SpringerLink
Log in

Finite difference modelling of SH wave propagation: A case study of Gorkha earthquake, 25th April, 2015 (Mw 7.8)

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Site and topography effects are integral part of strong ground motion recorded during an earthquake. Site effects due to shallow subsurface velocity and topographic changes have been clearly seen in the Gorkha earthquake, 25th April, 2015 (Mw 7.8) at Kapkot and Berinag stations, which lies at an epicentral distance of 507 and 485 km, respectively. The high peak ground acceleration was recorded at Kapkot station that is at valley, while comparatively low peak ground acceleration was recorded at Berinag station that is at hill. This paper investigates the effect of site topography and shallow velocity structure on ground acceleration generated due to propagation of SH wave generated by a finite far-field rupture. The propagation of SH wave in a shallow subsurface earth model with the vertical variation of velocity can be modelled by finite difference (FD) method based on staggered algorithm that can effectively model the propagation of the seismic wave in isotropic as well as heterogeneous elastic medium. This paper discusses the role of staggered algorithm in the generation of particle motion at the surface of modelled earth characterized by surface topography and vertical distribution of elastic constants. The developed software for FD modelling of the medium has been tested for SH wave propagation in a purely elastic medium in terms of numerical stability, dispersion and boundary conditions. Numerical experiments show that the method effectively models the topography and thin surface velocity layers in the model for varying cases. The obtained surface acceleration records from the propagation of SH wave at Kapkot and Berinag clearly show that both the site amplification and topographic effects have played a vital role in sha** the accelerograms at these stations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Spain)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17

References

  • Aki K and Richards P G 1980 Quantitative seismology: Theory and methods; W H Freeman, San Francisco.

  • Arai H and Tokimatsu K 2005 S-wave velocity profiling by joint inversion of microtremor dispersion curve and horizontal-to-vertical (H/V) spectrum; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95(5) 1766–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal R and Sen M K 2008 Finite-difference modelling of S-wave splitting in anisotropic media; Geophys. Prospect. 56(3) 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednar J B 2009 Modeling, migration and velocity analysis in simple and complex structure; Panorama Technologies Inc.

  • Berenger J P 1994 A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves; J. Comput. Phys. 114(2) 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlen T 2002 Parallel 3-D viscoelastic finite difference seismic modelling; Comput. Geosci. 28(8) 887–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlen T and Saenger E H 2006 Accuracy of heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modeling of Rayleigh waves; Geophysics 71(4) T109–T115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Köhler A, Cornou C, Wathelet M and Bard P Y 2008 Effects of Love waves on microtremor H/V ratio; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98(1) 288–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellaro S 2016 The complementarity of H/V and dispersion curves; Geophysics 81(6) T323–T338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew W C and Liu Q H 1996 Perfectly matched layers for elastodynamics: A new absorbing boundary condition; J. Comput. Acoust. 4(04) 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etgen J T 1956 Finite-difference elastic anisotropic wave propagation; In: Stanford Exploration Project, pp. 23–57.

  • Etgen J T 1988 Prestacked migration of P and SV-waves; In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 972–975.

  • Etgen J T and O’Brien M J 2007 Computational methods for large-scale 3D acoustic finite-difference modeling: A tutorial; Geophysics 72(5) SM223–SM230.

  • Fäh D, Kind F and Giardini D 2001 A theoretical investigation of average H/V ratios; Geophys. J. Int. 145(2) 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fei T W and Liner C L 2008 Hybrid Fourier finite-difference 3D depth migration for anisotropic media; Geophysics 73(2) S27–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornberg B 1988 Generation of finite difference formulas on arbitrarily spaced grids; Math. Comput. 51(184) 699–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornberg B 1998 Calculation of weights in finite difference formulas; SIAM Rev. 40(3) 685–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschammer E and Olsen K B 2001 Accuracy of the explicit planar free-surface boundary condition implemented in a fourth-order staggered-grid velocity-stress finite-difference scheme; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91(3) 617–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves R W 1996 Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86(4) 1091–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasym I B, Sudarmaji M and Sismanto M 2014 A comparison of second-order and high-order of finite difference staggered-grid method in 2D P-SV wave propagation modelling using graphics processing unit; In: International Conference on Physics 2014 Atlantis Press, pp. 62–67.

  • Hayashi K, Burns D R and Toksöz M N 2001 Discontinuous-grid finite-difference seismic modeling including surface topography; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91(6) 1750–1764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herak M 2008 ModelHVSR – A Matlab® tool to model horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of ambient noise; Comput. Geosci. 34(11) 1514–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestholm S 2003 Elastic wave modeling with free surfaces: Stability of long simulations; Geophysics 68(1) 314–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestholm S and Ruud B 1998 3-D finite-difference elastic wave modeling including surface topography; Geophysics 63(2) 613–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igel H and Weber M 1995 SH-wave propagation in the whole mantle using high-order finite differences; Geophys. Res. Lett. 22(6) 731–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Z, Bancroft J C and Lines L R 2011 SH wave modelling by a staggered grid method; CREWES Research Report 23.

  • Joshi A 2014 Modeling of strong motion generation areas of the 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake using modified semi-empirical technique; Nat. Hazards 71(1) 587–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A and Midorikawa S 2004 A simplified method for simulation of strong ground motion using finite rupture model of the earthquake source; J. Seismol. 8(4) 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A, Kumari P, Sharma M L, Ghosh A K, Agarwal M K and Ravikiran A 2012a A strong motion model of the 2004 great Sumatra earthquake: Simulation using a modified semi-empirical method; J. Earthq. Tsunami 6(04) 1250023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A, Kumari P, Singh S and Sharma M L 2012b Near-field and far-field simulation of accelerograms of Sikkim earthquake of September 18, 2011 using modified semi-empirical approach; Nat. Hazards 64(2) 1029–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly K R, Ward R W, Treitel S and Alford R M 1976 Synthetic seismograms: A finite-difference approach; Geophysics 41(1) 2–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal S, Joshi A, Tomer M, Kumar P, Kuo C H, Lin C M, Wen K L and Sharma M L 2018 Modeling of the strong ground motion of 25th April 2015 Nepal earthquake using modified semi-empirical technique; Acta Geophys. 66(4) 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb H 1904 I. On the propagation of tremors over the surface of an elastic solid; Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A. 203 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lermo J and Chávez-García F J 1994 Site effect evaluation at Mexico City: Dominant period and relative amplification from strong motion and microtremor records; Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 13(6) 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levander A R 1988 Fourth-order finite-difference P-SV seismograms; Geophysics 53(11) 1425–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Z 1991 Compensating finite-difference errors in 3-D migration and modeling; Geophysics 56(10) 1650–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y and Sen M K 2009 A new time–space domain high-order finite-difference method for the acoustic wave equation; J. Comput. Phys. 228(23) 8779–8806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Sen M K and Jackson K 2009 Advanced finite-difference methods for seismic modeling; Geohorizons 14(2) 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard B, Piraux J, Gélis C and Virieux J 2008 Free and smooth boundaries in 2-D finite-difference schemes for transient elastic waves; Geophys. J. Int. 172(1) 252–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma S, Archuleta R J and Liu P 2004 Hybrid modeling of elastic P-SV wave motion: A combined finite-element and staggered-grid finite-difference approach; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94(4) 1557–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madariaga R 1976 Dynamics of an expanding circular fault; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 66(3) 639–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malischewsky P G and Scherbaum F 2004 Love’s formula and H/V-ratio (ellipticity) of Rayleigh waves; Wave Motion 40(1) 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midorikawa S 1993 Semi-empirical estimation of peak ground acceleration from large earthquakes; Tectonophys. 218(1–3) 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittet R 2002 Free-surface boundary conditions for elastic staggered-grid modeling schemes; Geophysics 67(5) 1616–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moczo P, Kristek J, Vavrycuk V, Archuleta R J and Halada L 2002 3D heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modeling of seismic motion with volume harmonic and arithmetic averaging of elastic moduli and densities; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92(8) 3042–3066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura Y 1989 A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface; Railway Technical Research Institute Quarterly Reports 30(1).

  • Ohminato T and Chouet B A 1997 A free-surface boundary condition for including 3D topography in the finite-difference method; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87(2) 494–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertsson J O 1996 A numerical free-surface condition for elastic/viscoelastic finite-difference modeling in the presence of topography; Geophysics 61(6) 1921–1934.

  • Robertsson J O, Blanch J O and Symes W W 1994 Viscoelastic finite-difference modeling; Geophysics 59(9) 1444–1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroder C T and Scott W R 2000 A finite-difference model to study the elastic-wave interactions with buried land mines; IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 38(4) 1505–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen L 1986 Weak elastic anisotropy; Geophysics 51(10) 1954–1966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorson J R and Claerbout J F 1985 Velocity-stack and slant-stack stochastic inversion; Geophysics 50(12) 2727–2741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuan T T, Scherbaum F and Malischewsky P G 2011 On the relationship of peaks and troughs of the ellipticity (H/V) of Rayleigh waves and the transmission response of single layer over half-space models; Geophys. J. Int. 184(2) 793–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Baan M 2009 The origin of SH-wave resonance frequencies in sedimentary layers; Geophys. J. Int. 178(3) 1587–1596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virieux J 1984 SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity-stress finite-difference method; Geophysics 49(11) 1933–1942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virieux J 1986 P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity-stress finite-difference method; Geophysics 51(4) 889–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virieux J and Madariaga R 1982 Dynamic faulting studied by a finite difference method; Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72(2) 345–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin A 2006 Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland sedimentation; Earth-Sci. Rev. 76(1–2) 1–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria A 2003 Numerical modelling of wave propagation using higher order finite-difference formulas; PhD Thesis, Curtin University of Technology Perth W A.

  • Zhang G, Zhang Y and Zhou H 2000 Helical finite-differences schemes for 3-D depth migration; SEG Expanded Abstracts 19 862–865.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The acceleration record of 25 April, 2015 Gorkha earthquake is taken from the stations maintained under the project sponsored by the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) and is highly acknowledged. We thank the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee for the support required for the research work presented in this paper. This work is supported by the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India, under project grant No. MES-1418-ESD/19-20 and MES-800-ESD/14-15 and has been highly acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

    A Joshi, Mohit Pandey,  Mrityunjay, Saurabh Sharma & Jyoti Singh

  2. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Pune, Maharashtra, India

    Richa Rastogi &  Abhishek

Authors
  1. A Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohit Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mrityunjay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saurabh Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jyoti Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richa Rastogi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abhishek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Anand Joshi got the idea of this work and developed the program for this study. He also contributed to the preparation of manuscript. Both Richa Rastogi and Abhishek helped in develo** the program. Mrityunjay performed the experiment and analyzed the data using the developed algorithm. Mohit acquired data (MASW) and assisted in performing the analysis. Both Saurabh Sharma and Jyoti Singh contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohit Pandey.

Additional information

Communicated by N V Chalapathi Rao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joshi, A., Pandey, M., Mrityunjay et al. Finite difference modelling of SH wave propagation: A case study of Gorkha earthquake, 25th April, 2015 (Mw 7.8). J Earth Syst Sci 131, 216 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-022-01953-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-022-01953-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation