of 800 m/s.
3.2 Comparison between amplification and VS30
To evaluate the site response and understand the link between VS30 and seismic amplification, a comparison was made of the VS30 values determined for WEBNET stations and the amplitudes of two recent earthquakes recorded by the WEBNET (Institute of Geophysics AS CR 1991): (1) Mw 6.4 Petrinja, Croatia and (2) Mw 4.2 SE of Vienna, Austria (Fig. 4).
The main reasons for selecting Petrinja and Vienna earthquakes for the study were: (i) the distances from stations to epicentres (~ 300 km and 600 km) are much larger than inter-station distances (less than 30 km) making the differences in distances and azimuths of individual station-epicentre pairs negligible (Figs. 1 and 3); (ii) the peak amplitudes of velocity and acceleration of earthquakes propagating to the Bohemian Massif from SE are considerably higher (up to the order of one magnitude) compared to other directions (Vavryčuk et al. 2004; Málek et al. 2005, 2017) and (iii) from the practical point of view the strong earthquakes with magnitudes exceeding 4.0 are not common within the Bohemian Massif.
On December 29, 2020, a Mw 6.4 earthquake occurred (45.42°N, 16.26°E) west of the town Petrinja in central Croatia (Ganas et al. 2021). The earthquake was located ∼ 600 km from WEBNET with azimuth ∼ 150° (Fig. 4). On April 30, 2021, a moderate Mw 4.2 earthquake was located 5.3 km from Wiener Neustadt (47.76°N, 16.21°E, for simplicity hereinafter referred to as the “Vienna” earthquake) with a distance of ∼ 300 km and azimuth ∼ 133° from WEBNET (Fig. 4). Both earthquakes were recorded by all WEBNET seismic stations and are well defined with a high S/N ratio. Only the Vienna earthquake was not recorded by the VAC station due to temporary technical problems. See the Petrinja and Vienna earthquake seismograms on Fig. 5.
The analysis using earthquake records from 17 WEBNET stations consisted of the following steps. First, amplitude spectra of both earthquake records were computed similarly to Borcherdt and Gibbs (1976). Subsequently an acceleration spectrum was obtained (Fig. 5) and acceleration spectrum amplitudes were summed in nine frequency windows: 0 − 10 Hz, 0 − 0.5 Hz, 0.5 − 1 Hz, 0.5 − 2 Hz, 1 − 2 Hz, 1 − 3 Hz, 2 − 4 Hz, 4 − 8 Hz, 5 − 10 Hz. These windows were selected as they are generally considered to be the most representative for the site amplification (Borcherdt 1976; Harmsen 1997; Castellaro et al 2008). Next, for each analysed frequency window separately, the acceleration spectrum amplitudes were summed and represent here the amplification ratio. To be able to compare the correlation results between the different frequency windows, we related the amplification ratio values to the JOC station values (here, amplification ratio = 1) and refer this correlated parameter relative amplification ratio. To understand the effect of different seismic wave types on seismic amplification, four wave type categories were analysed: (i) complete seismogram; (ii) P-waves group; (iii) S-waves group and (iv) surface waves sections. Finally, the relative amplification ratios for four wave type categories (i–iv) were plotted for analyzed frequency windows as a function of estimated VS30. Based on previous studies (Midorikawa 1987; Borcherdt et al. 1991; Borcherdt 1994; Gallipoli and Mucciarelli 2009) and observations within the WEBNET dataset, the dependence between VS30 and seismic amplification was characterized using a simple empirical model:
where A represents the amplification amplitude, k is the slope of decline, VS30 is the average shear-wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m and A0 represents amplitudes for high VS30. The goodness of fit of the proposed model describes how well it fits a set of observations and is expressed by the regression coefficient R2.
4 Results
4.1 Surface waves analysis and VS30 determination
The surface waves analysis carried out at 17 WEBNET sites using MASW resolved 1D shear-wave velocity profiles (Fig. 2) and parameters H800 and VS30 (Table 1). The RMSE, defining the match of theoretical dispersion curves for VS profiles and the observed dispersion curves, is in the range of 0.3–1.7% (Table 1). In general, VS30 values range from 486 to 1594 m/s with 9 sites exceeding 1000 m/s. The high average shear wave velocity is characteristic for this dataset because the WEBNET stations are purposely situated in sites with shallow bedrock depths to obtain a good S/N ratio. For most sites, the Rayleigh wave phase velocity increases continuously as the frequency decreases, indicating a monotonous increase of the shear-wave velocity with depth (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, there are also sites with the presence of velocity reversals: HOPD, JOC, KVC caused by differential weathering of the bedrock.
Based on the estimated VS30 values, the sites were classified according to the Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004), see Table 1. The dataset contains 11 WEBNET sites classified as a EC8-1 A class, and six sites classified as category B.
The wide range of VS30, despite all the sites being selected in locations with sound bedrock, is a consequence of varying lithologies and is also reflected in the reported densities in Table 1 (based on Blížkovský et al. 1981). Low densities typically correlate with the lowest VS30 values, while the highest VS30 values typically indicate quartz-rich metasediments such as quartzites and quartz-rich phyllites, as well as high-grade metamorphic rocks. Conversely, low VS30 values correspond to less compact metamorphic rocks with lower densities that are more susceptible to weathering. A consistent characteristic among all B class sites is the presence of low VS values in the upper approximately 10 m, reflecting a higher degree of surface rock weathering.
Second parameter derived from surface wave analysis is H800 (Table 1). Values of this parameter are correlated with VS30 as sites with low average shear wave velocity usually show high H800 (sites MAC and NKC reach VS > 800 m/s at depths exceeding 30 m) and vice versa the high VS30 sites reach shear wave velocity 800 m/s near surface or at the surface.
WEBNET seismic stations are installed on concrete pillars in 1–5 m deep vaults (Fischer et al. 2010) to improve the S/N ratio. The actual WEBNET stations’ subsurface depths are listed in Table 1. To compensate for the different subsurface stations’ depths in the correlation analysis the VS30 (Table 1) was corrected by calculating the average shear wave velocity to a depth of 30 m below the actual station position using Eq. 1 and neglecting the layers above the station. This correction has slightly changed the estimated VS30, because shifting the zero-depth value has suppressed the effect of the shallowest layers, that usually have the slowest shear-wave velocities. The average change in the VS30 is 7%. From now on, if VS30 is referred to in connection with the correlation analysis, it means depth-corrected values.
4.2 Amplification and VS30 correlation
For the nine frequency windows examined, the sums of the acceleration spectrum amplitudes (referred as a relative amplification ratio) of two earthquake ground motions (recorded by WEBNET) representing amplification, were plotted as a function of VS30 (Fig. 7). In each frequency window, the comparison was performed for four wave type categories (i–iv), resulting in 36 plots. To characterize the relationship between VS30 and site amplification, a simple model was applied (defined by Eq. 2) to each correlation plot.
Figure 7 shows six correlation plots with the highest regression coefficient R2 (three plots for each of the two earthquakes analysed). Seismic stations are represented by black triangles and marked with station codes. The regression model is represented by the dashed line. For each frequency window and wave type category, the relationship between the two studied variables is different, however, there are trends, which are elaborated on further in the Discussion.
Figure 8 shows the results of the regression analysis for the four wave categories (above denoted as i–iv) analyzed in the nine frequency windows. The range of the regression coefficient R2 is 0.01–0.66 and there is a clear frequency dependence of R2. The lowest correlation coefficients R2 are achieved in low-frequency windows < 1 Hz. With increasing frequency, the R2 increases with the highest values in the range 1–4 Hz. The R2 in this frequency range usually varies between 0.5 and 0.6 depending on the wave type. In terms of regression correlation, across all the wave categories analysed, the highest R2 values were in the 1–3 Hz frequency window. The R2 generally decreases for frequencies > 4 Hz. Statistically evaluated, the category (i) has the most balanced correlation results and category (ii) has the lowest correlation values.
5 Discussion
The presented results of comprehensive analysis (evaluating site effects using VS30, H800, density and lithology) suggest that there could be several approaches to identifying the soil classes. One of the possible way could be the above-mentioned direct link between VS30, densities and lithology. This correlation, however, is severely biased by the fact that it only deals with acidic rocks (and their derivates—quartz rich sediments and metamorphic). If mafic rocks are added to the dataset, the correlation is likely to fail. These high-density rocks are more prone to weathering following the reversed Bowen’s reaction scheme (Bowen 1922) and weathering, together with mechanical disintegration, are obviously the key factors affecting the VS30 (Barton 2006) and thus the amplification. All the B class sites within the analysed dataset are typical with low shear-wave velocities near the surface and a high velocity gradient within the first ten metres indicating that near-surface weathering plays a key role here. Moreover, the difference in density values is low which, together with the mentioned similarity in lithology indicates that mechanical properties of the geological units encountered should be comparable and no special attention should be paid to the variations in bedrock geology. The observed differences in site amplification do not stem from the lithological change solely.
Figure 7 indicates that there is a link between amplification and VS30 in the analysed dataset. For sites with a high average VS (EC8 class A), the amplification is considerably lower than for sites with the lowest (within the dataset) VS30 (EC8 class B). This is consistent with the general assumption that site amplification increases as a function of soil category (Sairam et al. 2019). Three different zones can be observed in Fig. 7: (1) High velocity zone with VS30 above ∼ 1300 m/s-sites HOPD, ZHC and TRC. In this zone the amplification is the lowest in the dataset and attains amplitudes less than about half of the observed dataset maximum (which is in zone 3); (2) Middle velocity zone in which the VS30 range is ∼ 680–1300 m/s and for sites in this zone the amplification does not vary significantly with velocity; (3) Slow velocity zone with VS30 under ∼ 680 m/s (primarily sites LAC, MAC and NKC), in which the lowest average shear-wave velocity is observed and amplification reaches the dataset maximum (usually at least double the High velocity zone).
As shown in Fig. 8, there is a visible frequency dependence of R2, which is supported by the energy distribution visible in the acceleration spectra in Fig. 6, with the dominant highest amplitudes in the 1–4 Hz frequency range. Statistically evaluated 1–4 Hz window is the best suited for tracking the dependence of VS30 and amplification. Such frequency range is in good agreement with previous observations: Borcherdt and Gibbs (1976) reported that amplitude changes in the frequency range 0.25–3.0 Hz are consistently related to the local geological conditions of the recording site. Borcherdt and Gibbs (1976) also indicated that the horizontal and vertical spectral amplification curves are approximately constant as a function of frequency in the interval 0.25–4.0 Hz. Our observations are also consistent with the mid-period site amplification factor Fv, which is defined as the average of the amplitude response over a 0.4–2.0 s (0.5–2.5 Hz) period band and is incorporated in building code provisions (Borcherdt 1994; BSSC 1994; BSSC 2020). In this frequency range, the correlation for Vienna earthquake dataset shows R2 = 0.64 (wave category i). Gallipoli and Mucciarelli (2009) performed the horizontal to vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) at 40 sites in Italy and reported, similarly, that most of their HVSR peaks fell in the range of 0.5–1.5 s (0.6–2 Hz). Harmsen (1997) correlated averaged site-amplification spectra within two frequency bands (0.5–1.5 Hz and 2–6 Hz) with VS30 and concluded that statistically significant correlation is found in both frequency bands.
Figure 9 reports the joint scatter plot of the amplification as a function of the VS30. For this analysis, the statistically best evaluated frequency window and wave type category based on the regression analysis (Fig. 8) is used: 1–3 Hz for wave category i (all wave types). Figure 9 contains data from both analysed earthquakes, 33 values in total, with a single regression model defined by Eq. 2 (presented with the curve parameters). The regression model is estimated with R2 = 0.59 and shows above described VS30-amplification trend. The analysis also reveals a large scatter in amplification within EC8 category B. For sites with velocities in the range of 600–750 m/s, the amplification varies by up to a factor of two. This may have a complex origin, but a common feature visible in the analysed data (Fig. 6) is the significantly lower Vs in the first ⁓ 5 m of the velocity model for stations with high amplification (LAC and MAC). This slow near-surface layer can have a substantial effect on local amplification but could be easily left undetected by using the standard site proxies. Similar observation was noted by Anbazhagan et al. (2018). Nevertheless, as we suggest by a hyperbolic regression in the Fig. 9, it could be used as general tool to indicate the relation between amplification and VS30 accounting also for this effect by a steep part of the regression. The increase in amplifications for the LAC and MAC stations are addressed by the regression in contrast to standard EC8 or NEHRP classifications (Table 1).
Nevertheless, it is understood that the analysed dataset is characterized (and potentially biased) by several specific features:
-
(a)
The dataset consists of only 17 sites (33 observations in total for the correlation shown in Fig. 9), although the number of observations in other studies is not substantially different—Gallipoli and Mucciarelli (2009) used 45 sites and the classical work of Borcherdt (1994) used 35 stations (and only one earthquake recording).
-
(b)
The estimated average shear waves velocities to a depth of 30 m are relatively high and the correlation lacks low velocity stations with VS30 < 500 m/s. However, most high-quality seismic networks will face the same problem, as this station positioning is essential to create a quality seismic network that reliably detects weak seismic events (Di Giulio et al. 2021). Nevertheless, due to a high quality and instrumentally homogeneous seismic network such as WEBNET (Institute of Geophysics AS CR 1991) differences in the amplification of incoming earthquake signals caused by local conditions, can be observed. The data scatter is thus lower than in the original Borcherdt’s (1994) dataset, which was one of the reasons why Castellaro et al. (2008) criticised the use of VS30 as a site proxy.
Previous research and discussions have shown that local site response is a complex task, often with a nonunique solution (Boore 2004; Castellaro et al. 2008). There is understanding for the objections of several authors about the VS30 and search for new site proxy (Park and Hashash 2005; Castellaro et al. 2008; Gallipoli and Mucciarelli 2009; Lee and Trifunac 2010; Pitilakis et al. 2013; Michel et al. 2014). Derras et al. (2017) tested several site-condition proxies with the intention of finding their optimal combinations for characterizing local conditions. One of their suggestions was to combine VS30 with the H800 parameter. Such suggestion was supported by Paolucci et al. (2021) who proposed H800 and VS,H as a new site categorization criteria for the Eurocode 8. This is in a good agreement with this study’s results, as the four stations with high amplification and lowest VS30 (LAC, MAC, NKC and SNED) have also a very high H800 (> 20 m) and H800 decreases as a function of VS30. However, unlike the proposed regression analysis, none of the parameters H800 or VS30 is able to detect the effect of the near-surface low-velocity layers on amplification shown for LAC and MAC sites.
6 Conclusions
Using high-quality seismic records from WEBNET this study addressed a question of whether VS30 is a suitable proxy for seismic amplification. Using MASW at 17 WEBNET sites shear-wave velocity models were obtained and H800 and VS30 were estimated. Surface waves analysis showed that WEBNET sites are characterized by high shear-wave velocities (Fig. 6 and Table 1) with the VS30 range 486–1594 m/s belonging to the EC8 classes A and B. H800 correlate with VS30 as sites with low average shear wave velocity generally show high H800 and vice versa.
Estimated VS30 and relative amplification ratios (summed acceleration amplitudes representing amplification) of the Mw 6.4 Petrinja and Mw 4.2 Vienna earthquakes (Fig. 5) were correlated in nine frequency windows and in four wave type categories. The analysis (Fig. 7) indicates that there is a clear relation between VS30 and amplification in certain frequency windows (Fig. 8). Three different zones can be observed in Fig. 7: (1) High velocity zone with VS30 above ∼ 1300 m/s. In this zone the amplification is the lowest in the dataset; (2) Middle velocity zone in which the VS30 range is ∼ 680–1200 m/s and for sites in this zone the amplification does not vary significantly with velocity; (3) Slow velocity zone with VS30 under ∼ 680 m/s in which the lowest average shear-wave velocity is observed, and amplification reaches the dataset maximum (stations LAC and MAC). The relative amplification ratios in the High velocity zone are roughly half of those in the Slow velocity zone. Following the discussion on the suitability of VS30 as a proxy for seismic amplification, it can be concluded that for the WEBNET sites with shear-wave velocity lower than ∼ 680 m/s the amplification is significantly higher than for the sites with higher VS30. However, there is a visible amplification values scatter within the EC8 B class that VS30 and most of the standard site proxy could not reveal. In contrast, the results show that there is a certain value of VS30 over which the amplification does not change significantly. According to the results, for sites with a VS30 over ∼ 680 m/s (soft to hard rocks) the site conditions only have a negligible effect on earthquake amplification. This visible pattern is characterized by the regression model defined by Eq. 2. Using the regression model (Eq. 2) the observed relation in nine frequency windows was characterized for four wave type categories. Goodness of fit, presented in Fig. 8, showed, that there is a visible frequency dependence of R2. The best frequency range for observing the above defined dependence is, in general, 1–4 Hz zone with the 1–3 Hz window being rated with the highest R2 within the dataset. It turns out that this dependence can be observed in all four categories of wave types tested, with category i) (all waves) being the best statistically evaluated.
Based on the observations from the WEBNET dataset analysis, the approach demonstrated in Fig. 9 is put forward as a general tool to indicate the relation between amplification and VS30 as it could serve as a fine and sensitive tool for amplification estimation without the need for defining new parameters. In contrast to other methods the regression offers a smooth scale rather than a classification and in addition directly states an amplification ratio for a particular site which is a key factor for all engineering purposes. It is appreciated that the analysed dataset is characterized and potentially biased by several distinctive features, especially the high VS30 range so the robustness of proposed approach needs to be tested on various data.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Aki K (1957) Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special reference to microtremors. Bull Earthq Res Inst 35:415–456
Asten MW (2006) On bias and noise in passive seismic data from finite circular array data processed using SPAC methods. Geophysics 71:V153–V162
Anbazhagan P, Aditya P, Rashmi HN (2011) Amplification based on shear wave velocity for seismic zonation: comparison of empirical relations and site response results for shallow engineering bedrock sites. Geomech Eng. 3(3):189–206. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2011.3.3.189
Anbazhagan P, Katukuri AK, Reddy GR, Moustafa SSR, Al-Arifi NSN (2018) Seismic site classification and amplification of shallow bedrock sites. PLoS ONE 13(12):e0208226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208226
Babuška V, Plomerová J, Fischer T (2007) Intraplate seismicity in the western Bohemian Massif (central Europe): a possible correlation with a paleoplate junction. J Geodyn 44(3–5):149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2007.02.004
Bankwitz P, Schneider G, Kämpf H, Bankwitz E (2003) Structural characteristics of epicentral areas in Central Europe: study case Cheb Basin (Czech Republic). J Geodyn 35(1–2):5–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-3707(02)00051-0
Barton N (2006) Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy, 1st edn. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203964453
Blecha V, Fischer T, Tábořík P, Vilhelm J, Klanica R, Valenta J, Štěpančíková P (2018) Geophysical evidence of the Eastern Marginal Fault of the Cheb Basin (Czech Republic). Studia Geophysica Et Geodetica 62(4):660–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-017-0452-9
Blecha V, Štemprok M, Fischer T (2009) Geological interpretation of gravity profiles through the Karlovy Vary Granite Massif (Czech Republic). Studia Geophysica Et Geodetica 53:295–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-009-0019-5
Blížkovský M, Čejchanová B, Friáková O, Hanák J, Kadlec E, Mitrenga P, Novák M, Novotný A, Ondra P, Švancara J (1981) Construction of stripped gravity map of the Bohemian Massif. Unpublished manuscript, Geofond, Prague
Boore DM (2004) Can site response be predicted? J Earthq Eng 8(sup001):1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350520
Boore DM, Thompson EM, Cadet H (2011) Regional correlations of VS 30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 meters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(6):3046–3059
Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60(1):29–61. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0600010029
Borcherdt RD, Gibbs JF (1976) Effects of local geological conditions in the San Francisco Bay region on ground motions and the intensities of the 1906 earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66:467–500. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0660020467
Borcherdt RD, Wentworth CM, Glassmoyer G, Fumal T, Mork P, Gibbs J (1991) On the observation and predictive GIS mapping of ground response in the San Francisco Bay region, California. In: Fourth international conference on seismic zonation, Stanford, California Procs., Earth. Eng. Res. Inst., III, pp 545–552
Borcherdt RD, Glassmoyer G (1992) On the characteristics of local geology and their influence on ground motions generated by the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:603–641. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0820020603
Borcherdt RD (1992) Simplified site classes and empirical amplification factors for site-dependent code provisions. NCEER, SEAOC. In: BSSC workshop on site response during earthquakes and seismic code provisions, Univ. Southern California, Los Angeles, California, Nov. 1992
Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10:617–654. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585791
Borcherdt RD (2012) VS30—A site-characterization parameter for use in building codes, simplified earthquake resistant design, GMPEs, and ShakeMaps. In: Proceedings—2012 IEEE international conference on technology enhanced education, ICTEE 2012. Paper ID: WCEE2012_0173At: Lisbon, Portugal
Bowen NL (1922) The reaction principle in petrogenesis. J Geol 30:177–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/622871
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (1994) NEHRP Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, part I: Provisions, developed for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2020) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, Volume 1: Part 1 Provisions, Part 2 Commentary, FEMA P-2082-1, Washington, DC.
Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Rossi PL (2008) Vs30: proxy for seismic amplification? Seismol Res Lett 79(4):540–543. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.79.4.540
CEN (2004) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European standard EN 1998-1, December 2004, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Cho I, Senna S, Fujiwara H (2013) Miniature array analysis of microtremors. Geophysics 78(1):KS13–KS23. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0248.1
Comina C, Foti S, Boiero D, Socco LV (2011) Reliability of VS, 30 evaluation from surface-wave tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(6):579–586
Czech Geological Survey (2004) Geological map 1: 50 000 [online]. Prague: Czech geological service [last visitied 2022–09–16]. Available from: https://mapy.geology.cz/geological_map500/?locale=en.
Dal Moro G (2014) Surface wave analysis for near surface applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, p 252
Dal Moro G (2023) MASW? A critical perspective on problems and opportunities in surface-wave analysis from active and passive data (with few legal considerations). Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 103369
Dal Moro G, Mazanec M (2024) Determination of the profile at a Vs noisy industrial site via active and passive data the critical role of Love waves and the opportunities of multi-component group velocity analysis. Geophysics 89(3):1–77. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2022-0540.1
Debeglia N, Bitri A, Thierry P (2006) Karst investigations using microgravity and MASW; application to Orléans, France. Near Surf Geophys 4(4):215–225
Derras B, Bard PY, Cotton F (2017) VS30, slope, H800 and f0: performance of various site-condition proxies in reducing ground-motion aleatory variability and predicting nonlinear site response. Earths Planets Space 69:133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0718-z
Dèzes P, Schmid SM, Ziegler PA (2004) Evolution of the European Cenozoic Rift System: interaction of the Alpine and Pyrenean orogens with their foreland lithosphere. Tectonophysics 389(1–2):1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.06.011
Di Giulio G, Cultrera G, Cornou C et al (2021) Quality assessment for site characterization at seismic stations. Bull Earthq Eng 19:4643–4691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01137-6
Di Giacomo D, Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Parolai S, Richwalski SM (2005) Analysis and modeling of HVSR in the presence of a velocity inversion: the case of Venosa, Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(6):2364–2372
Dobry R, Borcherdt RD, Crouse CB, Idriss IM, Joyner WB, Martin GR, Power MS, Rinne EE, Seed RB (2000) New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthq Spectra 16:41–67. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586082
Farrugia D, Galea P, D’Amico S (2021) Modelling and assessment of earthquake ground response in areas characterised by a thick buried low-velocity layer. Nat Hazards 105:115–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04298-w
Fischer T, Horálek J, Michálek J et al (2010) The 2008 West Bohemia earthquake swarm in the light of the WEBNET network. J Seismol 14:665–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-010-9189-4
Fischer T, Horálek J, Hrubcová P, Vavryčuk V, Bräuer K, Kämpf H (2014) Intra-continental earthquake swarms in West-Bohemia and Vogtland: a review. Tectonophysics 611:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.11.001
Fischer T, Bachura M (2014) Detection capability of seismic network based on noise analysis and magnitude of completeness. J Seismol 18:137–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-013-9407-y
Foti S, Lai C, Rix GJ, Strobbia C (2014) Surface wave methods for near-surface site characterization, 1st edn. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17268
Foti S, Hollender F, Garofalo F, Albarello D, Asten M, Bard PY et al (2018) Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: a product of the InterPACIFIC project. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2367–2420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0206-7
Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M (2009) Comparison of site classification from VS30, VS 10, and HVSR in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080083
Ganas A, Elias P, Valkaniotis S, Tsironi V, Karasante I, Briole P (2021) Petrinja earthquake moved crust 10 feet. Temblor. https://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.156
Gaytan RA, Flores Estrella H, Preciado A et al (2020) Subsoil classification and geotechnical zonation for Guadalajara City, México: Vs30, soil fundamental periods, 3D structure and profiles. Near Surf Geophys 18:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12085
Garofalo F, Foti S, Hollender F, Bard PY, Cornou C et al (2016) InterPACIFIC project: comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra-comparison of surface wave methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 82:222–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.010
Ghanbari A, Daghigh Y, Hassanvand F (2018) Risks of solely relying on vs30 in ground motion response studies. Civ Eng J 4(12):2937. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-03091210
Harmsen SC (1997) Determination of site amplification in the Los Angeles urban area from inversion of strong-motion records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(4):866–887. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0870040866
Hartzell S, Carver D, Williams RA (2001) Site response, shallow shear-wave velocity, and damage in Los Gatos, California, from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(3):468–478
Hollender F, Cornou C, Dechamp A et al (2018) Characterization of site conditions (soil class, VS30, velocity profiles) for 33 stations from the French permanent accelerometric network (RAP) using surface-wave methods. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2337–2365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0135-5
Horálek J, Vavryčuk V (1987) Comparison of selected digital records of seismic and acoustic signals of the 1985/86 Northwest Bohemian earthquake swarm. In: Prochazková D (ed) Earthquake swarm 1985/86 in Western Bohemia, Geophyical Institute of Czechoslovakia Acad. Sci., Praha, pp 110–123
Horálek J, Fischer T, Boušková A, Jedlička P (2000) The Western Bohemia/Vogtland region in the light of the WEBNET network. Stud Geophys Geod 44:107–125
Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (1991) West Bohemia Local Seismic Network. International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks. https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/WB
Kaufmann RD, Xia J, Benson RC, Yuhr LB, Casto DW, Park CB (2005) Evaluation of MASW data acquired with a hydrophone streamer in a shallow marine environment. J Environ Eng Geophys 10(2):87–98
Lee VW, Trifunac MD (2010) Should average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil be used to describe seismic amplification? Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1250–1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.007
Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Gallipoli MR, Bindi D, Mucciarelli M (2011) Proposal for a soil classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to Vs, 30. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1877–1898
Málek J, Brokešová J, Vackář J (2017) Mid-European seismic attenuation anomaly. Tectonophysics 712–713:557–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.06.003
Málek J, Buben J, Martínková M, Novotný O, Valenta J, The CELEBRATION 2000 Working Group (2005) Amplitude spectra of seismograms recorded at equal epicentral distances from blast in NW Bohemia. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 140:15–22
Mazanec M, Valenta J (2023) Surface waves as a cost-effective tool for enhancing the interpretation of shallow refraction seismic data. Acta Geodynamica Et Geomaterialia. https://doi.org/10.13168/AGG.2023.0012
Miller RD, Xia J, Park CB, Ivanov JM (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves to map bedrock. Lead Edge 18:1392–1396
Michel C, Edwards B, Poggi V, Burjánek J, Roten D, Cauzzi C, Fäh D (2014) Assessment of site effects in alpine regions through systematic site characterization of seismic stations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(6):2809–2826. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140097
Midorikawa S (1987) Prediction of isoseismal map in the Kanto plain due to hypothetical earthquake. J Struct Eng 33B:43–48
Moss RES (2008) Quantifying measurement uncertainty of thirty-meter shear-wave velocity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070101
Olafsdottir EA (2019) Multichannel analysis of surface waves for soil site characterization. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Paolucci R, Aimar M, Ciancimino A, Dotti M, Foti S, Lanzano G, Vanini M (2021) Checking the site categorization criteria and amplification factors of the 2021 draft of Eurocode 8 Part 1–1. Bull Earthq Eng 19(11):4199–4234
Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1998) Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on multi-channel record: 68th Annual international meeting society exploration geophysics, expanded abstracts, pp 1377–1380. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1820161
Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64:800–808. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444590
Park D, Hashash YMA (2005) Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi Embayment. II. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(2):145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.10.002
Park C (2016) MASW analysis of bedrock velocities (Vs and Vp). In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2016. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4966–4970
Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2013) New code site classification, amplification factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 11:925–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9429-4
Prodehl C, Mueller S, Haak V (1995) The European Cenozoic Rift System, in Continental rifts: evolution, structure, tectonics. In: Olsen KH (ed) Dev. Geotecton. Elsevier, pp 133–212
Rastogi BK, Singh AP, Sairam B, Jain SK, Kaneko F, Segawa S, Matsuo J (2011) The possibility of site effects: The Anjar case, following past earthquakes in Gujarat. India. Seismol Res Lett 82(1):59–68
Rošer J, Gosar A (2010) Determination of Vs30 for seismic ground classification in the Ljubljana area, Slovenia. Acta Geotech Slov 1:61–76
Sairam B, Rastogi BK, Aggarwal S, Chauhan M, Bhonde U (2011) Seismic site characterization using VS30 and site amplification in Gandhinagar region, Gujarat, India. Curr Sci 100:754–760
Sairam B, Singh AP, Patel V, Chopra S, Kumar MR (2019) VS30 mapping and site characterization in the seismically active intraplate region of Western India: implications for risk mitigation. Near Surf Geophys 17:533–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12066
Safani J, O’Neill A, Matsuoka T, Sanada Y (2005) Applications of Love wave dispersion for improved shear-wave velocity imaging. J Environ Eng Geophys 10:135–150. https://doi.org/10.2113/JEEG10.2.135
Shearer PM, Orcutt JA (1987) Surface and near-surface effects on seismic waves theory and borehole seismometer results. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1168–1196. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0770041168
Shingaki Y, Goto H, Sawada S (2018) Evaluation performance for site amplification factors: S-wave impedance vs. VS30. Soils Found 58(4):911–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.05.001
Steidl JH (2000) Site response in southern California for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6B):S149–S169
Stokoe KH II, Wright GW, James AB, Jose MR (1994) Characterization of geotechnical sites by SASW method. In: Geophysical characterization of sites. ISSMGE Technical Committee #10, ed. Woods, R.D., Oxford Publishers, New Delhi
Strelec S, Mesec J, Grabar K, Jug J (2017) Implementation of in-situ and geophysical investigation methods (ERT & MASW) with the purpose to determine 2D profile of landslide. Acta Montan Slovaca 22(4)
Tokimatsu K (1997) Geotechnical site characterization using surface waves. Earthquake geotechnical engineering, Ishihara (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12173
Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, 1st ed. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, pp 87–119, 149–179
Vavryčuk V, Hrubcová P, Brož M, Málek J, The ALP 2002 Working Group (2004) Azimuthal variation of Pg velocity in the Moldanubian, Czech Republic: observations based on a multi-azimuthal common-shot experiment. Tectonophysics 387:189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.06.015
Wald LA, Mori J (2000) Evaluation of methods for estimating linear site-response amplifications in the Los Angeles Region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6B):S32–S42. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119970170
Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB (1999) Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 64(3):691–700
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Charles University Grant Agency (GA UK) nr. 576120; Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, project TK03010160; Strategy AV21—Sustainable Energy and by the Johannes Amos Comenius Programme (P JAC), project No. CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004605, Natural and anthropogenic georisks. The authors are grateful to our colleagues from the Institute of Hydrogeology, Engineering Geology and Applied Geophysics, Faculty of Science, Charles University and from the Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Namely and especially to Josef Vlček for his willing help in the data acquisition and guidance in West Bohemia. The authors would like to thank the West Bohemia Seismic Network (WEBNET; Institute of Geophysics AS CR 1991) for data from broadband stations, and colleagues from the Institute of Geophysics of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
Funding
Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague. This study was supported by the Charles University Grant Agency (GA UK) nr. 576120, Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, project TK03010160; by project Strategy AV21—Sustainable Energy and by the Johannes Amos Comenius Programme (P JAC), project No. CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004605, Natural and anthropogenic georisks.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data acquisition and analysis were performed by Martin Mazanec, Jan Valenta and Jiří Málek. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Martin Mazanec and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mazanec, M., Valenta, J. & Málek, J. Does VS30 reflect seismic amplification? Observations from the West Bohemia Seismic Network. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06679-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06679-x