Ground motion amplification atop the complex sedimentary basin of Haifa Bay (Israel)

  • Shahar Shani-Kadmiel
  • Omri Volk
  • Zohar Gvirtzman
  • Michael TsesarskyEmail author
Original Research


The Zevulun Valley (ZV) is a sedimentary basin underlying the heavily populated and industrialized petrochemical hub of Haifa Bay, Israel. With active tectonic faults at close range and a mixture of large population and vulnerable facilities, the seismic risk in the ZV is high. However, until now the national seismic network in Israel only included rock stations with no measurements supporting the expected difference between the ZV and its surroundings. Moreover, a detailed analysis of ground motions atop sedimentary basins using earthquakes data was never conducted in Israel for any basin. In this paper, we present a dataset collected during a 16 months monitoring campaign with a transportable network deployed in the ZV. For the first time in Israel we simultaneously recorded earthquake (3.1 < Mw < 5.5) ground motions at basin- and reference-sites. Spectral ratios reveal amplification factors tangibly higher than those previously reported by horizontal-to-vertical-spectral-ratio (HVSR) techniques and 2-D modeling. In particular, the deeper parts of the valley exhibit ground motion amplification up to a factor of 8 at frequencies lower than 1 Hz. Comparison of the measured spectral ratios with the results of 1-D linear-elastic analysis shows partial correlation reflecting the complexity of the sub-surface structure.


Ground motion Amplification Spectral ratio Sedimentary basin Haifa Bay 



The portable seismic network used to collect the data for this study was purchased by the Geological Survey of Israel with funds provided by the Ministry of Energy and Water.


  1. Adams BM, Osborne NM, Taber JJ (2003) The basin-edge effect from weak ground motions across the fault-bounded edge of the lower Hutt Valley. N Z Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:2703–2716. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnon A (2014) Pre-instrumental earthquakes along the Dead Sea Rift. In: Garfunkel Z, Ben-Avraham Z, Kagan E (eds) Dead sea transform fault system: reviews. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 207–262Google Scholar
  3. Aki K (1988) Local site effects on strong ground motion. In: Paper presented at the Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II—recent advances in ground-motion evaluationGoogle Scholar
  4. Aki K, Larner KL (1970) Surface motion of a layered medium having an irregular interface due to incident plane SH waves. J Geophys Res 75:933–954. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alex CM, Olsen KB (1998) Lens effect in Santa Monica? Geophys Res Lett 25:3441–3444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bereznev IA, Wen K (1996) Nonlinear soil response—a reality? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1964–1978Google Scholar
  7. Beyreuther M, Barsch R, Krischer L, Megies T, Behr Y, Wassermann J (2010) ObsPy: a python toolbox for seismology. Seismol Res Lett 81:530–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Cotton F, Bard P-Y (2006) The nature of noise wavefield and its applications for site effects studies: a literature review. Earth Sci Rev 79:205–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60:29–61Google Scholar
  10. Bormann P (1998) Conversion and comparability of data presentations on seismic background noise. J Seismol 2:37–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brocher TM (2005) Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the earth’s crust. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:2081–2092. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Building Seismic Safety Council (2001) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Part 1: provisions (FEMA 368)Google Scholar
  13. Chetrit M (2004) Subsurface structure of the NW coast of the Dead Sea: a geophysical study. M.Sc. Thesis (in Hebrew). Ben Gurion University of the NegevGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornou C, Bard P-Y, Dietrich M (2003) Contribution of dense array analysis to the identification and quantification of basin-edge-induced waves. Part I: methodology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:2604–2623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dravinski M, Ding G, Wen K-L (1996) Analysis of spectral ratios for estimating ground motion in deep basins. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:646–654Google Scholar
  16. Field EH (1996) Spectral amplification in a sediment-filled Valley exhibiting clear basin-edge-induced waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:991–1005Google Scholar
  17. Frankel A, Stephenson W, Carver D (2009) Sedimentary basin effects in Seattle, Washington: ground-motion observations and 3D simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:1579–1611. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gao S, Liu H, Davis PM, Knopoff L (1996) Localized amplification of seismic waves and correlation with damage due to the Northridge earthquake: evidence for focusing in Santa Monica. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:S209–S230Google Scholar
  19. Graves RW, Pitarka A, Somerville PG (1998) Ground-motion amplification in the Santa Monica area: effects of shallow basin-edge structure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:1224–1242Google Scholar
  20. Gutenberg B (1957) Effects of ground on earthquake motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 47:221–250Google Scholar
  21. Gvirtzman Z, Louie JN (2010) 2D analysis of earthquake ground motion in Haifa Bay, Israel. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:733–750. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gvirtzman Z, Makowski I, Sagee Y (2011) Re-processing and geological re-interpretation of old seismic lines of Haifa bay. Geological Survey of Israel. GSI/27/2011Google Scholar
  23. Hartzell S, Cranswick E, Frankel A, Carver D, Meremonte M (1997) Variability of site response in the Los Angeles urban area. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:1377–1400Google Scholar
  24. Hartzell S, Ramirez-Guzman L, Carver D, Liu P (2010) Short baseline variations in site response and wave-propagation effects and their structural causes: four examples in and around the Santa Clara Valley, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:2264–2286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatayama K, Matsunami K, Tomotaka I, Kojiro I (1995) Basin-induced love waves in the eastern part of the Osaka Basin. J Phys Earth 43:131–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang H-C (2002) Characteristics of earthquake ground motions and the H/V of microtremors in the southwestern part of Taiwan. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1815–1829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson DE (1972) Local distribution of strong earthquake ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62:1765–1786Google Scholar
  28. Israel Standards Institution (2013) Standard SI 413. Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures. Amendment No. 5Google Scholar
  29. Joyner WB (2000) Strong motion from surface waves in deep sedimentary basins. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:S95–S112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kagami H, Duke CM, Liang GC, Ohta Y (1982) Observation of 1- to 5-second microtremors and their application to earthquake engineering. Part II. Evaluation of site effect upon seismic wave amplification due to extremely deep soil deposits. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:987–998Google Scholar
  31. Kagami H, Okada S, Shiono K, Oner M, Dravinski M, Mal AK (1986) Observation of 1- to 5-second microtremors and their application to earthquake engineering. Part III. A two-dimensional study of site effects in the San Fernando Valley. Bull Seismol Soc Am 76:1801–1812Google Scholar
  32. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kawase H (1996) Cause of the damage belt in Kobe: “The Basin-edge Effect”, constructive interference of the direct S Wave with the basin-induced diffracted/Rayleigh Waves. Seismol Res Lett 67:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:228–241Google Scholar
  35. Kottke A, Rathje EM (2008) Semi-automated procedure for selecting and scaling recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 24:911–932. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lachetl C, Bard P (1994) Numerical and theoretical investigations on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamura’s technique. J Phys Earth 42:377–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNamara DE, Buland RP (2004) Ambient noise levels in the continental United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1517–1527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Q Rep Railw Tech Res 30(1):25–33Google Scholar
  39. Ohta Y, Kagami H, Goto N, Kudo K (1978) Observation of 1- to 5-second microtremors and their application to earthquake engineering. Part I: comparison with long-period accelerations at the Tokachi-oki earthquake of 1968. Bull Seismol Soc Am 68:767–779Google Scholar
  40. Romo MP, Seed HB (1986) Analytical modeling of dynamic soil response in Mexico earthquake of September 19th 1985. In: Proceedings of International Conference on the 1985 Mexico Earthquake, Mexico City, 19–21 September 1986, pp 148–162Google Scholar
  41. Rong M, Fu L-Y, Wang Z, Li X, Carpenter NS, Woolery EW, Lyu Y (2017) On the amplitude discrepancy of HVSR and site amplification from strong-motion observations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2873–2884. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rovelli A, Scognamiglio L, Marra F, Caserta A (2001) Edge-diffracted 1-Sec surface waves observed in a small-size intramountain basin (Colfiorito, Central Italy). Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:1851–1866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sagy Y, Gvirtzman G (2009) Subsurface mapping of the Zevulun Valley (Hebrew). The Geophysical Institute of Israel, Report 648/454/09Google Scholar
  44. Sahakian VJ, Melgar D, Quintanar L, Ramírez-Guzmán L, Pérez-Campos X, Baltay A (2018) Ground Motions from the 7 and 19 September 2017, Tehuantepec and Puebla-Morelos, Mexico, Earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am. Google Scholar
  45. Seed HB, Romo MP, Sun J, Jaime A, Lysmer J (1987) Relationships between Soil Conditions and Earthquake ground motions in Mexico City in the earthquake of September 19, 1985. UCB/EERC-87/15, University of California, Berkeley, p 125Google Scholar
  46. Shamir G, Bartov Y, Sneh A, Fleischer L, Arad V, Rosensaft M (2001) Preliminary seismic zonation for Israel. GII Rept. No. 550/95/01(1)Google Scholar
  47. Shapira A, Hofstetter A (2002) Seismicity Parameters of Seismogenic Zones. Geophysical Institute of Israel. Report Num. 592/230/02Google Scholar
  48. Spudich P, Olsen KB (2001) Fault zone amplified waves as a possible seismic hazard along the Calaveras Fault in central California. Geophys Res Lett 28:2533–2536. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steidl JH, Tumarkin AG, Archuleta RJ (1996) What is a reference site? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1733–1748Google Scholar
  50. Takai N, Shigefuji M, Rajaure S, Bijukchhen S, Ichiyanagi M, Dhital MR, Sasatani T (2016) Strong ground motion in the Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake Earth. Planets Space 68:10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trifunac MD, Udwadia FE (1974) Variations of strong earthquake ground shaking in the Los Angeles area. Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:1429–1454Google Scholar
  52. Wang G-Q, Tang G-Q, Boore DM, Van Ness Burbach G, Jackson CR, Zhou X-Y, Lin Q-L (2006) Surface waves in the Western Taiwan Coastal Plain from an aftershock of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:821–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zaslavsky Y et al. (2006) Empirical determinations of local site effect using ambient vibration measurements for the earthquake hazard and risk assessment to Qrayot-Haifa Bay areas. Geophysical Institute of Israel. Report Num. 595/064/06Google Scholar
  54. Zaslavsky Y et al. (2008) Empirical determination of site effects for seismic hazard assessment in the Kishon graben area near the Carmel fault. Geophysical Institute of Israel. Report Num. 510/389/08Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological and Environmental SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeershebaIsrael
  2. 2.Geological Survey of IsraelJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Structural EngineeringBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeershebaIsrael
  4. 4.Department of Geoscience and Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Earth SciencesCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations