Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake

Nature volume 390, pages 599–602 (1997)Cite this article

Abstract

It has been known since at least 1898 (ref. 1) that sediments can amplify earthquake ground motion relative to bedrock. For the weak ground motion accompanying small earthquakes, the amplification due to sediments is well understood in terms of linear elasticity (Hooke's law)2, but there has been a long-standing debate regarding the amplification associated with the strong ground motion produced by large earthquakes. The view of geotechnical engineers, based largely on laboratory studies, is that Hooke's law breaks down at larger strains causing a reduced (nonlinear) amplification. Seismologists, on the other hand, have tended to remain sceptical of this nonlinear effect, mainly because the relatively few strong-motion observations seemed to be consistent with linear elasticity. Although some recent earthquake studies have demonstrated nonlinear behaviour under certain circumstances3,4, the significance of nonlinearity for the type of stiff-soil sites found in the greater Los Angeles region remains unresolved5. Here we report that ground-motion amplification due to sediments for the main shock of the 1994 Northridge earthquake was up to a factor of two less than the amplification observed for its aftershocks. These observations imply significant nonlinearity in such amplification, and bring into question the use of measurements of weak ground motion to predict the strong ground motion at sedimentary sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Relief map of the study region.
Figure 2: The mean and ±2 standard-deviation-of-the-mean confidence limits of the estimates of amplification at the 15 alluvium sites.
Figure 3: Ratios of the estimates of weak- to strong-motion site responses for each of the 15 sediment sites (dashed lines).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milne, J. Seismology 1st edn (Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber, London, ( 1898)).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aki, K. Local site effects on strong ground motion. Proc. Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn. II, 103–155 ( 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bersenev, I. A. & Wen, K.-L. Nonlinear soil response — A reality? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 1964–1978 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aguirre, J. & Irikura, K. Preliminary analysis of non-linear site effects at Port Island array station during the 1995 Hyogoken–Nambu earthquake. J. Nat. Dis. Sci. 16, 49– 58 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Petersen, M. D. et al . Seismic ground-motion hazard mapping incorporating site effects for Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 249–255 ( 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Andrews, D. J. Objective determination of source parameters and similarity of earthquakes of different size. Earthq. Source Mech. Geophys. Monogr. 37 6, 259–268 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Field, E. H. & Jacob, K. H. Acomparison and test of various site response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference site dependent. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, 1127–1143 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wald, D. J. et al. The slip history of the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake determined from strong-motion, teleseismic, GPS, and leveling data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, S49–S70 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Archuleta, R. J. & Hartzell, S. H. Effects of fault finiteness on near-source ground motion. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 939–957 ( 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heaton, T. H. Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 64, 1–20 (1990).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartzell, S. et al. Site resonse for urban Los Angeles using aftershocks of the Northridge earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, S168–S192 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Peng, J. Y. Spatial and temporal variation of coda Q in California. Thesis, Univ. South California, Los Angeles (1989).

  13. Bonilla, L. F. et al . Site amplification in the San Fernando Valley, CA: Variability of site effect estimation using the S-wave, coda, and H/V methods. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 710–730 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cranswick, E. The information content of high-frequency seismograms and the near-surface geologic structure of “hard rock” recording sites. Pure Appl. Geophys. 128, 333–363 (1988).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Steidl, J. et al. What is a reference site? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 1733–1748 ( 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zeng, Y. & Anderson, J. G. Acomposite source model of the 1994 Northridge earth quake using genetic algorithms. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, S71–S83 ( 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Strong-motion data archive of the Southern California Earthquake Center (web address: http://quake.crustal.ucsb.edu/scec/smdb/smdb.html ).

  18. Meremonte, M. et al . Urban seismology — Northridge after shocks recorded by multiscale arrays of portable digital seismographs. Bull Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 1350–1363 ( 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Data Center of the Southern California Earthquake Center (web address: http://www.scecdc.scec.org.).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank several members of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Southern California Earthquake Centre (SCEC) for comments and discussions. The data used in this study were collected by the SCEC, the United States Geological Survey, the California Division of Mines and Geology, the University of Southern California, the Department of Energy, and the City of Los Angeles. This work was supported by LANL Institutional Support (LDRD-IP). E.H.F. received additional support from the SCEC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90089-0740, California, USA

    Edward H. Field

  2. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 87545, New Mexico, USA

    Paul A. Johnson

  3. Département d'Acoustique Physique, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6), 4 Place Jussieu , 75252, Paris, France

    Paul A. Johnson

  4. Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, K1S 5B6, Ontario, Canada

    Igor A. Beresnev

  5. Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno, 89557M, Nevada, USA

    Yuehua Zeng

Authors
  1. Edward H. Field
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Igor A. Beresnev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuehua Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward H. Field.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Field, E., Johnson, P., Beresnev, I. et al. Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Nature 390, 599–602 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/37586

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/37586

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing