Shear wave velocity and site period measurements for the western portion of the Mexico City Basin following the Mw7.1 2017 Puebla–Morelos,Mexico,earthquake
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2023
Shear wave velocity and site period measurements for the western portion of the Mexico City Basin following the Mw7.1 2017 Puebla–Morelos,Mexico,earthquake
Dynamic site characterization was performed at 25 sites located on the western portion of the Mexico City Basin that were severely damaged during the Mw7.1 2017 Puebla–Morelos, Mexico, earthquake. Testing was conducted using active and passive seismic surface wave methods and the microtremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio method to determine site periods and develop one-dimensional (1D) shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles for the first 60 m of the subsoil. The measured site periods were compared to site period maps developed in 2004 and 2020 along with values computed using the Design Seismic Actions System (SASID) software following the 2020 version of the Complementary Technical Norms for Seismic Design (NTC-DS). The most noticeable biases in the predictions from the 2004 site period map were observed between the boundary of Zone II and Zone IIIa, at which site periods are overestimated. These estimates were improved upon in the 2020 site period map and showed a close similarity with SASID computed site period values. The Vs, depth, and thickness of the lacustrine clay layer were also determined to be quite variable within the basin. The softest sites are located between the lakebeds with a Vs between 45 and 57 m/s. Sites located toward the outer rim of the North lakebed have a higher Vs between 80 and 100 m/s. The thickness of the clay layer varies significantly in the western side of the Basin with values ranging between approximately 3 and 34 m. Overall, the results of this study indicate good agreement with the model embedded in the SASID software. The results (1) emphasize the need to regularly monitor changes that occur over time in the lacustrine clay layer, (2) complement the development of models that improve our understanding of wave propagation within the Basin, and (3) update and improve Mexico City’s Norms.
ArroyoDOrdazMOvando-ShelleyEGuaschJCLermoJPerezCAlcantaraLRamírez-CentenoMS (2013) Evaluation of the change in dominant periods in the lake-bed zone of Mexico City produced by ground subsidence through the use of site amplification factors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering44: 54–66.
2.
BettigBBardPYScherbaumFRieplJCottonFCornouCHatzfeldD (2001) Analysis of dense array noise measurements using the modified spatial auto-correlation method (SPAC): Application to the Grenoble area. Bollettino di Geofisica Teoria ed Applicata42(3–4): 281–304.
3.
CaponJ (1969) High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE57(8): 1408–1418.
4.
Díaz-RodríguezJA (2003) Characterization and engineering properties of Mexico City lacustrine soils. In: TanTSPhoonKKHightDWLeroueilS (eds) Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, vol. 1. London: Balkema Publishers, pp. 725–756.
5.
FrankeKWCandiaGMayoralJMWoodCMMontgomeryJHutchinsonTMorales-VelezAC (2019) Observed building damage patterns and foundation performance in Mexico City following the 2017 M7.1 Puebla-Mexico City earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering125: 105708.
6.
GCM (Gobierno de la Ciudad de México) (2017) Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo. In: Gaceta Oficial de la Ciudad de México, no. 220Bis, Mexico. Available at: https://www.consejeria.cdmx.gob.mx/ (Accessed 14 September 2021).
7.
GCM (Gobierno de la Ciudad de México) (2020) Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo con Comentarios. In: Gaceta Oficial de la Ciudad de México, no. 361, Mexico. Available at: https://www.consejeria.cdmx.gob.mx/ (Accessed 14 September 2021).
8.
GDF (Gobierno del Distrito Federal) (2004) Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo. In: Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, tomo II, no. 103-BIS, Mexico. Available at: https://www.consejeria.cdmx.gob.mx/ (Accessed 14 September 2021).
9.
GEER (Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association) (2017) Geotechnical engineering reconnaissance of the 19 September 2017 Mw 7.1 Puebla-Mexico City earthquake, Version 2.0, Report No. GEER-055A. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18118/G6JD46 (Accessed 14 September 2021).
10.
GriffithsSCCoxBRRathjeEMTeagueD (2016) Surface-wave dispersion approach for evaluating statistical models that account for shear-wave velocity uncertainty. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142(11): 04016061.
11.
GurlerEDNakamuraYSaitaJSatoT (2000) Local site effect of Mexico City based on microtremor measurement. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on seismic zonation, Palm Springs, CA, 12–15 November, pp. 65–70. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
12.
HarjesHPHengerM (1973) Array-seismologie. Zeitschrift für Geophysik39: 865–905.
13.
HimelAKWoodCM (2021) Developing an updated set of Vs profiles for the central United States seismic observatory with estimates of uncertainty between different methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering143: 106594.
14.
Jaimes-VieraMCMartin del PozzoALLayerPWBenowitzJANieto-TorresA (2018) Timing the evolution of a monogenetic volcanic field: Sierra Chichinautzin, Central Mexico. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research356: 225–242.
15.
JohSH (1996) Advances in interpretation and analysis techniques for spectral-analysis-of-surface-waves (SASW) measurements. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX, p. 240.
16.
KellyEJ (1967) Response of seismic arrays to wide-band signals. Technical Note 1967-30. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0656344 (Accessed 14 July 2019).
17.
KonnoKOhmachiT (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America88(1): 228–241.
18.
LermoJChávez-GarcíaFJ (1994) Site effect evaluation at Mexico City: Dominant period and relative amplification from strong motion and microtremor records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering13(6): 413–423.
19.
LermoJSanchez-SesmaFPerzEMonroyIMendezNCuencaRGonzalezRodriguezNCruzIGonzalezNMaldonadoDEspinozaOGonzalezKCruzJGonzalezHAragonJMendezJ (2020) Updating of the Seismic Zoning of Mexico City and Surrounding Areas Northern Part. Mexico City, Mexico: Institute for Construction Safety, Government of Mexico City.
20.
MayoralJMAsimakiDTepalcapaSWoodCRoman-de la SanchaAHutchinsonTFrankeKMontalvaG (2019) Site effects in Mexico City basin: Past and present. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering121: 369–382.
21.
MayoralJMCastañonEAlcantaraLTepalcapaS (2016) Seismic response characterization of high plasticity clays. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering84: 174–189.
22.
MayoralJMRomoMPOsorioL (2008) Seismic parameters characterization at Texcoco lake, Mexico. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering28(7): 507–521.
23.
O’RiordanNCañavate-GrimalAFrancisco Ciruela-OchoaFKumarS (2017) The stiffness and strength of saltwater Lake Texcoco clays, Mexico City. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 17–22 September, pp. 1067–1070. London: International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
24.
Pensado LegliseMPCorrea EtchegarayL (1996) Mixcoac: Un barrio en la memoria. Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto Mora.
25.
PestanaJMSancioRBBrayJDRomoMPMendozaMJMossRESMayoralMJSeedRB (2002) Geotechnical engineering aspects of the June 1999 Central Mexico earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra18(3): 481–499.
26.
RahimiSWoodCMTeagueDP (2021) Performance of different transformation techniques for MASW data processing considering various site conditions, near-field effects, and modal separation. Surveys in Geophysics42(5): 1197–1225.
27.
RahimiSWoodCMCokerFMoodyTBernhardt-BarryMMofarraj KouchakiB (2018) The combined use of MASW and resistivity surveys for levee assessment: A case study of the Melvin Price Reach of the Wood River Levee. Engineering Geology241: 11–24.
28.
ReinosoEOrdazMy Sánchez-SesmaFJ (1990) A note on the fast computation of response spectra estimates. Earth Engineering and Structural Dynamics19: 971–976.
29.
RomoMP (1995) Clay behavior, ground response and soil-structure interaction studies in Mexico City. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, MO, 2–7 April, pp. 1039–1051. Rolla, MO: Missouri University of Science and Technology.
30.
RomoMPJaimeAReséndizD (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985-general soil conditions and clay properties in the valley of Mexico. Earthquake Spectra4(4): 731–752.
31.
RosenbluethEOrdazMSánchez-SesmaFJSinghSK (1989) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985—Design spectra for Mexico’s Federal District. Earthquake Spectra5(1): 273–291.
32.
SantoyoEOvandoEMooserFLeónE (2005) Síntesis Geotécnica de la Cuenca del Valle de México. Mexico City, Mexico: TCG.
33.
SASID (Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo de la Ciudad de México) (2020) NTC-SISMO CDMX. Available at: https://sasid.unam.mx/webNormasCDMX/ (Accessed 14 September 2021).
34.
SeedHBRomoMPSunJIJaimeALysmerJ (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985—Relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra4(4): 687–729.
35.
SESAME European Research Project (2004) Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibration: Measurements, processing and interpretations. Research General Directorate Project No. EVG1-CT-2000-00026. Brussels: European Commission.
36.
SiebeC (2000) Age and archaeological implications of Xitle volcano, southwestern Basin of Mexico-City. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research104(1): 45–64.
37.
SinghSKReinosoEArroyoDOrdazMCruz-AtienzaVPérez-CamposXIglesiasAHjörleifsdóttirV (2018) Deadly intraslab Mexico earthquake of 19 September 2017 (Mw 7.1): Ground motion and damage pattern in Mexico City. Seismological Research Letters89(6): 2193–2203.
38.
WatheletM (2008) An improved neighborhood algorithm: Parameter conditions and dynamic scaling. Geophysical Research Letters35(9): L09301.
39.
WoodCWoodfieldLRiethR (2020) Dynamic site characterization in Mexico City following the 2017 Mw 7.1 Puebla-Mexico City earthquake. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-4kc2-zr63 (Accessed 14 November 2020).
40.
WoodCMBakerER (2018) Cost savings of implementing site-specific ground motion response analysis in the design of short-period Mississippi embayment bridges. Earthquake Spectra34(3): 1155–1175.
41.
WoodCMCoxBR (2012) A comparison of MASW dispersion uncertainty and bias for impact and harmonic sources. In: Proceedings of the GeoCongress 2012: State of the art and practice in geotechnical engineering, Oakland, CA, 25–29 March, pp. 2756–2765. Reston, VA: Geo-Institute.
42.
WoodCMDeschenesMLedezmaCMenesesJMontalvaGMorales-VelezAC (2019) Dynamic site characterization of areas affected by the 2017 Puebla-Mexico city earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering125: 105704.
43.
WoodfieldLJ (2020) Development of Vs profiles and site periods in the Mexico City basin. Graduate Theses and Dissertations, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
44.
Yamashita Architects and Engineers Inc. Oyo Corporation (1996) Estudios del subsuelo del Valle de México. Cuadernos de Investigación, No. 34, Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres, Mexico City, Mexico, p. 91.
45.
ZywickiDJ (1999) Advanced signal processing methods applied to engineering analysis of seismic surface waves. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
