3D ANALYSIS OF S-WAVE PROPAGATION IN SOFT DEPOSITS

By Masahiro Iida1

ABSTRACT: During the 1985 Michoacan earthquake (surface-wave magnitude = 8.1), large-amplitude seis-
mograms of extremely long duration were recorded in the lake-bed zone of Mexico City. Large amplification
in soft surficial deposits has not been well understood. Ground subsidence of the soft clay deposits might heavily
influence S-wave propagation. In the present study, we attempt to explain both S-wave amplification and prop-
agation time between surface and borehole recordings under the action of gravity on the basis of a 3D nonlinear
finite-element (FE) technique where a bilinear model with a Mohr-Coulomb criterion is used. We identify body-
wave (S-wave) time sections in the recordings with a cross-correlation analysis. The FE simulation successfully
predicts the S-wave amplification and propagation time, which cannot be explained by a purely 1D linear model.
Although subsidence changes S-wave linear amplification, S-wave propagation time decreases little.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION a 1D analysis of borehole seismograms of the May 31, 1990,

The September 19, 1985 Michoacan earthquake (Ms = 8.1)
caused very severe damage in Mexico City inside the Valley
of Mexico, which is approximately 400 km from the epicenter
in the Pacific Ocean. The Valley of Mexico is divided into
three geotechnical zones: the hill, transition, and lake-bed
zones (Fig. 1). While the hill zone occupies the southwestern
areas, the lake-bed zone extends to the central and northeastern
areas. The transition zone is located between these two zones.
Although the earthquake produced very low accelerations at
epicentral stations, seismic waves were greatly amplified in-
side the valley, particularly in the lake-bed zone, and durations
of the lake-bed seismograms were surprisingly long. The large
amplification and the long coda have not been explained sat-
isfactorily, as explained in this section.
A basic model to investigate site amplification is a 1D ver-
tical S-wave model. Seed et al. (1988) tried to explain re-
sponse spectra of seismograms observed in the lake-bed zone
by a 1D model using a hill seismogram as the input motion.
Singh and Ordaz (1993) inferred that the long coda in the lake-
bed zone could be simulated by applying a 1D amplification
to a recent broadband hill seismogram of long duration. Baez
et al. (1994) questioned their simulations, which assumed that
the input hill seismograms were affected by negligible feed-
back from the lake-bed zone, and concluded that, in general,
the assumption was not justified. More importantly, their re-
productions exclude the possibility of surface waves. Although
their studies implicitly assumed that hill seismograms were
mostly S-waves, Iida (1999) recently demonstrated that a hill
strong-motion record was mostly surface waves by a cross-
correlation analysis between surface and borehole recordings.
Therefore, their 1D amplification simulations are not very rea-
sonable.
On the other hand, Chavez-Garcia and Bard (1993a,b)
showed that gravity waves traveling in surficial deposits pro-
posed by Lomnitz (1990) were not a likely explanation for
lake-bed seismograms. Chavez-Garcia et al. (1995) explained
long-period (3 to 5 s) wave trains as Love waves due to a deep
structure and also showed that short-period (<2 s) surface
waves could not travel in surficial deposits because of large
attenuation and dispersion.
Borehole seismograms are useful to study 1D vertical prop-
agation; but no borehole seismograms were obtained during
the 1985 earthquake. Ordaz et al. (1992) showed that, through
1
Earthquake Res. Inst., Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0032, Japan.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2000. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 4, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 9,
September 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/99/0009-0727–0740/$8.00
⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 18274.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 727
earthquake (Ms = 5.8), main parts of the seismograms behave
similar to body waves at lake-bed stations. Iida et al. (1994)
analyzed borehole data of long duration at the Tlacotal (lake-
bed) station from the October 24, 1993, earthquake (Ms = 6.7)
and indicated that only short-period waves of <2.0 s might be
interpreted as body waves. Bodin et al. (1997) analyzed bore-
hole seismograms at the Roma-C station in the lake-bed zone
to estimate dynamic deformations of shallow sediments. Iida
and Kinoshita (unpublished paper, 1999) applied a cross-cor-
relation technique and a statistical-model technique with an
information criterion to borehole data obtained at the same
Roma-C station and identified body and surface waves. They
also interpreted surface waves as fundamental-mode Love
waves excited by a deep structure. Iida (1999) suggested that
the deep structure corresponded to the Mexican volcanic belt
with a depth of a few kilometers.
In the lake-bed zone of Mexico City, ground subsidence of
several tens of centimeters per year has been observed (Hiriart
and Marsal 1969; Marsal 1975). Ground subsidence caused by
gravity might greatly affect strong motions. In the present
study, we investigate effects of subsidence of soft surficial de-
posits on strong motions on the basis of a 3D nonlinear finite-
element (FE) technique to explain large amplification of S
waves in soft surficial deposits. Because surface waves have
long wavelengths, only body waves are expected to be largely
influenced by ground subsidence. First, we confirm this hy-
pothesis and then identify body-wave (S-wave) time sections.
Both S-wave amplification and propagation time are estimated
by both the FE simulation under the action of gravity and a
1D linear model without gravity and are compared with ana-
lytical results for the borehole seismograms. Borehole seis-
mograms, together with a shallow underground profile at the
borehole site, are really effective for these purposes.
BOREHOLE STRONG-MOTION ACCELEROGRAMS
We analyze accelerograms recorded at two strong-motion
borehole stations in the lake-bed zone (Fig. 1), which are op-
erated by the National Disaster Prevention Center of Mexico.
Each borehole station has one surface and two underground
instruments. Accelerograms with long coda were recorded at
both stations during the September 14, 1995, earthquake (Ms
= 7.3), which occurred on the Pacific coast in the state of
Guerrero. These seismograms are one of the best-quality data
sets ever obtained in Mexico after being synchronized in De-
cember 1994. Since then, initial P phases have also been re-
corded by a remote-trigger equipment installed at the Iguala
station located 100 km south of the Valley of Mexico, in spite
of the large P-S time interval in seismograms observed in
Mexico City.
The shallow underground profiles at the two strong-motion
borehole stations are shown in Table 1 (Yamashita Architects

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Location Map of Valley of Mexico Showing Hill, Transition, and Lake-Bed Zones. Two Strong-Motion Borehole Stations in
Lake-Bed Zone Are Indicated by Solid Circles

TABLE 1. Shallow Underground Profiles at Two Strong-Mo- by very low S-wave velocities and extremely low densities.
tion Borehole Stations The Roma-C station is located on a thin soft deposit, whereas
P-wave S-wave Depth of the Zaragoza station is located on a thick deposit. Large non-
Depth velocity velocity Density instrumentation linear behavior of shallow deposits is not expected, because
(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cm3) (m) the main material is high-strength clay. Small nonlinear be-
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) havior was recognized at only one station during the 1985
(a) Roma-C station earthquake (Singh et al. 1988). A constant damping coefficient
3–5 1,430 90 1.2 0
of h = 0.05 (a quality factor of Q = 10) is used for the shallow
5–12 1,430 30 1.1 profiles. The h value will be discussed in a later section.
12–25 1,430 55 1.1 Figs. 2 and 3 show the two horizontal components of the
25–33 1,430 80 1.2 30 accelerograms and their Fourier spectra at the two borehole
33–36 1,430 200 1.4 stations for the 1995 event, respectively. Vertical components
36–44 1,430 130 1.4
are not used in this study. Durations of the original recordings
44–55 1,780 400 1.5
55–65 1,580 250 1.5 are extraordinarily long (>5 min). We use a 150-s time section
65–102 1,750 430 1.7 102 with large amplitude (Fig. 2). The sampling time interval is
(b) Zaragoza station 0.01 s. A frequency range of 0.125–5.0 Hz (0.2–8.0 s) is
studied. Spectra in the frequency domain are smoothed by the
3–5 1,420 40 1.1 0
5–23 1,420 28 1.1
Parzen’s spectral window with a bandwidth of 0.2 Hz. The
23–38 1,420 42 1.1 30 maximum amplitude of the surface seismograms is about 30
38–40 1,420 180 1.2 gal. (cm/s2). We observe a very long coda at the two stations.
40–52 1,420 76 1.1 The difference between the two stations is the frequency con-
52–57 1,420 135 1.4 tents of surface seismograms. Accelerograms recorded at the
57–67 1,700 460 1.4
67–80 1,450 140 1.5
underground instruments do not have the dominant frequencies
80–83 1,750 450 1.6 83 seen in the surface seismograms and do not include high-fre-
quency components of more than 1.0 Hz (<1.0 s).
For reference, only surface seismograms were recorded
& Engineers Inc. and Oyo Corp. 1990). The shallow profiles at six stations in Mexico City during the 1985 earthquake
were well determined by suspension PS logging in 1988. The (Anderson et al. 1986). A maximum amplitude of approxi-
lake-bed zone consists of a 10 to more than 100 m deposit of mately 190 gal. was obtained at the SCT (Secretaria de Co-
highly compressible, high water content clay, underlain by municaciones y Transportes) station in the lake-bed zone, and
sands. Hence, the soft clay deposit is primarily characterized record duration reached 3 min at two lake-bed stations.
728 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

 IDENTIFICATION OF S WAVES
Iida and Kinoshita (unpublished paper, 1999) investigated
basic characteristics of surface-wave propagation in strong-
motion seismograms at the Roma-C station. Based upon the-
oretical calculations of amplification factors for shallow and
deep structures, they suggested that surface waves with periods
of more than about 2 s could be interpreted as fundamental-
mode Love waves excited in a deep structure with depths of
a few kilometers (the Valley of Mexico has a depth of several
hundred meters). The theoretical phase velocity for the Love
waves was estimated to be >700 m/s, so that the wavelength
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
was longer than 1,400 m (=700 m/s ⫻ 2 s). Therefore, the
effects of ground subsidence on surface waves, which have
long wavelength relative to the thickness (several tens of me-
ters) of surficial soft deposits, are not examined in this study.
Cross-correlation of Borehole Recordings
To identify S waves, we conduct a running (temporal) cross-
correlation analysis between the surface and borehole record-
ings at the two stations (Fig. 4). Judging from the very low
S-wave velocities of surficial layers with thickness of several
tens of meters at the two borehole stations (Table 1), nearly

FIG. 2. Strong-Motion Accelerograms (Two Horizontal Components) Recorded at Two Borehole Stations during September 14, 1995
Earthquake

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 729

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. (Continued )

vertical incidence of S waves is expected. Table 2 shows the
propagation times (lag times) of vertically incident, direct S
waves traveling between the lower borehole instrument and
the ground surface and primary and secondary predominant
frequencies (periods) of S waves in shallow deposits at the
two borehole stations using the S-wave shallow velocity pro-
file. Therefore, a peak of the cross-correlation function should
appear at the lag time if seismic motions are mostly S waves.
For example, in the case of the Roma-C station, a peak should
appear at a lag time of 0.75 s. For any kind of surface waves,
730 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999
we expect a peak at a lag time of 0.0 s. Thus, we judge the
early time sections between 30 and 70 s as S waves at both
stations. The late time sections after 70 s are not judged as S
waves. Most importantly, the lag time of the cross-correlation
function is always smaller than that estimated from the S-wave
profile. This will be interpreted in a later section.
To examine frequency dependence of wave types, we fur-
ther conduct a similar analysis with bandpass filters. Two con-
trasting examples are displayed in Fig. 5. Regarding the Roma-
C recordings, although high-frequency seismic waves in the

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3. Fourier Spectra of Strong-Motion Accelerograms (Two Horizontal Components) Recorded at Two Borehole Stations

FIG. 4. Cross-Correlation Coefficients for Different Time Intervals in East-West Direction between Surface and Lower Borehole Re-
cordings at Two Borehole Stations (t Is Time Interval; Period Range Is 0.2–8.0 s)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 731

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

 TABLE 2. Propagation Times of Vertically Incident Direct S Transfer Functions
Waves and Primary and Secondary Predominant Frequencies
of S Waves in Shallow Depositsa To understand actual wave amplification more clearly, Fig.
Primary Secondary 6 shows transfer functions for early (S-wave) recordings
Propagation predominant predominant (shown by bold lines) for the three pairs of vertical-array in-
time frequency (period) frequency (period) struments at the two borehole stations. These transfer functions
Station (s) [Hz (s)] [Hz (s)] are calculated from Fourier spectral ratios. In the transfer func-
(1) (2) (3) (4) tion for the pair of 0 and 102 m at the Roma-C station, a peak
Roma-C 0.747 0.40 (2.47) 0.93 (1.08) at 0.4 Hz (2.5 s) and another peak at 1.0 Hz (1.0 s) can be
Zaragoza 1.453 0.22 (4.58) 0.57 (1.74) assessed. At the Zaragoza station, we notice a smooth peak at
a
Calculated using shallow underground profiles in Table 1.
0.2 Hz (5.0 s) and a sharp peak at 0.7 Hz (1.4 s) for the pair
of 0 and 83 m.
1D linear transfer functions for vertically incident S waves
are calculated for the three pairs of vertical-array instruments
frequency range of >0.7 Hz (<1.5 s) might be interpreted as and are compared with transfer functions for the early (S-
mostly body waves, low-frequency waves of <0.3 Hz (>3.0 s) wave) recordings (Fig. 6). The linear transfer functions are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

can be interpreted as surface waves. In the intermediate fre-
quency range between 0.3 and 0.7 Hz (1.5 and 3.0 s), wave
types are uncertain probably because both body and surface
waves have the same dominant frequency of 0.4 Hz (2.5 s).
Regarding the Zaragoza recordings, high-frequency seismic
waves of >0.3 Hz (<3.0 s) are interpreted as mostly body
waves. Wave types in the low frequency range of <0.3 Hz
(>3.0 s) appear very complex, and body- and surface-wave
phases might be mixed.
calculated using the shallow profiles (Table 1). First, it is found
that the Zaragoza surface recordings contain two dominant fre-
quencies (Fig. 3), which correspond to the primary and sec-
ondary predominant frequencies calculated from the shallow
profile. Therefore, the surficial deposits, rather than the inci-
dent wavefield, control the frequency contents of the surface
seismograms recorded in the lake-bed zone.
Second, we note that the linear transfer functions overesti-
mate the transfer functions calculated from the observed

FIG. 5. Cross-Correlation Coefficients for Different Time Intervals for Three Frequency Ranges in East-West Direction between Sur-
face and Lower Borehole Recordings at Two Borehole Stations (t Is Time Interval; T Is Period Range)

732 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 6. Comparisons of Transfer Functions for Early Recordings (Bold Lines) with 1D Linear Transfer Functions for S Waves (Thin
Lines) in Two Horizontal Components for Three Pairs of Vertical-Array Instruments at Two Borehole Stations. Early Recordings Are 40-
s Time Section of 30–70 s, which Are Interpreted as S Waves

records in the low frequency range at both stations. In partic-
ular, we see that peaks at about 0.4 and 0.25 Hz (2.5 and 4.0
s) in the linear transfer functions are much larger than those
in the observed transfer functions for the uppermost 30 m of
the surficial layers at the Roma-C and Zaragoza stations, re-
spectively. The uppermost 30 m deposits are characterized by
very soft soils (Table 1), so that large subsidence of ground is
expected to occur in the soft deposits. If subsidence is taken
into account, peaks in the observed transfer functions might
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 733
be well explained. The lag time of the cross-correlation func-
tion might be well explained as well.
S-WAVE PROPAGATION IN NONLINEAR SOFT SOIL
DEPOSITS UNDER ACTION OF GRAVITY
Numerical simulations of S-wave propagation in nonlinear
soft soil deposits under the action of gravity should be en-
couraged for the following three reasons:

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

 1. In reality, soil deposits are under the action of gravity, {␴t⫹dt} = ␣ ⭈ {␴t} ⫹ {␴0} (2)
and are compressed by the surrounding soil deposits,
even if strong subsidence has not been observed. where {␴0} = initial stress vector; dt = time step; and ␣ =
2. Ground subsidence of several tens of centimeters per unknown constant. The constant ␣ is determined from the con-
year has been actually observed in the lake-bed zone of straint that the stress vector remains on the yield curved sur-
Mexico City (Hiriart and Marsal 1969; Marsal 1975). face.
Subsidence is basically caused by gravity (the weight of The following nonlinear equations of motion are solved by
soil itself). The shallow profiles (Table 1) at the two a Newton-Raphson method:
borehole stations were measured in 1988, and the strong-
motion accelerograms (Fig. 2) were recorded in 1995. [G] ⭈ {␦¨ t⫹dt} = {Qt⫹dt} (3a)
Therefore, considerable subsidence accumulated during
the 7-year period, and the soil properties in 1995 are [G] = [M] ⫹ 0.5 ⭈ dt ⭈ [C] ⫹ ␤ ⭈ dt 2 ⭈ [K] (3b)
probably different from those in Table 1.
3. The stress of a soil sample extracted from soil deposits
could be substantially relieved during sampling, whereas {Qt⫹dt} = {Pt⫹dt} ⫺ [C] ⭈ {␦˙ t ⫹ 0.5 ⭈ dt ⭈ ␦¨ t}
the soil sample was compressed by the surrounding soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deposits at the original underground position. Therefore, ⫺ [K] ⭈ {␦t ⫹ dt ⭈ ␦˙ t ⫹ (0.5 ⫺ ␤) ⭈ dt 2 ⭈ ␦¨ t} (3c)
the real soil deposits are expected to be harder than the
measurement values. where [M], [C], [K], {␦}, and {P} = mass matrix, damping
matrix, stiffness matrix, displacement vector, and external
Among the above three factors, factor 1 can be almost per- force vector, respectively; and ␤ = constant of a Newmark’s
fectly taken into account by the simulations, whereas factor 2 ␤ method. Owing to nonlinearity of the soil, (3) cannot be
can be considered only partly, as explained in the following.
Factor 3 might not be directly related to gravity and is not
expected to be considered adequately. In our case, this factor
is probably negligible because the shallow profiles were ac-
curately measured (see Section 2). To summarize, the simu-
lations are able to represent real soft deposits considerably
well.
It would be reasonable to use the same soil model between
dynamic and static analyses. Because the surface material is
clay and liquefaction has never occurred during shaking, we
use a bilinear model with a Mohr-Coulomb criterion to rep-
resent nonlinearity of the clay. The weak point of this model
is that the effects of ground-water withdrawal or gradual dis-
sipation of excess pore pressures in soft, saturated clay cannot
be considered. Such consideration is beyond the scope of this
study, although the effects might be rather significant.
An FE technique is a powerful tool for estimating static
stress and deformation in various types of soils [e.g., Bergado
et al. (1995) and Alfaro et al. (1997)]. The technique is also
powerful when dynamic wave propagation is calculated for
soils compressed by a static analysis. We apply a nonlinear FE
numerical simulation to the lake-bed clay to estimate the am- FIG. 7. Model Composed of Upper 3D Nonlinear FE Volume
plification and propagation time of S waves under the action and Lower 1D Linear Volume. Depths of Two Horizontal Bound-
of gravity. We use a 3D model because the effects of a building aries (D1 and D2) Are Shown in Table 3
or horizontal heterogeneity in an underground structure can be
considered, and because the two horizontal components of
seismic motions can be simultaneously excited. Consequently, TABLE 3. Soil Properties Used in 3D FE Technique
a complete 3D Mohr-Coulomb criterion is adopted. In this
Reduction ratio Frictional
study, however, we basically investigate 1D nonlinear behavior Depth in second Cohesion angle
of soils under the action of gravity, because no building and (m) Material rigidity (g/cm2) (degrees)
no horizontal heterogeneity exist in an underground structure. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
As a basic model for comparison, a 1D linear model without
(a) Roma-C stationa
gravity is used.
0–32 Clay 0.5 250 5
Method 32–36 Clay 0.5 350 5
36–44 Clay 0.5 350 5
A bilinear model with a 3D Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion 44–52 Sand 0.5 500 30
is assumed for the soil. The soil is in the yield range if one (b) Zaragoza stationb
of the following inequalities is satisfied: 0–36 Clay 0.5 250 5
␴1 ⫺ ␴2 > (␴1 ⫹ ␴2) ⭈ sin ␾s ⫹ 2cs ⭈ cos ␾s (1a) 36–40 Clay 0.5 350 5
40–52 Clay 0.5 250 5
␴1 ⫺ ␴3 > (␴1 ⫹ ␴3) ⭈ sin ␾s ⫹ 2cs ⭈ cos ␾s (1b) 52–56 Clay 0.5 350 5
56–64 Clay 0.5 350 5
␴2 ⫺ ␴3 > (␴2 ⫹ ␴3) ⭈ sin ␾s ⫹ 2cs ⭈ cos ␾s (1c) a
Depth of bottom plane of 3D volume, D1 = 52 m; depth where lower
where ␴1, ␴2, and ␴3 (␴1 > ␴2 > ␴3) = principal stresses; cs = borehole instrument is installed, D2 = 102 m.
b
Depth of bottom plane of 3D volume, D1 = 64 m; depth where lower
cohesion; and ␾s = frictional angle. If the soil is in the yield borehole instrument is installed, D2 = 83 m.
range, the stress vector {␴t⫹dt} is expressed by
734 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 8. Comparisons of Surface Accelerograms (Two Horizontal Components) at Two Borehole Stations. Each Set of Diagrams
Shows Observed Seismograms for 40 s (30–70 s) (Upper), 1D Linear Seismograms (Middle), and FE Simulated Seismograms (Lower).
Lower Borehole Recordings Are Used as Input Motions

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 735

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 8. (Continued )

solved explicitly. The equations are solved by the following Once accelerations are determined, velocities and displace-
three-step procedure: ments are evaluated by the following:

1. By assuming that the soil is elastic, stresses and external {␦˙ t⫹dt} = {␦˙ t} ⫹ 0.5 ⭈ dt ⭈ {␦¨ t ⫹ ␦¨ t⫹dt} (4a)
force are approximately calculated. {␦t⫹dt} = {␦t} ⫹ dt ⭈ {␦˙ t} ⫹ 0.5 ⭈ dt 2 ⭈ {␦¨ t} ⫹ ␤ ⭈ dt 2 ⭈ {␦¨ t⫹dt ⫺ ␦¨ t}
2. If the soil is in the yield range, stresses are adjusted
(4b)
according to the aforementioned way of (2).
3. Calculations of external force are repeated until it is con- These calculations are performed using a computer code de-
verged. veloped by Ishihara and Miura (1993).
736 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 9. Comparisons of Fourier Spectra of Surface Accelerograms (Two Horizontal Components) Shown in Fig. 8

The entire analysis is composed of the following two main

steps (Fig. 7):

1. Static analysis: We fix the bottom plane of the 3D non-

linear FE volume at a depth of D1 (m) and perform static
nonlinear soil subsidence under the action of gravity. The
depth of D1 (m) is chosen considering that very soft de-
posits are concentrated in the upper 25–40 m at both
stations (Table 1).
2. Dynamic analysis: Early S-wave time sections of 30 to
70 s in the two horizontal components of the observed
seismograms are applied as excitation to a depth of D2
(m) where the lower borehole instrument is installed. Al-
though a 1D linear propagation of vertically incident S
waves is performed between D2 and D1 (m), a 3D non-
linear propagation is conducted between D1 and 0 (m).
We calculate surface motions for the compressed soil de-
posits. The depths of the two horizontal boundaries (D1
and D2) are shown in Table 3.

The 3D volume with a horizontal extension of 40 ⫻ 40 m

is modeled by rectangular prism elements with a base of 5 ⫻
5 m and a height of 4 m. The calculation time interval is 0.01
s. Horizontal and vertical extensions and a damping coefficient
of h = 0.05 in the 3D volume can attenuate artificial wave
reflections from the bottom and side planes. The constant el-
FIG. 10. FE Simulated Transfer Functions for 40 s (30–70 s) ement sizes are determined on the basis of the minimum seis-
(Two Horizontal Components) at Two Borehole Stations. Pair of mic wavelength L to be analyzed. The wavelength L is the
Surface and Lower Borehole Seismograms Is Used minimum velocity V of the shallow profiles (Table 1) multi-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 737

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 11. Comparisons of Cross-Correlation Coefficients for Different Time Intervals (East-West Component) at Two Borehole Sta-
tions (t Is Time Interval; Period Range Is 0.2–8.0 s). Each Set of Diagrams Shows Observed Seismograms for 40 s (30–70 s) (Upper),
1D Linear Seismograms (Middle), and FE Simulated Seismograms (Lower). Lower Borehole Recordings Are Used as Input Motions

plied by the minimum period T to be analyzed. The wave-
length L is estimated by
L= V ⭈ T = 30 (m/s) ⫻ 0.8 (s) = 24 (m)
Hence, the element sizes are valid for dominant periods of
seismic motions.
The shallow soil profiles are shown in Table 1. Soil nonlin-
ear parameters are roughly evaluated on the basis of a soil
study (Jaime 1987). The yield strength assumed for the soils
is given in Table 3.
Results
Figs. 8 and 9 show comparisons of surface seismograms and
their Fourier spectra at both stations, respectively. Although
the 1D linear model overestimates wave amplitudes, ampli-
tudes of FE simulated seismograms are comparable to those
of observed seismograms. Soil behavior in the soft surficial
deposits is within linear range in the FE simulation. At the
Roma-C station, frequency contents are similar between FE
simulated and observed seismograms, although 1D linear seis-
mograms include more high-frequency components than the
other two seismograms. Regarding Zaragoza seismograms, FE
simulated seismograms have lower frequencies than observed
seismograms.
738 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999
FE simulated transfer functions at both stations are shown
in Fig. 10. They might be compared with two kinds of transfer
functions—the observed and 1D linear transfer functions in
Fig. 6. Effects of subsidence due to gravity are easily recog-
nized by comparing FE simulated transfer functions with 1D
linear ones (thin lines in Fig. 6). As the peak frequencies are
identical between both functions, we can confirm that soil non-
linearity, if any, is very minor. The FE simulation satisfactorily
explains the observed transfer functions (bold lines in Fig. 6)
at both stations.
Fig. 11 shows comparisons of running cross-correlation
functions at both stations. Although the 1D linear model can-
not satisfactorily explain lag times between the borehole and
surface recordings, the FE simulation successfully explains
them, particularly at the Roma-C station. Although lag times
may be partly explained by oblique incidence of S waves in
the 1D linear model, the FE simulation is able to make a better
explanation than the oblique incidence of S waves.
Here, we interpret the effects of ground subsidence. Judging
from transfer functions, S-wave amplification was considera-
bly changed due to subsidence, although S-wave propagation
was nearly linear. On the basis of lag times of cross-correlation
functions, S-wave propagation time decreased a little owing to
subsidence. Thus, subsidence changes the soil properties, so

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 12. Depth Distributions in Shear Strain and Stress in East-West Direction for Uppermost 30 m of Surficial Layers at Roma-C and
Zaragoza Stations. Maximum Dynamic Values and Initial Static Values Are Shown

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 739

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740

 that linear wave propagation through the 1988 structure (Table
1) is different from linear wave propagation through the real
(1995) structure.
Fig. 12 displays depth distributions in the shear strain and
stress for the uppermost 30 m of surficial layers at both sta-
tions. It seems that the maximum dynamic strain depends upon
softness of soil deposits, and the maximum dynamic stress
gradually increases with depth. The initial static strain and
stress values are considerably small relative to the maximum
dynamic ones.
At the present stage, there are two limitations in the FE
simulation. One is that an artificial horizontal plane for ground
subsidence was fixed at a depth of several tens of meters. This
should lead to excessive subsidence (overloading). The other
is that the element size (5 ⫻ 5 ⫻ 4 m) is too large for high-
frequency components. The minimum effective wavelength is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Marco Ferro on 03/16/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approximately 24 m. As the lowest S-wave velocity is about
30 m/s, the effective frequency (period) range is less than
about 1.25 Hz (more than about 0.8 s). This condition might
be severe for the Zaragoza site, because the shallow profile
has thick low-velocity layers. In the effective frequency (pe-
riod) range, our results are quite satisfactory (Fig. 9). These
parameters were determined considering memory and CPU
time of a normal workstation. The limitations are expected to
be overcome considerably.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
A constant damping coefficient of h = 0.05 (a quality factor
of Q = 10) was used for the shallow profiles. Damping coef-
ficient values are uncertain in Mexico City in the low-fre-
quency range. In previous studies [e.g., Sanchez-Sesma et al.
(1988) and Ordaz et al. (1992)], h values of 0.02–0.07 (Q
values of 7–25) were usually used. Our h value was deter-
mined with moderate confidence by the 1D linear and FE sim-
ulations using the borehole seismograms. Frequency-depen-
dent h (Q) values might be more reasonable (Fukushima et al.
1992; Satoh et al. 1995). If we assume frequency-dependent
h values (larger h for lower frequency), 1D linear transfer
functions (thin lines in Fig. 6) become smaller in the lower
frequency range, compared with the results shown here, and
will probably satisfactorily match transfer functions for re-
cordings (bold lines in Fig. 6).
However, h values cannot change lag times in cross-corre-
lation functions. Judging from the fairly good agreement in
lag times between the FE simulation and the observation (Fig.
11), surface recordings cannot be interpreted without consid-
ering the effects of ground subsidence. Although we are un-
certain about real h values, we obtain reasonable amplitude
matches with a constant h of 0.05. Therefore, subsidence can
make a more reasonable interpretation than damping.
In the present study, we assumed that ground subsidence
influenced only body waves, because surface waves were ex-
cited in a deep structure relative to the thickness of soft sur-
ficial layers. Thus we identified body-wave (S-wave) phases
in the lake-bed seismograms. Both S-wave amplification and
propagation time were estimated, using a 3D nonlinear FE
simulation under the action of gravity and a 1D linear model
without gravity. The FE simulation successfully predicted both
the S-wave amplification and propagation time, which could
not be well explained by the purely 1D linear model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer thanks Roberto Quaas of the National Disaster Prevention
Center of Mexico for supplying the strong-motion accelerograms used in
this study. The writer appreciates the support of the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the JICA Mexico project committee.
Research funds were provided by the Ministry of Education, Japan. Sug-
740 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1999, 125(9): 727-740
gestions made by an editor, an editorial board member, and three anon-
ymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Alfaro, M. C., Hayashi, S., Miura, N., and Bergado, D. T. (1997). ‘‘De-
formation of reinforced soil well-embankment system on soft clay
foundation.’’ Soils and Found., 37, 33–46.
Anderson, J. G., et al. (1986). ‘‘Strong ground motion from the Michoa-
can, Mexico, earthquake.’’ Sci., 233, 1043–1049.
Baez, G., Flores, J., Mateos, J. L., Mendez, R. A., Novaro, O., and Se-
ligman, T. H. (1994). ‘‘Comment on the origin of long coda observed
in the lake-bed strong-motion records of Mexico City.’’ Bull. Seismo-
logical Soc. of Am., 84, 2015–2018.
Bergado, D. T., Chai, J. C., and Miura, N. (1995). ‘‘FE analysis of grid
reinforced soil wall-embankment system on soft clay foundation.’’
Soils and Found., 17, 447–471.
Bodin, P., Gomberg, J., Singh, S. K., and Santoyo, M. (1997). ‘‘Dynamic
deformations of shallow sediments in the Valley of Mexico, Part I:
Three-dimensional strains and rotations recorded on a seismic array.’’
Bull. Seismological Soc. of Am., 87, 528–539.
Chavez-Garcia, F. J., and Bard, P.-Y. (1993a). ‘‘Gravity waves in Mexico
City? I. Gravity perturbed waves in an elastic solid.’’ Bull. Seismolog-
ical Soc. of Am., 83, 1637–1655.
Chavez-Garcia, F. J., and Bard, P.-Y. (1993b). ‘‘Gravity waves in Mexico
City? II. Coupling between an anelastic solid and a fluid layer.’’ Bull.
Seismological Soc. of Am., 83, 1656–1675.
Chavez-Garcia, F. J., Ramos-Martinez, J., and Romero-Jimenez, E.
(1995). ‘‘Surface-wave dispersion analysis in Mexico City.’’ Bull. Seis-
mological Soc. of Am., 85, 1116–1126.
Fukushima, Y., Kinoshita, S., and Sato, H. (1992). ‘‘Measurement of Q-
1 for S waves in mudstone at Chikura, Japan: Comparison of incident
and reflected phases in borehole seismograms.’’ Bull. Seismological
Soc. of Am., 82, 148–163.
Hiriart, F., and Marsal, R. J. (1969). ‘‘Nabor carrillo, el hundimiento de
la ciudad de Mexico y proyecto Texcoco, secretaria de hacienda y
credito publico.’’ Mexico City (in Spanish).
Iida, M. (1999). ‘‘Excitation of high-frequency surface waves with long
duration in the Valley of Mexico.’’ J. Geophys. Res., Solid Earth, 104,
7329–7345.
Iida, M., Ordaz, M., Taniguchi, H., Gutierrez, C., and Santoyo, M. (1994).
‘‘Interpretation of wave field inside the Mexico Valley on the basis of
borehole data.’’ Proc., 9th Japan Earthquake Engrg. Symp., Vol. 3,
E121–E126.
Ishihara, T., and Miura, F. (1993). ‘‘Nonlinear seismic response analysis
method for 3-D soil-structure interaction systems.’’ Proc., JSCE, To-
kyo, 465, 145–154 (in Japanese).
Jaime, A. (1987). ‘‘Foundation engineering in Mexico City: General as-
pects and subsoil conditions.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. Geotech. Engrg. Soft
Soils, Vol. 2, Mexican Society of Soil Mechanics, Mexico City, 225–
243.
Lomnitz, C. (1990). ‘‘Mexico 1985: The case of gravity waves.’’ Geo-
phys. J. Int., 102, 569–572.
Marsal, R. J. (1975). The lacustrine clays of the Valley of Mexico.’’ Rep.
07/75, Universidada Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.
Ordaz, M., Santoyo, M. A., Singh, S. K., and Quaas, R. (1992). ‘‘Analysis
of the borehole recordings obtained in Mexico City during the May
31, 1990 earthquake.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. Effects Surface Geol. Seismic
Motion, Vol. 1, Association for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Tokyo,
155–160.
Sanchez-Sesma, F., Chavez-Perez, S., Suarez, M., Bravo, M. A., and
Perez-Rocha, L. E. (1988). ‘‘The Mexico earthquake of September 19,
1985—on the seismic response of the Valley of Mexico.’’ Earthquake
Spectra, 4, 569–589.
Satoh, T., Kawase, H., and Sato, T. (1995). ‘‘Evaluation of local site
effects and their removal from borehole records observed in the Sendai
Region, Japan.’’ Bull. Seismological Soc. of Am., 85, 1770–1789.
Seed, H. B., Romo, M. P., Sun, J. I., Jaime, A., and Lysmer, J. (1988).
‘‘Relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground mo-
tions.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 4, 687–729.
Singh, S. K., et al. (1988). ‘‘The Mexico earthquake of September 19,
1985—A study of amplification of seismic waves in the Valley of Mex-
ico with repect to a hill zone site.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 4, 653–673.
Singh, S. K., and Ordaz, M. (1993). ‘‘On the origin of long coda observed
in the lake-bed strong-motion records of Mexico City.’’ Bull. Seismo-
logical Soc. of Am., 83, 1298–1306.
Yamashita Architects & Engineers Inc. and Oyo Corp. (1990). ‘‘Estudios
de subsuelo para el proyecto de el centro de prevencion de desastres
sismicos en los estados unidos mexicanos.’’ Mexico City (in Spanish).