MODELING SEISMIC WAVE PROPAGATION IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS USING THE FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD (FDTD) FOR SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS
Keywords:
Seismic wave propagation, finite difference method (FDTD), urban environments, seismic risk assessment, computational modeling, earthquake engineering.Abstract
Seismic wave propagation in urban environments is a critical area of research for assessing the vulnerability of buildings during earthquakes. The Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) method is a widely used computational approach for simulating seismic wave behavior in complex environments. This study explores the application of FDTD in modeling seismic wave propagation, focusing on urban structures and geological heterogeneities. It examines how wave interactions with buildings, soil layers, and underground features influence seismic risk. Through a detailed review of literature, this paper highlights the strengths and limitations of FDTD and discusses its integration with seismic risk assessment frameworks. Experimental results demonstrate the method’s effectiveness in identifying high-risk zones, providing insights for disaster mitigation and urban planning.
References
1. Aki, K., & Richards, P. G. (2002). Quantitative Seismology. University Science Books.
2. Virieux, J., & Operto, S. (2009). An Overview of Full-Waveform Inversion in Exploration Geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6), 1-26.
3. Zienkiewicz, O. C., & Taylor, R. L. (2005). The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics. Elsevier.
4. Graves, R. W., & Pitarka, A. (2010). Broadband Ground-Motion Simulation Using a Hybrid Approach. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5A), 2095–2123.
5. Komatitsch, D., & Tromp, J. (2002). Spectral-Element Simulations of Global Seismic Wave Propagation. Geophysical Journal International, 149(2), 390–412.
6. Clayton, R. W., & Engquist, B. (1977). Absorbing Boundary Conditions for Acoustic and Elastic Wave Equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 67(6), 1529–1540.
7. Mousavi, S. M., et al. (2020). Earthquake Transformer: Automated Earthquake Signal Detection Using Deep Learning. Science Advances, 6(35), eabc6388.
8. Nakamura, Y. (1989). A Method for Dynamic Characteristics Estimation of Subsurface Using Microtremor on the Ground Surface. Quarterly Report of RTRI, 30(1), 25–33.
9. Allen, R. M., & Melgar, D. (2019). Earthquake Early Warning: Advances, Scientific Challenges, and Societal Needs. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 361–388.
10. Johnson, C. R., et al. (2019). Advanced Visualization Techniques for Earthquake Data. Journal of Visualization, 22(1), 15–28.
11. Hestholm, S., & Ruud, B. O. (2017). SeisSol: A Software for Seismic Simulations. Computers & Geosciences, 107, 28–39.
12. Southern California Seismic Network (2021). Annual Data Report.
13. AWS (2020). Cloud Computing for Seismic Data Processing. Amazon Web Services.
14. MATLAB (2021). 3D Modeling and Visualization Tools for Seismic Analysis.
15. Esri (2021). Using GIS for Seismic Risk Management. Environmental Systems Research Institute.
