LOCAL SITE EFFECTS ON GROUND MOTIONS

Three earthquake reconnaissance reports were studied by our Group to study local site effects on ground
motions. For each the earthquake the site geology, site effects, and the consequences (empirical
observations) are discussed.
INTRODUCTION:
Propagation of seismic waves from an earthquake source is influenced by many local site effects such as
geology, topography, basin effects, and local soil conditions. Local site effects can amplify or deamplify
ground motions and effect spatial distribution of earthquakes. It is important to understand how different
site effects influence ground motions, which ultimately contribute to displacements of foundations and
infrastructure and behaviour of surrounding soils. Ground motion behaviour in different geological
conditions and the consequences from an earthquake is the primary focus of our study.
Softer soils and rock amplify ground motions based on the frequency of motion from the earthquake
source. Soft soils amplify most at lower frequencies of motion (less than 5 Hz) and amplify to a lesser
extent for higher frequencies of motion (greater than 5 Hz). Rocks tend to amplify motions for greater
frequencies of motion (greater than 5 Hz), but the amplification will be generally less than that of soft soils
(Aki, 1993).
Topographical and basin effects can cause complex site effects on seismic wave propagation (Faccioli
et al., 2002). Faccioli et al. (2002) point to sedimentary valleys and steep topography to have significant
effects on ground motions. In these land forms the waves can amplify and have longer durations of
shaking. Psycharis (2016) summarizes the effects on spectral acceleration amplification for different
topographies. He provides guidelines for amplitude displacement and selection of amplification factors for
different geometries along the valley crests, canyons, and slopes. The amplification factors are all greater
than 1.
Earthquake Case #1 - 1985 Guerrero-Michoacn Earthquake (Mexico City, Mexico):
Mexico City is in a valley surrounded by many volcanoes and mountains. Its basin was historically a large
lake. In September of 1985 Mexico City experienced two ground movements originating at the Michoacn
gap in the Pacific Ocean, a distance of about 360 km from the city. The first earthquake was in the
morning, and measured 8.1 on the Richter scale, the second wave occurred on the next day and
was recorded at 7.8. This earthquake killed around 10,000 people and left around 50,000 people without
homes. The majority of the damage happened in the soft soil area of the city (Esteva).
The subsurface conditions of Mexico City amplified the ground motion by a significant amount. Mexico
City's subsurface contains soft soils (layers of sand, silt, clay and volcanic ashes) that are supported by
rock and has a very high plasticity index. Higher plasticity soils have the power to take relatively large
shear strains that can behave similar to flexible linear springs (Mladen Vucetic). In this earthquake, the
seismic response amplification due to sediments reached a value around 5 (ranging between 3 to 7) and
seismic response due to the clay layers was more than 10 fold. (M. Campillo).
Area
Mexico City,
Downtown
(Clay)

Ground
motions
~8.1
Richter

Site effect

Consequence

-10 times amplification

Soil liquefaction causes the loss of foundation

support and settlement of buildings

Earthquake Case #2 - 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (San Francisco Bay Area, USA):
The San Francisco Bay area has a distinctive geology. Historically, the bay has been filled with alluvial
deposits of clays and silty to sandy clays with some layers of sandy and gravelly soils. The upper part of
the sediments are known as San Francisco Bay Mud, and are normally-consolidated. This Mud is
generally found at the margins of the bay, where its thickness varies from zero to several tens of feet. The
deeper deposits have been overconsolidated by historical glacial events. (Kramer, 1996).
To understand the importance of local site effects on ground motions we compared two instruments
located at the same distance from the source earthquake, but at different site geological sites. They
recorded dramatically different ground surface motions. The Yerba Buena Island was located directly on
rock. The Treasure Island seismograph was underlain by 13.7 m of loose sandy soil and over 16.8 m of
San Francisco Bay Mud. Peak accelerations for at Yerba Buena Island were 0.06g in the E-W direction
and 0.03g in the N-S direction; the corresponding values at Treasure Island were 0.16g and 0.11g (see
figure 1). Clearly, the presence of soft soils caused significant amplification of the underlying bedrock
motion. (Kramer, 1996). As an example, the elevated I-880 Cypress viaduc, approximately 1.5 miles long,
running rom north to south through west Oakland. The catastrophic collapse occurred on the northern end
of the viaduct which was located in the Bay Mud deposits. (See figure 2). (Seed et Al., 1990)

Area
Yerba Buena
Island (Rock
Treasure
Island (Mud)

Ground
motions
~0.06g

Site effect

Consequence

No major geotechnical hazard

~0.16g

~2.6 times
amplification

Collapse of viaduct and a section of the Bay

Bridge, severe damage to structures, ground
displacements, and liquefaction

Earthquake Case #3 1995 _______ Earthquake (Kobe, Japan):

1995 Kobe Earthquake: The ground response from the Kobe earthquake provided a range of empirical
observations due to the local site effects and variable geology of the region (Akai et al., 1995). The
region includes City of Kobe and Port Island (artificial island southeast of Kobe). The geology of Kobe
area is highly variable. The downtown area contains rock while the area towards the shoreline has
alluvial soils overlying Pleistocene deposits. The Port Island (harbour) was created using loose granular
fills from residual, weathered granite. Observed site effects are given below:
Area
City of Kobe
(Rock)
Shoreline
(Alluvial soils)
Port Island
(Loose fills)

Ground
motions
~0.3g

Site effect

Consequence

No major geotechnical hazard

~0.8g

~3 times amplification

~0.2g

Deamplification due to
soil liquefaction

Ground cracking and liquefaction-induced lateral

spreading with minor damage to structures
Large liquefaction-induced ground movements and
settlements with major damage to harbour.

References:
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Psycharis, I.N. (2016). Site effects on ground motion. National Technical University
of Athens. Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering.
lee.civil.ntua.gr/pdf/mathimata/eidika_themata_texnikis/simeioseis/Site_Effects.pdf

Seed, R. B. (1990). Preliminary report on the principal geotechnical aspects of the

October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California.

Lagorio, H. J. (1989). Loma Prieta earthquake October 17, 1989: Preliminary

reconnaissance report. El Cerrito, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Figures:
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall. Page 317, Figure 8.9 (a).

Peter Menzel Photography (2016). USA_CA_EQ_11_xs.jpg. Copyright: Peter

Menzel, www.menzelphoto.com.
http://menzelphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000HMP5Ws6Xlu4

Figure 1: Ground surface motions at Yerba Buena and Treasure Island in 1989 Loma
Prieta Earthquake. (Kramer, 1996)

Figure 2: Collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct on the Nimitz Freeway (Interstate
880) after 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in Oakland, California. (Menzel, 2016)