Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 83, No 6, pp. 1700-1720, December 1993
...............(1)where, the superscripts I and O stand for the inside and outside domains, respectively, the subscripts designate vector and tensor components in a Cartesian coordinate system, and the summation convention is used. Ui(X) and Pi(X) are the displacement and traction at a point X; Uik*(X,Y) and Pik*(X,Y) are the fundamental solutions (integral kernels) of the layered half-spaces, ƒ¡ is the interface between both domains, C(Y) is a coefficient depending on the location of Y, and UkS(XS,Y) is the incident wave from a seismic source located at XS.
...............(2)and,
...............(3)where, ƒÂpq and ƒÂik are Kronecker's delta functions, iq and iq are the constant displacement and traction on the qth element, M is the total number of the elements, and ƒ¢ƒ¡q is the area of the qth element.
...............(4)where, {} and {} are the displacement and traction vectors of the boundary elements, {ĢU*>} and {ĢP*} are the coefficient matrices whose elements are obtained from the equation (3), [E] is the identity matrix, and {US} is the vector representing the incident wave.
...............(5)we obtain linear equations regarding the displacements and tractions along the interface.
...............(6)This process is much faster than that to obtain the boundary values, because it is not necessary to solve linear equations. However, this method is not probably economical to obtain "snapshots", because the large number of boundary integrations is repeatedly required, which equals the number of observation points to cover a wide region.
Location of Source | Depth (km) | Strike Direction | Dip Direction | Dip Angle | Rake Angle | ||||||
(N34.9',E139.2') | 5.0 | N10.0'W | N80.0'E | 84.0' | 16.0' |
Length (km) | Width (km) | Dislocation (m) | Rise time (sec) | Rupture velocity (km/sec) | |||||
20.0 | 10.0 | 1.16 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
Moment (dyne* cm) | Rupture type | ||
7.0*1025 | bilateral |
3-D Model 1(Tertiary Bedrock Model) and 2(Pre-Tertiary Bedrock Model)
Solid lines in Figures 7a and 7b are displacements computed at the Yokohama station using 3-D models 1 and 2, respectively. We also plot results obtained by corresponding 2-D models by dotted lines in the same figures. The effects of the western edge are negligible and the 2-D models seem to be appropriate in these cases, because we cannot distinguish large differences between the 3-D and 2-D models. However, we find some discrepancies between them and the observed record shown in Figure 6a. The simulated motions arrive earlier and their durations are somewhat shorter than the observation, particularly for 3-D model 2. This is probably due to the fact that we neglect the low velocity basin in Sagami Bay. In addition, they are small in amplitude, particularly for E-W components, because the Yokohama station corresponds to the node of the radiation pattern of Love waves of our source model, as discussed in Part 1.
Figures 8a and 8b are simulated displacements at the Tokyo station using the same models. In this case, although the first arrivals are in a good agreement between the 3-D and 2-D models, we see large differences in later arrivals. The 3-D models generate strong later arrivals, and thus substantially prolong their durations. They are very similar in both wave form and duration with the observed (Fig.6b). Mafor differences lie in the smaller E-W components than in the N-S components in the simulated motion. As shown below, this is because the N-S components nearly correspond to the particle directions of the Love waves, which come from the western margin. As seen in the small vertical amplitudes, Love waves are dominant over Rayleigh waves.
We now examine where the later arrivals at the Tokyo station are generated and in which direction they propagate. Because we have obtained almost the same conclusions among all components for the two 3-D models, we will show only results of the N-S component for the 3-D model 2. We compute displacements along several lines centered at the Tokyo station at intervals of 5km. Figures 9a and 9b show the results along the line N120E and N30E, respectively. As seen in Figure 4b, the line N30E corresponds to the line from the source to the Tokyo station, and the line N120E is perpendicular to the line N30E. From Figure 9a, the first couple of cycles at the Tokyo station are interpreted as direct arrivals from the source, because they are in phase with each other along the line N120E. However, the later arrivals clearly come from directions departing from the direction to epicenter. Similarly, Figures 10a and 10b show displacements of N-S components computed along the line N140E and N50E, respectively (see their locations in Fig.4b). The later arrivals in this case are in phase with each other along the line N140E. Therefore, they propagate along the line N50E perpendicular to the N140E. As found in Figure 10b, they are generated at the western margin of the Kanto basin and propagate toward Tokyo with low phase velocities (1.7 to 2.1 km/sec). Because the fundamental Love mode is dominant in the basin within the frequency window considered, the later arrivals are interpreted mainly as the Love waves of fundamental mode converted from the surface waves propagating in the bedrock along the western margin. These results agree with the observational results by Kinoshita et al.(1992), who obtained N55E and 1.9 to 2.4 km/sec for the direction of propagation and the phase velocities of the Love wave of the fundamental mode, respectively.
3-D Models 3 and 4(3-D Models 1 and 2, Respectively, Plus the Sagami Basin)
Figures 11a and 11b represent simulated displacements at the Yokohama station using 3-D models 3 and 4, respectively. Similarly, Figures 12a and 12b are those at the Tokyo station. Compared with the results of 3-D models 1 and 2, the inclusion of the Sagami basin clearly improves our simulations, particularly at the Yokohama station. However, 3-D model 3 overstimates the amplitude of the observed motions (note the different amplitude scale in this case). This is probably because the low velocity structure in the Sagami basin focuses too strongly the surface wave energy toward the direction of the two stations in this model. In both cases, the surface wave energy is trapped within the Sagami basin, reflected between basin edges, because of the strong impedance contrast between the bedrock and the basin, and slowly radiated from the basin. Consequently, we obtain the simulated motions with considerably long durations.
An important conclusion reached here is that the inclusion of low-velocity Sagami basin in the model substantially changes our simulation results. We can reproduce the observed large amplitude with this low-velocity basin located near the earthquake, even though the observation stations correspond to the nodal plane of the radiation pattern of our source model. This is undoubtebly indispensable to simulate the strong motion at Yokohama station for this earthquake, as demonstrated here and also in Part 1. As shown in this study, we can also simulate the observed long duration using Sagami basin models with the strong impedance contrasts between the bedrock and the basin, which may be unrealistic. For further investigations, we need more accurate information on this structure and also more rigorous methods that may require greater computer memory and/or CPU time.