Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70024457

Nonlinear and linear site response and basin effects in Seattle for the M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake

Abstract

We used recordings of the M 6.8 Nisqually earthquake and its ML 3.4 aftershock to study site response and basin effects for 35 locations in Seattle, Washington. We determined site amplification from Fourier spectral ratios of the recorded horizontal ground motions, referenced to a soft-rock site. Soft-soil sites (generally National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program [NEHRP] class E) on artificial fill and young alluvium have the largest 1-Hz amplifications (factors of 3-7) for both the mainshock and aftershock. These amplifications are correlated with areas of higher damage from the mainshock to major buildings and liquefaction. There are several indications of nonlinear response at the soft-soil sites for the mainshock ground motions, despite relatively modest peak accelerations in the S waves of 15%-22%g. First, the mainshock spectral ratios do not show amplification at 2-8 Hz as do the aftershock spectral ratios. Spectral peaks at frequencies below 2 Hz generally occur at lower frequencies for the mainshock spectral ratios than for the aftershock ratios. At one soft-soil site, there is a clear shift of the resonant frequency to a lower frequency for the mainshock compared with the aftershock. The frequency of this resonance increases in the coda of the mainshock record, indicating that the site response during the weaker motions of the coda is more linear than that of the initial S wave. Three of the soft-soil sites display cusped, one-sided mainshock accelerograms after the S wave. These soft-soil sites also show amplification at 10-20 Hz in the S wave, relative to the rock site, that is not observed for the aftershock. The cusped waveforms and 10-20-Hz amplification are symptomatic of nonlinear response at the soft-soil sites. These sites had nearby liquefaction. The largest amplifications for 0.5 Hz occur at soft-soil sites on the southern portion of the Seattle Basin. Stiff-soil sites (NEHRP classes D and C) on Pleistocene-age glacial deposits display similar spectral amplification for the mainshock and aftershock, indicating approximately linear response. The stiff-soil sites generally have moderate amplification (factors of 1.1-2.4) at 0.5 and 1 Hz. Amplifications at 1 and 5 Hz for all sites generally increase with decreasing shear-wave velocity measured in the top 30 m (Vs 30). However, larger amplifications at 0.5 and 1 Hz for sites with similar Vs 30 values are observed for sites in the Seattle Basin, illustrating the amplification from the deeper (>30 m) sediments and the contribution from basin surface waves. Record sections for the mainshock and aftershock show that basin surface waves produce the peak velocities for many of the sites in the Seattle Basin and often dominate the amplitude at 1 Hz and lower frequencies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A.D. Frankel, D. L. Carver, R. A. Williams. 2002. Nonlinear and linear site response and basin effects in Seattle for the M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010254

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↗