Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics

Living Edition
| Editors: Harsh K. Gupta

Seismic Microzonation

  • Fumio Yamazaki
  • Yoshihisa MaruyamaEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10475-7_187-1


Seismic microzonation

The mapping of an area on the basis of various factors that can affect the intensity of ground shaking, such as seismic hazard, geological conditions, and topographical features, so as to account for the effects of local conditions on earthquake-induced damage.


Local site conditions affect the intensity of ground shaking, and as a consequence, the extent of earthquake-induced damage. The amplitude, frequency content, and duration of strong ground motion are significantly influenced by local site conditions. A well-known example is the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. Although the fault rupture of the earthquake was about 350 km away from Mexico City, the city sustained catastrophic damage due to the strong amplification of the ground motion by soft soil deposits (Seed et al. 1988). The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused extensive damage in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay mud significantly influenced the amplitude, frequency...

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


  1. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2003) The 2003 HEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silve W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1990) Loma Prieta earthquake reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra 6:1–448Google Scholar
  4. Fujiwara H, Kawai S, Aoi S, Morikawa N, Senna S, Kobayashi K, Ishii T, Okumura T, Hayakawa Y (2006) National seismic hazard maps of Japan. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 81:221–231Google Scholar
  5. Fukuwa N, Arakawa M, Nishizaka R (1998) Estimation of site amplification factor using digital national land information. J Struct Eng 44(B):77–84. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  6. Inomata W, Norito Y (2012) Result of SUPREME (Super-Dense Real time Monitoring Earthquake system for city gas supply) in the great east Japan earthquake. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 great east Japan earthquake. pp 1508–1513Google Scholar
  7. Jirasakjamroonsri A, Poovarodom N, Warnitchai P (2019) Seismic site characteristics of shallow sediments in the Bangkok metropolitan region, and their inherent relations. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(3):1327–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kanai K (1983) Engineering seismology. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp 128–139Google Scholar
  9. Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(1):228–241Google Scholar
  10. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  11. Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1994) Are microtremors useful in site response evaluation? Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(5):1350–1364Google Scholar
  12. Matsuoka M, Midorikawa S (1995) GIS-based integrated seismic hazard mapping for a large metropolitan area. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on seismic zonation, II. pp 1334–1341Google Scholar
  13. Matsuoka M, Wakamatsu K, Fujimoto K, Midorikawa S (2006) Average shear-wave velocity mapping using japan engineering geomorphologic classification map. J Struct Eng Earthq Eng Japan Soc Civ Eng 23(1):57s–68sGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Q Rep Railw Res Inst 30:25–33Google Scholar
  15. Seed HB, Romo MP, Sun JI, Jaime A, Lysmer J (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985-relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 4:687–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shimizu Y, Yamazaki F, Yasuda S, Towhata I, Suzuki T, Isoyama R, Ishida E, Suetomi I, Koganemaru K, Nakayama W (2006) Development of real-time control system for urban gas supply network. J Geotech Geoenviron 132(2):237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tuladhar R, Yamazaki F, Warnitchai P, Saita J (2004) Seismic microzonation of the greater Bangkok area using microtremor observations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(2):211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wakamatsu K, Matsuoka M (2013) Nationwide 7.5-arc-second Japan engineering geomorphologic classification map and Vs30 zoning. J Disaster Res 8(5):904–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wakamatsu K, Matsuoka M, Hasegawa K, Kubo S, Sugiura M (2004) GIS-based engineering geomorphologic map for nationwide hazard assessment. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil dynamics & earthquake engineering and 3rd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, vol 1. pp 879–886Google Scholar
  20. Wills CJ, Petersen M, Bryant WA, Reichle M, Saucedo GJ, Tan S, Taylor G, Treiman J (2000) A site-conditions map for California based on geology and shear-wave velocity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6B):S187–S208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yamazaki F, Wakamatsu K, Onishi J, Shabestari KT (2000) Relationship between geomorphological land classification and site amplification ratio based on JMA strong motion records. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(1):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster ResilienceTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of EngineeringChiba UniversityInage-kuJapan