Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70019021

Site amplification at five locations in San Francisco, California: A comparison of S waves, codas, and microtremors

Abstract

We compare microtremor data to weak-motion S -wave and coda recordings at sites in San Francisco in order to clarify the range of applicability of microtremor data to ground-motion prediction. We also compare S -wave results to coda results. For each type of data, we compute spectral ratios of motions from two soil/rock station pairs and from an uphole/downhole pair in the Marina district. We compute horizontal/vertical ratios (Nakamura's method) at a soil site, a rock site, and the surface and borehole instruments. In the station-pair analyses, microtremor data show amplifications at the same fundamental frequency as S waves, but the frequencies of other peaks do not agree. The amplification at frequencies higher than 2 Hz is greater in the microtremor data. Station-pair ratios of coda data generally show spectral peaks occurring at the same frequencies, but with levels varying from one to four times the amplification from S -wave ratios. Nakamura's method of analyzing microtremors agrees better with S -wave station-pair results than the microtremor station-pair method over a limited frequency band that varies from station to station.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.25536096035685° to 38.33187057007001° latitude; -123.02509908452166° to -121.53093127807247° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Linda C. Seekins, Leif Wennerberg, L. Margheriti, Hsi-Ping Liu. 1996-06-01. Site amplification at five locations in San Francisco, California: A comparison of S waves, codas, and microtremors. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0860030627

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗