One-dimensional (1D) ground-response analysis based on 1D velocity profiles and generic relationships between damping and velocity is frequently employed under the assumption that it can provide a reliable assessment of site effects. According to this hypothesis, epistemic uncertainty in site response primarily stems from inaccurately determined soil parameters. As shown by the recent development of ground-motion models in the Fourier domain, the underlying site-to-site variability of site response rises sharply at intermediate to high frequencies (>3 Hz), and this increase cannot be compensated for when relying on coarse velocity profiles and generic relationships between damping and velocity. In order to solve this high-frequency frontier in site response, we invert the spectral ratio of the horizontal-to-vertical components of strong motions based on the diffuse field concept for obtaining refined 1D velocity profiles and site-specific damping profiles. These updated equivalent structures of both velocity and damping significantly improve the performance of 1D ground-response analyses. This effect is particularly strong at intermediate frequencies (3–10 Hz), where both the deep sedimentary structure and the damping profile above the seismological bedrock have a strong influence on site response. While the use of refined 1D velocity and generic damping profiles for test sites of the Japanese KiK-net already provides a reduction of the intermediate-to-high-frequency residual and corrected site-to-site variability (and then an increase in the precision of predictions), the inclusion of site-specific damping allows this value almost to be halved. The results show that many sites are indeed too complex to be modeled by classical 1D ground-response analysis relying on generic damping relationships, while only site-specific record-based models allow a significant reduction in the bias.
AbrahamsonNAYoungsRR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America82(1): 505–510.
2.
AfshariKStewartJP (2019) Insights from California vertical arrays on the effectiveness of ground response analysis with alternative damping models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(4): 1250–1264.
3.
AndersonJGHoughSE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America74(5): 1969–1993.
4.
AndrewsDJ (1986) Objective determination of source parameters and similarity of earthquakes of different size. Earthquake Source Mechanics37: 259–267.
5.
AshayeriINagashimaFKawaseHDashtiMT (2023) Application of a telescopic evolutionary algorithm with the diffuse-field concept for velocity inversion from strong motion data at K-NET and KiK-net stations in the presence of borehole and geological data. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering164: 107528.
6.
AsterRCShearerPM (1991) High-frequency borehole seismograms recorded in the San Jcinto Fault zone, Southern California Part 2: Attenuation and site effects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America81(4): 1081–1100.
7.
BakerGSSteeplesDWSchmeissnerC (2002) The effect of seasonal soil-moisture conditions on near-surface seismic reflection data quality. First Break20(1): e00227.
8.
BardPYBouchonM (1980) The seismic response of sediment—filled valleys—Part 1: The case of incident SH waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America70(4): 1263–1286.
9.
BaylessJAbrahamsonNA (2018) An empirical model for Fourier amplitude spectra using the NGA-West2 database. PEER report no.2018/07. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
10.
BielakJGravesRWOlsenKBTabordaRRamírez-GuzmánLDaySMJuveG (2010) The ShakeOut earthquake scenario: Verification of three simulation sets. Geophysical Journal International180(1): 375–404.
11.
BindiDPicozziMSpallarossaDCottonFKothaSR (2019) Impact of magnitude selection on aleatory variability associated with ground-motion prediction equations: Part II—Analysis of the between-event distribution in central Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(1): 251–262.
12.
BindiDSpallarossaDPacorF (2017) Between-event and between-station variability observed in the Fourier and response spectra domains: Comparison with seismological models. Geophysical Journal International210(2): 1092–1104.
13.
BindiDZaccarelliRKothaSR (2021) Local and moment magnitude analysis in the Ridgecrest region, California: Impact on interevent ground-motion variability. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(1): 339–355.
14.
BooreDM (2016) Determining generic velocity and density models for crustal amplification calculations, with an update of the generic site amplification for. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(1): 313–317.
15.
BooreDMJoynerWB (1991) Estimation of ground motion at deep-soil sites in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America81(6): 2167–2185.
16.
BooreDMGibbsJFJoynerWB (2021) Damping values derived from surface-source, downhole-receiver measurements at 22 sites in the San Francisco Bay Area of central California and the San Fernando Valley of southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 2158–2166.
17.
BoraSSCottonFScherbaumF (2019) NGA-West2 empirical Fourier and duration models to generate adjustable response spectra. Earthquake Spectra35(1): 61–93.
18.
BoraSSScherbaumFKuehnNStaffordP (2016) On the relationship between Fourier and response spectra: Implications for the adjustment of empirical ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(3): 1235–1253.
19.
BorcherdtRD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America60(1): 29–61.
20.
BrocherTM (2005) Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the Earth’s crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95(6): 2081–2092.
21.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750). 2009 edition. Report prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.
22.
CabasARodriguez-MarekABonillaLF (2017) Estimation of site-specific kappa (κ0)-consistent damping values at KiK-net sites to assess the discrepancy between laboratory-based damping models and observed attenuation (of seismic waves) in the field. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(5): 2258–2271.
23.
CabasARodriguez-MarekAGreenRAJiC (2022) Quantifying the error associated with the elastic halfspace assumption in site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering148(10): 04022081.
24.
CadetHBardPYRodriguez-MarekA (2012) Site effect assessment using KiK-net data: Part 1—A simple correction procedure for surface/downhole spectral ratios. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering10: 421–448.
25.
CampbellKW (2009) Estimates of shear-wave Q and κ 0 for unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sediments in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99(4): 2365–2392.
26.
CarltonB (2014) An improved description of the seismic response of sites with high plasticity soils, organic clays, and deep soft soil deposits. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
27.
ChandlerAMLamNTKTsangHH (2006) Near-surface attenuation modelling based on rock shear-wave velocity profile. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26(11): 1004–1014.
28.
ChieppaDHobigerMNagashimaFKawaseHFähD (2023) Identification of subsurface structures using H/V curves from earthquake recordings: Application to seismic stations in Switzerland. Pure and Applied Geophysics180(3): 755–787.
29.
DarendeliMB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX.
30.
Eberhart-PhillipsDReynersMBannisterS (2015) A 3D QP attenuation model for all of New Zealand. Seismological Research Letters86(6): 1655–1663.
31.
EdwardsBFähDGiardiniD (2011) Attenuation of seismic shear wave energy in Switzerland. Geophysical Journal International185(2): 967–984.
32.
FaccioliETaglianiA (1987) Attenuation analysis of high frequency seismic waves in randomly heterogeneous rock media by finite difference simulations. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering44: 325–337.
33.
FaccioliEPaolucciRVaniniM (2015) Evaluation of probabilistic site-specific seismic-hazard methods and associated uncertainties, with applications in the Po Plain, northern Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(5): 2787–2807.
34.
FukushimaRNakaharaHNishimuraT (2016) Estimating S-wave attenuation in sediments by deconvolution analysis of KiK-net borehole seismograms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(2): 552–559.
35.
FukushimaYGarielJCTanakaR (1995) Site-dependent attenuation relations of seismic motion parameters at depth using borehole data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(6): 1790–1804.
36.
FuttermanWI (1962) Dispersive body waves. Journal of Geophysical Research67(13): 5279–5291.
37.
GardnerGHFFrenchWSMatzukT (1974) Elements of migration and velocity analysis. Geophysics39(6): 811–825.
38.
GravesRW (2008) The seismic response of the San Bernardino basin region during the 2001 Big Bear Lake earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98(1): 241–252.
39.
GriffithsSCCoxBRRathjeEM (2016) Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering85: 1–10.
40.
HaendelAAndersonJGPilzMCottonF (2020) A frequency-dependent model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(6): 2743–2754.
41.
HaendelAPilzMCottonF (2023) Hard-Rock κ0 at KiK-Net Sites in Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America113(6): 2650–2665.
42.
HaendelAPilzMCottonF (2024) Influence of seasonal frozen soil on high-frequency attenuation (κ0). In: Meeting of the Seismological Society of America, Baltimore, MD, 14–18 April.
43.
HashashYMKottkeARStewartJPCampbellKWKimBMossCSilvaWJ (2014) Reference rock site condition for central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(2): 684–701.
44.
HollenderFJundHDouste-BacquéIMaufroyETraversaPRischetteP (2022) Effet de la profondeur d’installation et des solutions de couplage sur les signaux sismologiques. Lettre d’Information Résif2022: 14–15.
45.
HorikeM (1985) Inversion of phase velocity of long-period microtremors to the S-wave-velocity structure down to the basement in urbanized areas. Journal of Physics of the Earth33(2): 59–96.
46.
HoughSEAndersonJGBruneJVernonIII FBergerJFletcherJHaarLHanksLBakerL (1988) Attenuation near Anza, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America78(2): 672–691.
47.
ItoENakanoKNagashimaFKawaseH (2020) A method to directly estimate S-wave site amplification factor from horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of earthquakes (eHVSRs). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(6): 2892–2911.
48.
JoynerWBWarrickREFumalTE (1981) The effect of Quaternary alluvium on strong ground motion in the Coyote Lake, California, earthquake of 1979. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America71(4): 1333–1349.
49.
KaklamanosJBradleyBA (2018) Challenges in predicting seismic site response with 1D analyses: Conclusions from 114 KiK-net vertical seismometer arrays. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(5A): 2816–2838.
50.
KaklamanosJBaiseLGThompsonEMDorfmannL (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering69: 207–219.
51.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAMoolacattuANPicardBM (2020) Physical hypotheses for adjusting coarse profiles and improving 1D site-response estimation assessed at 10 KiK-net sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(3): 1338–1358.
52.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAThompsonEMBaiseLG (2013) Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site-response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(3): 1733–1749.
53.
KawaseHAkiK (1989) A study on the response of a soft basin for incident S, P, and Rayleigh waves with special reference to the long duration observed in Mexico City. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America79(5): 1361–1382.
54.
KawaseHMoriYNagashimaF (2018) Difference of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios of observed earthquakes and microtremors and its application to S-wave velocity inversion based on the diffuse field concept. Earth, Planets and Space70: 1–32.
55.
KawaseHNakanoKNagashimaFItoESunJWangZ (2023) Unified approach for evaluation of horizontal site amplification factors with special reference to history of studies on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion. Earth, Planets and Space75(1): 95.
56.
KawaseHSánchez-SesmaFJMatsushimaS (2011) The optimal use of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios of earthquake motions for velocity inversions based on diffuse-field theory for plane waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(5): 2001–2014.
57.
KimBHashashYM (2013) Site response analysis using downhole array recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions. Earthquake Spectra29: 37–54.
58.
KitsunezakiC (1990) Estimation of P-and S-wave velocity in deep soil deposits for evaluating ground vibrations in earthquake. Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science9: 1–17.
59.
KnopoffL (1964a) A matrix method for elastic wave problems. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America54(1): 431–438.
60.
KnopoffL (1964b) Q. Reviews of Geophysics2: 625–660.
61.
KobayashiKAbeYUetakeTMashimoMKobayashiH (1995) Inversion of spectrum ratio of horizontal to vertical component of preliminary tremors. Proc Architectural Institute of JapanB-1: 307–308.
62.
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.
63.
KothaSRBindiDCottonF (2022) A regionally adaptable ground-motion model for Fourier amplitude spectra of shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering20: 711–740.
64.
KtenidouOJAbrahamsonNADrouetSCottonF (2015) Understanding the physics of kappa (κ): Insights from a downhole array. Geophysical Journal International203(1): 678–691.
65.
LanzanoGFelicettaCPacorFSpallarossaDTraversaP (2022) Generic-to-reference rock scaling factors for seismic ground motion in Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America112(3): 1583–1606.
66.
LaurendeauABardPYHollenderFPerronVFoundotosLKtenidouOJHernandezB (2018) Derivation of consistent hard rock (1000< VS< 3000 m/s) GMPEs from surface and down-hole recordings: Analysis of KiK-net data. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16: 2253–2284.
67.
LaurendeauACottonFKtenidouOJBonillaLFHollenderF (2013) Rock and stiff-soil site amplification: Dependency on VS 30 and kappa (κ 0). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(6): 3131–3148.
68.
LiGMotamedRDickensonS (2018) Evaluation of one-dimensional multi-directional site response analyses using geotechnical downhole array data in California and Japan. Earthquake Spectra34(1): 349–376.
69.
MenqFY (2003) Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX.
70.
MiaoYShiYWangSY (2018) Temporal change of near-surface shear wave velocity associated with rainfall in Northeast Honshu, Japan. Earth, Planets and Space70: 1–11.
71.
MidorikawaS (1980) Prediction of intensity distribution due to major earthquakes with regard to fault rupture and site ground conditions. In: Proceedings of the 8th symposium on ground vibration, March 1980, Tokyo, pp. 59–64. Architectural Institute of Japan.
72.
MorascaPD’AmicoMSgobbaSLanzanoGColavittiLPacorFSpallarossaD (2023) Empirical correlations between an FAS non-ergodic ground motion model and a GIT derived model for Central Italy. Geophysical Journal International233(1): 51–68.
73.
NagashimaFKawaseH (2019) Subsurface structure identification based on H/V ratio and surface-to-borehole ratio. In: SilvestriFMoraciN (eds) Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions. CRC Press, pp. 4072–4078.
74.
NagashimaFKawaseH (2021) The relationship between Vs, Vp, density and depth based on PS-logging data at K-NET and KiK-net sites. Geophysical Journal International225(3): 1467–1491.
75.
NagashimaFMatsushimaSKawaseHSánchez SesmaFJHayakawaTSatohTOshimaM (2014) Application of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios of earthquake ground motions to identify subsurface structures at and around the K-NET site in Tohoku, Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2288–2302.
76.
NakanoKMatsushimaSKawaseH (2015) Statistical properties of strong ground motions from the generalized spectral inversion of data observed by K-NET, KiK-net, and the JMA Shindokei network in Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(5): 2662–2680.
77.
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (2019) NIED K-NET, KiK-net. National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience. DOI: 10.17598/NIED.0004.
78.
O’DohertyRFAnsteyNA (1971) Reflections on amplitudes. Geophysical Prospecting19(3): 430–458.
79.
OlsenKBDaySMBradleyCR (2003) Estimation of Q for long-period (> 2 sec) waves in the Los Angeles basin. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(2): 627–638.
80.
ParolaiS (2018) κ0: Origin and usability. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(6): 3446–3456.
81.
ParolaiSLaiCGDreossiIKtenidouOJYongA (2022) A review of near-surface QS estimation methods using active and passive sources. Journal of Seismology26(4): 823–862.
82.
PilzMCottonF (2019) Does the one-dimensional assumption hold for site response analysis? A study of seismic site responses and implication for ground motion assessment using KiK-Net strong-motion data. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 883–905.
83.
PretellRAbrahamsonNAZiotopoulouK (2023a) A borehole array data–based approach for conducting 1D site response analyses I: Damping and VS randomization. Earthquake Spectra39(3): 1473–1501.
84.
PretellRAbrahamsonNAZiotopoulouK (2023b) A borehole array data–based approach for conducting 1D site response analyses II: Accounting for modeling errors. Earthquake Spectra39(3): 1502–1533.
85.
RathjeEMKottkeARTrentWL (2010) Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering136(4): 607–619.
86.
RégnierJBonillaLFBardPYBertrandEHollenderFKawaseHWatanabeK (2016) International benchmark on numerical simulations for 1D, nonlinear site response (PRENOLIN): Verification phase based on canonical cases. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(5): 2112–2135.
87.
RichardsPGMenkeW (1983) The apparent attenuation of a scattering medium. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73(4): 1005–1021.
88.
Rodriguez-MarekAKruiverPPMeijersPBommerJJDostBvan ElkJDoornhofD (2017) A regional site-response model for the Groningen gas field. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(5): 2067–2077.
89.
RoumeliotiZHollenderFGuéguenP (2020) Rainfall-induced variation of seismic waves velocity in soil and implications for soil response: What the ARGONET (Cephalonia, Greece) vertical array data reveal. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(2): 441–451.
90.
RuigrokERodriguez-MarekAEdwardsBKruiverPPDostBBommerJ (2022) Derivation of a near-surface damping model for the Groningen gas field. Geophysical Journal International230(2): 776–795.
91.
Sánchez-SesmaFJRodríguezMIturrarán-ViverosULuzónFCampilloMMargerinLRodriguez-CastellanosA (2011) A theory for microtremor H/V spectral ratio: Application for a layered medium. Geophysical Journal International186(1): 221–225.
92.
SatohTKawaseHSatoT (1995) Evaluation of local site effects and their removal from borehole records observed in the Sendai region, Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(6): 1770–1789.
93.
SeedHBWongRTIdrissIMTokimatsuK (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering112(11): 1016–1032.
94.
SilvaWJ (1997) Characteristics of vertical strong ground motions for applications to engineering design. In: Proceedings of the FHWA/NCEER workshop on the National Representation of Seismic Ground Motion for New and Existing Highway Facilities, Burlingame, CA Technical report NCEER-97-0010. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
95.
SpudichPOlsenKB (2001) Fault zone amplified waves as a possible seismic hazard along the Calaveras fault in central California. Geophysical Research Letters28(13): 2533–2536.
96.
StaffordPJ (2017) Interfrequency correlations among Fourier spectral ordinates and implications for stochastic ground-motion simulation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(6): 2774–2791.
97.
SteidlJHTumarkinAGArchuletaRJ (1996) What is a reference site?Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America86(6): 1733–1748.
98.
TaoYRathjeE (2019) Insights into modeling small-strain site response derived from downhole array data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering145(7): 04019023.
99.
TeagueDPCoxBRRathjeEM (2018) Measured vs. predicted site response at the Garner Valley Downhole Array considering shear wave velocity uncertainty from borehole and surface wave methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering113: 339–355.
100.
ThompsonEMBaiseLGKayenREGuzinaBB (2009) Impediments to predicting site response: Seismic property estimation and modeling simplifications. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99(5): 2927–2949.
101.
ThompsonEMBaiseLGTanakaYKayenRE (2012) A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering41: 32–43.
102.
ToroGR (1995) Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies. Technical report 779574, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
103.
VuceticMDobryR (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering117(1): 89–107.
104.
WangZStreetRWooleryEHarrisJ (1994) Qs estimation for unconsolidated sediments using first-arrival SH wave critical refractions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth99(B7): 13543–13551.
105.
YamanakaH (2005) Comparison of performance of heuristic search methods for phase velocity inversion in shallow surface wave method. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics10(2): 163–173.
106.
YamanakaH (2007) Inversion of surface-wave phase velocity using hybrid heuristic search method. Exploration Geophysics60(3): 265–275.
107.
YamanakaHIshidaH (1996) Application of genetic algorithms to an inversion of surface-wave dispersion data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America86(2): 436–444.
108.
ZalachorisGRathjeEM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering141(12): 04015053.
109.
ZhuCCottonFKawaseHBradleyB (2023) Separating broad-band site response from single-station seismograms. Geophysical Journal International234(3): 2053–2065.
110.
ZhuCCottonFKawaseHHaendelAPilzMNakanoK (2022a) How well can we predict earthquake site response so far? Site-specific approaches. Earthquake Spectra38(2): 1047–1075.
111.
ZhuCCottonFKwakDYJiKKawaseHPilzM (2022b) Within-site variability in earthquake site response. Geophysical Journal International229(2): 1268–1281.
112.
ZhuCPilzMCottonF (2020) Evaluation of a novel application of earthquake HVSR in site-specific amplification estimation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering139: 106301.
113.
ZhuCWeatherillGCottonFPilzMKwakDYKawaseH (2021) An open-source site database of strong-motion stations in Japan: K-NET and KiK-net (v1. 0.0). Earthquake Spectra37(3): 2126–2149.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
