4.7 Article

Ground motions on rocky, cliffed, and sandy shorelines generated by ocean waves

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
卷 118, 期 12, 页码 6590-6602

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013JC008883

关键词

coastal; cliff; platform; beach; seismometer; wave loading; wave impacts

资金

  1. California Department of Boating and Waterways Oceanography Program
  2. California Energy Commission PIER program
  3. California Department of Boating and Waterways
  4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compare ground motions observed within about 100 m of the waterline on eight sites located on shorelines with different morphologies (rock slope, cliff, and sand beaches). At all sites, local ocean waves generated ground motions in the frequency band 0.01-40 Hz. Between about 0.01 and 0.1 Hz, foreshore loading and gravitational attraction from ocean swell and infragravity waves drive coherent, in-phase ground flexing motions mostly oriented cross-shore that decay inland. At higher frequencies between 0.5 and 40 Hz, breaking ocean waves and wave-rock impacts cause ground shaking. Overall, seismic spectral shapes were generally consistent across shoreline sites and usually within a few orders of magnitude despite the diverse range of settings. However, specific site response varied and was influenced by a combination of tide level, incident wave energy, site morphology, ground composition, and signal decay. Flexing and shaking increased with incident wave energy and was often tidally modulated, consistent with a local generation source. Flexing magnitudes were usually larger than shaking, and flexing displacements of several mm were observed during relatively large incident wave conditions (Hs 4-5 m). Comparison with traffic noise and earthquakes illustrate the relative significance of local ocean-generated signals in coastal seismic data. Seismic observations are not a simple proxy for wave-cliff interaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据