- Open Access
Strong ground motion in the Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake
© Takai et al. 2016
- Received: 26 October 2015
- Accepted: 6 January 2016
- Published: 26 January 2016
On 25 April 2015, a large earthquake of Mw 7.8 occurred along the Main Himalayan Thrust fault in central Nepal. It was caused by a collision of the Indian Plate beneath the Eurasian Plate. The epicenter was near the Gorkha region, 80 km northwest of Kathmandu, and the rupture propagated toward east from the epicentral region passing through the sediment-filled Kathmandu Valley. This event resulted in over 8000 fatalities, mostly in Kathmandu and the adjacent districts. We succeeded in observing strong ground motions at our four observation sites (one rock site and three sedimentary sites) in the Kathmandu Valley during this devastating earthquake. While the observed peak ground acceleration values were smaller than the predicted ones that were derived from the use of a ground motion prediction equation, the observed peak ground velocity values were slightly larger than the predicted ones. The ground velocities observed at the rock site (KTP) showed a simple velocity pulse, resulting in monotonic-step displacements associated with the permanent tectonic offset. The vertical ground velocities observed at the sedimentary sites had the same pulse motions that were observed at the rock site. In contrast, the horizontal ground velocities as well as accelerations observed at three sedimentary sites showed long duration with conspicuous long-period oscillations, due to the valley response. The horizontal valley response was characterized by large amplification (about 10) and prolonged oscillations. However, the predominant period and envelope shape of their oscillations differed from site to site, indicating a complicated basin structure. Finally, on the basis of the velocity response spectra, we show that the horizontal long-period oscillations on the sedimentary sites had enough destructive power to damage high-rise buildings with natural periods of 3 to 5 s.
- 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake
- Kathmandu Valley
- Strong ground motion
- Velocity pulse motion
- Valley response
The Himalayan mountain range formed by the collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates is regarded as an earthquake prone zone. The Indian Plate underthrusts the Eurasian Plate in this region, and a number of large earthquakes have occurred in the Himalayas. Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal, is located in the Kathmandu Valley. The valley is surrounded by mountains on all sides and is filled with soft lake sediments of Plio-Pleistocene origin (Dhital 2015); the thickness of the sediments is more than 650 m in the central part of the valley (Moribayashi and Maruo 1980). Large earthquakes in the past have caused significant damage in the Kathmandu Valley; for example, during the 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake (Mw 8.2), nearly 19 % of the buildings were destroyed inside the valley and more than 8000 people from all over the country lost their lives (Dixit et al. 2013). The principal factor associated with the significant damage is considered to have been the responses of soft lake sediments during seismic motion. Considering these tectonic and site conditions within the Kathmandu Valley, we have established four strong-motion array observation stations (one rock site and three sedimentary sites) in the valley to understand the site effects of the Kathmandu Valley to strong ground motion. These sites were established on 20 September 2011.
On 25 April 2015, a large Mw 7.8 earthquake occurred along the Himalayan front (USGS 2015a). This event had a low-angle thrust faulting mechanism and an 8.2-km hypocentral depth (USGS 2015a). The epicenter was near the Gorkha region, 80 km northwest of the Kathmandu Valley, and the rupture propagated eastward from the epicentral region passing through the Kathmandu Valley (e.g., Avouac et al. 2015; Fan and Shearer 2015; Galetzka et al. 2015; Grandin et al. 2015; Hayes et al. 2015; Kobayashi et al. 2015; Yagi and Okuwaki 2015). This event resulted in over 8000 fatalities, which occurred mostly in Kathmandu and in adjacent districts (MoHA 2015). Although the earthquake vulnerability of Kathmandu was considerably serious, there were only two official seismometers recording earthquakes on the sedimentary sites: KATNP by USGS (2015b) and DMG (Bhattarai et al. 2015). We succeeded in observing strong ground motions at our array sites in the Kathmandu Valley during this devastating earthquake. In this letter, we describe the characteristics of the ground motions observed in the Kathmandu Valley and perform a simple examination of the long-period valley response in the frequency domain. Finally, we discuss the velocity response spectra for the horizontal ground motions. Data used in this letter include the ground motions observed by the Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University in collaboration with the Central Department of Geology, Tribhuvan University, Nepal, and also those observed by some other organizations (Galetzka et al. 2015; USGS 2015b).
The shallow subsurface S-wave velocities of the observation sites were investigated by the surface wave method during installation of accelerometers (Takai et al. 2015). The tested velocity of S-wave at a depth of 10 m was over 700 m/s at the KTP site, but it was less than 200 m/s at the other three sites. These velocities are consistent with the geological formations; KTP is located on a rock and TVU, PTN, and THM are located on lake sediments in the valley (Fig. 1a).
The largest peak ground acceleration (PGA, 241 cm/s2) was recorded on the EW component at the rock site KTP, and the peak amplitude of the horizontal components was 250 cm/s2 at this station. This large PGA was due to isolated short-period waves at about 30 s from the origin time. The horizontal PGA values were compared with those predicted by two ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for ground accelerations. We found that the observed PGA values were smaller than those estimated by the GMPEs (Si and Midorikawa 1999; Boore et al. 2014). Anderson et al. (1986) pointed out that the observed PGA values above the source area during the 1985 Michoacan, Mexico, earthquake (Mw 8.0) were considerably smaller (PGA, 100–200 cm/s2) than those during the 1985 Valparaiso, Chile, earthquake (Mw 8.0). This may indicate that the Mexico and Chile subduction zones are different from each other in terms of the nature of the interplate coupling as discussed by Houston and Kanamori (1986). The nature of interplate coupling at the Nepal collision zone on the other hand has to be studied in detail.
We derived the velocity waveforms by integrating the sensor-response corrected accelerograms with a linear acceleration method in the time domain (Fig. 3). The highest peak ground velocity (PGV, 99 cm/s) was given by the NS component record at TVU, and the peak amplitude of the horizontal components was 108 cm/s at this station. We then compared the observed PGV values with those predicted by the GMPEs in the same manner as that for the PGA values. While the observed PGA values were smaller than the predicted ones, the observed PGV values were slightly larger than the predicted ones.
The UD component ground velocities at the sedimentary sites were nearly the same as those observed at the rock site KTP. In contrast, the horizontal ground velocities at the sedimentary sites had long duration with conspicuous long-period oscillations; we pointed out these features for the accelerograms discussed in the previous section (Fig. 2). Assuming that the KTP (rock site) ground velocities represent incoming wave fields into the Kathmandu Valley, we can consider the large ground velocities at the sedimentary sites in Fig. 3 to be the long-period (3–5 s) valley response. Here, we perform a simple examination of the long-period valley response in the frequency domain. The upper panel in Fig. 4 displays the Fourier amplitude spectra of the ground velocities shown in Fig. 3; we classified the spectra into three components in order to compare one another’s spectral shape for a given component. The lower panel in Fig. 4 shows the Fourier amplitude spectral ratios of the sedimentary site spectra to the rock site spectrum for each component; these figures correspond to the valley response in the frequency domain for a given site. From examination of Figs. 3 and 4, we found that the long-period valley response had the following features: (1) the horizontal valley response was characterized by large amplification (about 10) and prolonged oscillations, (2) the predominant period and envelope shape of the horizontal oscillation differed not only from site to site but also between the NS and EW components at a given site, and (3) the vertical valley response had no amplification and no prolonged oscillations. These features demonstrate that the long-period valley response of the Kathmandu Valley is considerably complicated, because they cannot be understood with one-dimensional seismic wave amplification. Previous studies indicated an uneven basement topography of the valley with many undulations (Moribayashi and Maruo 1980; Paudyal et al. 2013) which may result in a complicated response. In order to understand the factors involved in the observed long-period valley response of the Kathmandu Valley, we will have to clarify the three-dimensional underground structure of the valley in addition to the dense strong-motion observations in and around the valley.
The ground velocities at KTP where the simple velocity pulses were observed on the UD and NS components were integrated to derive the displacement waveforms. The KTP displacement waveforms are shown in Fig. 5, together with those observed by the high-rate GPSs at KKN4 and NAST (Khumaltar, Lalitpur) (Galetzka et al. 2015); these locations are shown in Fig. 1. Here, the horizontal components were rotated to the fault-normal (N205E) and fault-parallel (N115E) directions based on the USGS fault model (USGS 2015a) in order to obtain a reasonable interpretation of the Earth’s surface motion. The derived displacements at KTP were characterized by a monotonic step (also including the contributions of dynamic phases) on the fault-normal and UD components. They showed permanent displacements of 135 cm in the fault-normal direction and 63 cm in the upward direction (the vector sum was 149 cm), while there was a negligible permanent displacement in the fault-parallel direction. The displacement waveforms at KTP were similar to those at the rock site KKN4 for the three components. However, their permanent deformation values were different; the values at KKN4 were larger than those at KTP because the KKN4 site was closer to the large slip area (Galetzka et al. 2015). The UD displacement and permanent deformation at the sedimentary site NAST were similar to those at KTP. However, the horizontal displacement waveforms at NAST were different from those at KTP; the long-period oscillations observed at NAST resulted from the valley response as mentioned in the previous section. In spite of the contamination by the valley response, the horizontal permanent deformation values at NAST did not greatly differ from those at KTP; the distance between NAST and KTP was only 6 km. These pieces of evidence indicate that the displacement waveforms at KTP derived from the accelerograms produced reliable motion for the Earth’s surface.
Conversely, the ground displacements derived from the accelerograms at our sedimentary sites and KATNP showed different waveforms than those of KTP. Although the UD displacements had similar waveforms and permanent deformations as those at the rock site KTP, the horizontal displacements showed considerable drifts. According to Boore (2001), the source of the drifts was likely the shift in the zero level due to tilting (either dynamic or permanent) in the instruments; however, the effect of tilt on the vertical components was much smaller. These observations demonstrate that the high-rate GPS waveforms captured the ground displacements better than the horizontal accelerograms at the sedimentary sites where the horizontal long-period ground motions were largely amplified, as shown in Fig. 3.
First, we compare the two response spectra for KTP and TCU068, which were derived from the velocity pulses. The TCU068 spectrum had a large peak at a period of 10 s, which was several times larger than the KTP peak at 6 s; this was due to the difference in amplitude and width of the two pulses. The spectral peaks for the sedimentary sites (TVU, PTN, THM, and KATNP) were considerably larger than that for the rock site KTP in the period range of 3 to 5 s. Furthermore, we should point out that these peaks, except for the one at PTN, were larger than the two notable response spectra in the period range of 3 to 5 s. These were due to the long-period valley response, as mentioned in the previous section. In general, we may conclude that the horizontal ground motions at the sedimentary sites had enough destructive power to damage high-rise buildings which have natural periods of 3 to 5 s.
Since the capital city of Kathmandu in Nepal is located on a sediment-filled valley and was located at a very close distance to the fault plane of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, a wealth of new information on strong ground motions was captured there. At the rock sites, simple velocity pulses were observed on the NS and UD components; these were the result of the tectonic offset. At the sedimentary sites, although velocity pulses were also observed on the vertical component, the horizontal ground velocities showed largely amplified and prolonged long-period oscillations compared with the rock site motions; these resulted from the valley response. Finally, we found that the horizontal long-period oscillations had enough destructive power to damage high-rise buildings. It will be important for us to understand the factors involved in the long-period valley response observed in the Kathmandu Valley based on the three-dimensional velocity structure of the valley in future studies.
The KATNP record was provided by USGS (USGS 2015b). TCU068 (Lee et al. 2001) and TKT (Nakamura et al. 1996) records were downloaded from the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) at http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/ (accessed 20 October 2015). The KKN4 and NAST data were obtained from the UNAVCO website (Galetzka et al. 2015). This study was partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Nos. 23404005 and 15H05793) from the JSPS (Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science) and the MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology) of Japan, the Heiwa Nakajima Foundation, the Obayashi Foundation, the MEXT program entitled Japan’s Earthquake and Volcano Hazards Observation and Research Program, and the Japan Science and Technology (JST) agency’s J-RAPID Program. Our grateful thanks to Dr. Y. Dhakal, S. Ghimire, Messrs. K. Sawada, H. Okajima, Y. Miyahara, and M. Aoki for their assistance. We used the Generic Mapping Tools (Wessel and Smith 1991) for drawing portions of the figures.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Anderson JG, Bodin P, Brune JN, Prince J, Singh SK, Quaas R, Onate M (1986) Strong ground motion from the Michoacan, Mexico, earthquake. Science 233(4768):1043–1049View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Avouac J-P, Meng L, Wei S, Wang T, Ampuero J-P (2015) Lower edge of locked Main Himalayan Thrust unzipped by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. Nat Geosci 8(9):708–711. doi:10.1038/ngeo2518 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501. doi:10.1785/0120060255 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bhattarai M, Adhikari LB, Gautam UP, Laurendeau A, Labonne C, Hoste-Colomer R, Sèbe O, Hernandez B (2015) Overview of the large 25 April 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake from accelerometric perspectives. Seismol Res Lett 86(6):1540–1548. doi:10.1785/0220150140 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bijukchhen S, Takai N, Shigefuji M, Ichiyanagi M, Sasatani T, Rajaure S, Dhital MR (2015) A comparative study of strong ground motion records from 30 August 2013 south Tibet earthquake on the rock and soil sites of Kathmandu valley. Journal of Nepal Geological Society 48:48–48Google Scholar
- Bolt B, Abrahamson N (2003) Estimation of strong seismic ground motions. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings P, Kisslinger C (eds) International Handbook of Earthquake & Engineering Seismology. vol 2. Elsevier Science, New York, pp 983–1001Google Scholar
- Boore DM (2001) Effect of baseline corrections on displacements and response spectra for several recordings of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(5):1199–1211. doi:10.1785/0120000703 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5 % damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085. doi:10.1193/070113EQS184M View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dhital MR (2015) Geology of the Nepal Himalaya, 1st edn. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02496-7 Google Scholar
- Dixit AM, Yatabe R, Dahal RK, Bhandary NP (2013) Initiatives for earthquake disaster risk management in the Kathmandu valley. Nat Hazards 69(1):631–654. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0732-9 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dreger D, Hurtado G, Chopra A, Larsen S (2011) Near-field across-fault seismic ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(1):202–221. doi:10.1785/0120090271 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fan WY, Shearer PM (2015) Detailed rupture imaging of the 25 April 2015 Nepal earthquake using teleseismic P waves. Geophys Res Lett 42(14):5744–5752. doi:10.1002/2015gl064587 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Galetzka J, Melgar D, Genrich JF, Geng J, Owen S, Lindsey EO, Xu X, Bock Y, Avouac J-P, Adhikari LB, Upreti BN, Pratt-Sitaula B, Bhattarai TN, Sitaula BP, Moore A, Hudnut KW, Szeliga W, Normandeau J, Fend M, Flouzat M, Bollinger L, Shrestha P, Koirala B, Gautam U, Bhatterai M, Gupta R, Kandel T, Timsina C, Sapkota SN, Rajaure S, Maharjan N (2015) Slip pulse and resonance of the Kathmandu basin during the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal. Science 349(6252):1091–1095. doi:10.1126/science.aac6383 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Grandin R, Vallée M, Satriano C, Lacassin R, Klinger Y, Simoes M, Bollinger L (2015) Rupture process of the Mw = 7.9 2015 Gorkha earthquake (Nepal): insights into Himalayan megathrust segmentation. Geophys Res Lett 42(20):8373–8382. doi:10.1002/2015GL066044 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW, Wald DJ (1995) Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings. Earthq Spectra 11(4):569–605. doi:10.1193/1.1585828 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hayes GP, Briggs RW, Barnhart WD, Yeck WL, McNamara DE, Wald DJ, Nealy JL, Benz HM, Gold RD, Jaiswal KS, Marano K, Earle PS, Hearne MG, Smoczyk GM, Wald LA, Samsonov SV (2015) Rapid characterization of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, nepal, earthquake sequence and its seismotectonic context. Seismol Res Lett 86(6):1557–1567. doi:10.1785/0220150145 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hisada Y, Bielak J (2003) A theoretical method for computing near-fault ground motions in layered half-spaces considering static offset due to surface faulting, with a physical interpretation of fling step and rupture directivity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1154–1168. doi:10.1785/0120020165 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Houston H, Kanamori H (1986) Source characteristics of the 1985 Michoacan, Mexico earthquake at periods of 1 to 30 seconds. Geophys Res Lett 13(6):597–600. doi:10.1029/GL013i006p00597 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings. Earthq Spectra 22(2):367–390. doi:10.1193/1.2192560 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kamae K, Irikura K (1998) Source model of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake and simulation of near-source ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(2):400–412Google Scholar
- Kobayashi T, Morishita Y, Yarai H (2015) Detailed crustal deformation and fault rupture of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal, revealed from ScanSAR-based interferograms of ALOS-2. Earth Planets Space 67(1):201View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kudo K, Kanno T, Okada H, Özel O, Erdik M, Sasatani T, Higashi S, Takahashi M, Yoshida K (2002) Site-specific issues for strong ground motions during the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake of 17 August 1999, as inferred from array observations of microtremors and aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):448–465. doi:10.1785/0120000812 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee WHK, Shin TC, Kuo KW, Chen KC, Wu CF (2001) CWB free-field strong-motion data from the 9-21-1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, digital acceleration files on CD-ROM. Seismology Center, Central Weather Bureau, Taipei, Taiwan, publication version 9 January 2001, Vol. 1Google Scholar
- Loh C-H, Lee Z-K, Wu T-C, Peng S-Y (2000) Ground motion characteristics of the Chi-Chi earthquake of 21 September 1999. Earthq Eng Struct D 29(6):867–897. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(200006)29:6<867::AID-EQE943>3.0.CO;2-E View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1099–1131. doi:10.1785/0120020100 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- MoHA (2015) The Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) Government of Nepal: Nepal Earthquake 2015: Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction Information Platform (NDRRIP). http://drrportal.gov.np/ndrrip/main.html. Accessed OCT 20 2015
- Moribayashi S, Maruo Y (1980) Basement topography of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: an application of gravitational method to the survey of a tectonic basin in the Himalayas. Journal of the Japan Society of Engineering Geology 21(2):80–87. doi:10.5110/jjseg.21.80 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nakamura Y, Uehan F, Inoue H (1996) Waveform and its analysis of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken-Nanbu Earthquake (II). JR Earthquake Information No 23d, Railway Technical Research Institute, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- Paudyal YR, Yatabe R, Bhandary NP, Dahal RK (2013) Basement topography of the Kathmandu Basin using microtremor observation. J Asian Earth Sci 62:627–637, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.11.011 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shrestha O, Koirala A, Karmacharya S, Pradhananga U, Pradhan P, Karmacharya R (1998) Engineering and environmental geological map of the Kathmandu valley. Department of Mines and Geology, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
- Si H, Midorikawa S (1999) New attenuation relationships for peak ground acceleration and velocity considering effects of fault type and site condition. Journal of structural and construction engineering 523:63–70 (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- Takai N, Sawada K, Shigefuji M, Bijukchhen S, Ichiyanagi M, Sasatani T, Dhakal P, Rajaure S, Dhital MR (2015) Shallow underground structure of strong ground motion observation sites in the Kathmandu valley. Journal of Nepal Geological Society 48:50–50Google Scholar
- USGS (2015a) M7.8 - 36 km E of Khudi, Nepal. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926#scientific_finitefault:us_us20002926. Accessed SEP20 2015
- USGS (2015b) NetQuakes:Station KATNP_NQ_01, 25 April 2015. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/netquakes/station/KATNP_NQ_01/20150425061138/. Accessed SEP20 2015
- Wessel P, Smith WHF (1991) Free software helps map and display data. Eos, Trans Amer Geophys Union 72(41):441–441. doi:10.1029/90eo00319 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yagi Y, Okuwaki R (2015) Integrated seismic source model of the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 42(15):2015GL064995. doi:10.1002/2015GL064995 View ArticleGoogle Scholar