Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. XX, No. XX, pp. , 2017, doi: 10.

1785/0120170028

Short Note
Never Fear Velocity Reversals
by Gony Yagoda-Biran, Bibi Kerpel, and Ronnie Kamai

Abstract Velocity reversals are layers within the soil/rock profile that have a veloc-
ity lower than that of the overlying strata. When performing site-response analysis,
these reversals are often avoided because of the complexity they introduce. In this
study, we explore the effect of a velocity reversal on the fundamental mode of the
1D linear elastic response for the case of two layers over a half-space. We define
a criterion for tolerable velocity reversals, in which the amplitude change imposed
by the reversal is relatively insignificant. We do so by modeling three-layer velocity
profiles with different combinations of thickness and velocities. We observe that the
amplitude is affected by both the impedance ratio and the thickness ratio between
the upper two layers. We find that the amplitude of the linear transfer function at
the fundamental frequency is, on a first order, a function of the effective impedance
ratiothe impedance ratio between the half-space and a layer having the combined
thickness of the upper two and their time-averaged shear-wave velocity. We suggest a
model to compute the minimum allowable velocity in the reversal layer while main-
taining an amplitude change smaller than 10% with respect to a nonreversal velocity
profile. The reversal velocity in our model is a function of the overlaying velocity and
the thickness ratio.

Introduction
Shear-wave velocity profiles are an inherent component
of site-response analysis for seismic-hazard purposes, be-
cause the site response is typically considered to be con-
trolled by upward-propagating shear waves. It is common
to assume that the shear-wave velocity, density, and associ-
ated stiffness will increase with depth due to the effects of
geologic age, cementation, and overburden stress. Analysis
of large databases of measured velocity profiles (e.g., Elec-
tric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 1993; Boore, 2016;
Kamai et al., 2016) shows that on average, velocity increases
with depth, and that such an increase could be different in
different regions. In addition, the use of V S30 as a proxy
for site characterization is based on the assumption that be-
cause the velocity is expected to gradually increase, the top
30 m of the profile are an indicator for the velocities at depth;
hence those profiles with the same V S30 will generally show
the same amplification patterns (Kamai et al., 2016).
Velocity reversals are defined as a layer within the
profile that has a lower shear-wave velocity than the overly-
ing strata. This can occur in alluvial fans, where interlayering
of different materials is common (e.g., Bordoni, Milana,
et al., 2011). It is also observed in volcanic settings, in which
a stiff volcanic formation may cover softer formations that
were present before the eruption (e.g., Rahpeyma et al.,
2016). Because profiles containing velocity reversals are
considered atypical, such reversals are usually avoided
when performing site-response simulations on real or syn-
thetic velocity profiles, especially when such synthetic
profiles are randomly generated (e.g., Rathje and Navidi,
2013; Yagoda-Biran and Anderson, 2015; Jahanandish et al.,
2017).
Pehlivan et al. (2015) studied the effects of velocity
reversals on the 1D surface response of spatially variable
V S profiles, centered around a common base profile. They
compared the 1D equivalent linear response of two sets of
60 randomly generated profiles, with and without reversals.
They found that the presence of reversals reduces the median
surface response spectra by almost 10% at short periods and
that the reduction depends on the intensity of the incoming
motion. They suggest that this reduction is due to higher
damping caused by the low-velocity layers within the
profile.
In some countries, such as Italy, the site response is para-
meterized in terms of the expected horizontal-to-vertical
spectral ratio (HVSR). The effect of a velocity reversal on
the HVSR has been studied by some Italian researchers
(e.g., Castellaro and Mulargia, 2009; Bordoni, Haines, et al.,
2011; Bordoni, Milana, et al., 2011; Di Giulio et al., 2016).
They found that a significant velocity reversal has a promi-
nent effect on the dispersion curve, leading to mode jumps

BSSA Early Edition / 1

2 Short Note

and multiple higher modes. Both experi-

mental and computational methods show
that the reversal of velocity acts as a
low-pass frequency filter on the horizontal
components, reducing the amplification
effect of the sediment-filled valley. This
leads to an HVSR of less than unity over
a broad frequency range. Because of these
effects, the Italian National Seismic Code
(NTC, 2008) recommends a site-specific Figure 1. (a) Velocity profiles, (b) their corresponding transfer functions, and (c) am-
study when a velocity reversal in the sub- plitude versus impedance ratio. The color version of this figure is available only in the
surface is identified. In addition, Rah- electronic edition.
peyma et al. (2016) suggested that the basic body-wave
assumption in interpreting HVSR results, may lead to Results
ambiguous interpretations when dealing with data recorded
Figure 1 presents an example of five velocity models and
on a profile with velocity reversals. They based their conclu-
the corresponding transfer functions. In these models, V SL1 is
sion on the analysis of 1705 aftershocks, recorded by the 12
500 m=s, and the thickness ratio (TR) is 20/30. V SL2 changes
stations within the first Icelandic strong-motion array (ICE-
from 300 to 500. As expected, with an increase in V SL2 ,
ARRAY I). Therefore, they claim that velocity reversals at
considerable depth may not be captured by microzonation which leads to a decrease in the impedance ratio (IR) be-
studies that rely solely on microseismic recordings. tween L3 and L2, there is a decrease in the resonance am-
The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of a plitude and an increase in the resonance frequency. The
velocity reversal on the fundamental mode of the 1D linear behavior of the higher modes seems to be reversed, such that
elastic profile response for two layers over a half-space. We the amplitude of the second mode decreases with decreasing
define which cases of velocity reversals are tolerable, in V SL2 . This, however, is sensitive to the details of the velocity
which the change in amplitude imposed by the reversal is profile and hence will not be further discussed here.
small and can be overlooked when analyzing real velocity We performed transfer function calculations for all dif-
profile datasets or generating synthetic profiles. We do this ferent combinations of V SL1 and V SL2 that produce velocity
by computing the linear transfer function of a three-layered reversals, and for all TRs. Results are presented in Figure 2,
velocity model, with variable velocities and thicknesses of in which peak amplitude is presented as a function of IR and
the two upper layers. In the future, this study may be broad- TR. The different symbols stand for different TRs from here
ened to include the effects of nonlinearity, as well as 2D and
3D effects. However, this is currently beyond the scope of
this short note.

The Model
We create a three-layer velocity model, in which the
third layer (L3) represents the half-space and has a constant
shear-wave velocity of 900 m=s (V SL3 ). The velocities and
thicknesses of the two upper layers (L1 and L2) vary as fol- VSL1
lows. The velocity of L1 (V SL1 ) ranges from 400 to 800 m=s VSL1
with 100 m=s intervals. The velocity of L2 (V SL2 ) is always VSL1
equal to or lower than V SL1 , ranging from 300 to 800 m=s VSL1

with 50 m=s intervals. The density assigned to the different VSL1

layers in the model is a continuous function, interpolating

between the values of 1.8 and 2:1 g=cm3 for V S of 200
and 900 m=s, respectively. The uniform damping value as-
signed to all layers is 5%. As for thickness constraints, the
combined thickness of L1 and L2 always sums up to 50 m,
with the following thickness ratios (TRs) of L1L2: 10/40,
20/30, 30/20, and 40/10. Figure 2. Amplitude as a function of impedance ratio (IR) and
thickness ratio (TR). The symbols stand for different thickness ratios:
Then, we calculate the linear transfer function of the circles, 10/40; triangles, 20/30; squares, 30/20; and diamonds, 40/10.
profile and present the results by means of the amplification The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic
amplitude at the fundamental frequency. edition.

BSSA Early Edition

Short Note 3

IR = ~3.6 IR = ~3.0 with the time-averaged velocity of the two

IR = ~2.6
upper layers (V S50 ). To test our hypothesis,
we first calculate the amplification func-
tion for these effective velocity two-layer
profiles, and compare the peak amplitudes
A

A
with those calculated for the correspond-
ing three-layer models. If our hypothesis
is correct, we would expect these ampli-
T T T
tudes to be identical. The results for the
Figure 3. Three sections from Figure 2, along the three highest values of impedance velocity model with V SL2
300 m=s are
ratio. Figure notation is consistent with that in Figure 2. The color version of this figure presented in Figure 4a. The comparison
is available only in the electronic edition. shows that although the amplitudes are
not identical, the difference between the
on as follows: circles, 10/40; triangles, 20/30; squares, 30/20; two-layer and three-layer model is less than 10% (calculated
and diamonds, 40/10. The different shades stand for different by equation 1), and increases as a function of the upper-layer
V values. velocity (Fig. 4b):
SL1
Let us look at the group of circles at the higher end of the
IR axis. This is a group of models that share the same V SL2 and EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df1;313;541 change %
V SL3 , and therefore the same IR and TR: 10/40. What changes

amplitudethree-layer model amplitudeeffective
between the models is V SL1 . As can be observed, there is very
100 :
amplitudethree-layer model
little change in the amplitude as a result of the V SL1 change.
However, when looking at the group of diamonds at the high 1
end of the IR axis, these models all share a TR of 40/10, and
Next, we calculate an IRE for all different velocity mod-
here a change in V SL1 does have an effect on the amplitude.
els shown in Figure 2. Figure 5a shows the peak amplitude as
This is further emphasized in Figure 3, showing an increased computed for the full three-layer models versus their respec-
effect of changing V SL1 as TR increases (hence increasing the tive IRE. Collapsing the top two layers to a single layer using
thickness of L1 with respect to L2). the thicknesses and velocities allows us to collapse the 3D
It seems that the amplitude is more sensitive to the plot to a 2D plot, because the thickness dimension is ac-
thicker layer: when L1 is thinner than L2, a change in V SL1 counted for in the averaged velocity and therefore in the
has barely any impact on the amplitude of the peak, and the IRE calculations. Figure notation is consistent with Figure 2.
amplitude is affected mainly by the IRthat is, by the As seen in Figure 5a, the calculated amplitude and the IRE
changes in V SL2 . However, when the thickness of L1 in- are very strongly linearly correlated, yielding an R2 value of
creases and becomes thicker than L2, a change in V SL1 af- 0.98. Still, some trends are observable within the cloud, both
fects the amplitude more than a change in the V SL2 . within different TRs and within different V SL1 values. To re-
This observation leads us to hypothesize that the ampli- move these trends, we normalize the IRE with the IR of the
tude might be affected by the effective impedance ratio base model, a two-layer model with no reversals, so that L1,
(IRE). The IRE is the IR between L3 and a 50-m thick layer with its velocity, is 50 m thick. Then we calculate the change
in the amplitude compared to the amplitude of the base
(a) (b) model with no reversal, and plot it in Fig-
ure 5b, so that Figure 5b is Figure 5a with
both axes normalized by the base model.
Next, we characterize the profiles that
result in an up to 10% change in amplitude
compared to the base model with no rever-
sal. We identify the profiles that give am-
plitude just above and just below the 10%
boundary, and interpolate to find the exact
V SL2 that gives a 10% change given a
V SL1 . These boundaries are plotted as dif-
ferent lines for the different TRs in Fig-
ure 6a. Any value combination that falls
below a boundary line will result in a
Figure 4. (a) The amplitude of the peak as a function of V SL1 . Figure notation is con-
sistent with that in Figure 2. The filled symbols are for three-layer models, and the open change higher than 10%, and a combina-
symbols are for their corresponding two-layer models. (b) Amplitude change as a function of tion that falls above the boundary will re-
V SL1 . The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition. sult in a change lower than 10%.
BSSA Early Edition
4 Short Note

(a) (b) EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df2;385;733 V SL2 0:9 V SL1 33 TR 4:7: 2

We plot V SL2 values calculated by equa-

tion (2) against the V SL2 values interpo-
lated for the 10% boundary from
Figure 6a, in Figure 6b. The error of the
values is up to 3% for all profiles. To test
whether equation (2) is valid for other
profile thicknesses and TR values, we
performed the same exercise for fixed
thicknesses of 80 m (Fig. 6c) and 100 m
N
(not shown here). The TR values for
100 m thickness were identical to those
Figure 5. (a) The amplitude of the peak as a function of the effective impedance of 50 m, and the TR range for 80 m thick-
ratio (IRE). (b) The amplitude change compared to the base model as a function of the ness was from 1/7 to 7. We find that equa-
effective impedance ratio normalized by the base models impedance ratio. Figure no- tion (2) is insensitive to the total thickness
tation is consistent with that in Figure 2. The color version of this figure is available only of the upper two layers. We note that the
in the electronic edition.
error at all profiles is less than 3%, except
for one profile, in which it is 9%. There-
(a) (b) (c) fore, we conclude that equation (2)
is valid for 1=7 TR 7 and
400 V SL1 800 m=s, at minimum.
VSL2

TR = 10/70
TR = 30/50
Discussion
TR = 50/30
VSL2

VSL2

TR = 70/10
Here we demonstrate that in the case
of velocity reversals within a three-layer
V V V
SL1 SL2 SL2
model, the peak amplitude of the linear
Figure 6. (a) Combinations of V SL1 and V SL2 that result in a 10% change in am- transfer function is directly correlated with
plitude compared to the base model. (b) V SL2 as calculated by the suggested model in the IR between the half-space and the
equation (2), versus V SL2 interpolated for the 10% boundary for (a). Figure notation is overlying (reversal) layer. Then we show
consistent with that in Figure 2. (c) Same as (b), for a combined thickness of 80 m for L1 that on a first order, the peak amplitude is
and L2. Shade notation is similar to that in Figure 2. The color version of this figure is also a function of the IRE and hence the
available only in the electronic edition.
two layers above the half-space can be
treated as an equivalent single layer with
the same time-averaged velocity. This sim-
ple exercise yields two inevitable ques-
tions: (1) do the trends we see in the
reversal containing models hold true for
nonreversal models as well, and (2) if
the amplitude is a function of an IR be-
tween the half-space and the averaged
velocity, is there any significance to the or-
der of the layers?
To answer the first question, we calcu-
Figure 7. (a) Reversal and nonreversal containing velocity profiles, (b) their corre- late the transfer function of seven velocity
sponding transfer functions, and (c) amplitude versus impedance ratio. Notice how the profiles that have the same V SL1 and
behavior of the nonreversal models is more complex, as the dominant reflector shifts the same TR but different V SL2 , with and
from L2/L3 to L1/L2. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic without reversals (Fig. 7). From Fig-
edition.
ure 7b,c, we see that as V SL2 increases,
the amplitude of the fundamental frequency
We observe that the slopes of these boundaries are sim- decreases to a minimum and then starts to increase again. This
ilar, and the distances between them seem to correlate to the minimum occurs when V SL3 V SL2 
V SL2 V SL1 , after
TR value, and so derive an equation that links V SL1 , V SL2 , which the fundamental frequency shifts from being controlled
and TR for profiles that result in a change of less than by the deeper reflector to the shallower one. Furthermore, as
10% in the amplitude that shift occurs, the frequency of the fundamental peak also
BSSA Early Edition
Short Note
Figure 8. (a,c) Reversal containing models, nonreversal models, and two-layer
models that share the same V S50 ; (b,d) their corresponding transfer functions. The color
version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
shifts to higher frequencies, lining up with the second peak of
the reversal model. To continue our parametric study including
nonreversal models, we need to redefine the reference profile
and possibly consider higher modes and frequency shifts.
Although interesting, this type of analysis is more complex
than the intended conceptual exercise presented herein and
will not be continued at this stage, for brevity.
To answer the second question, we perform another ex-
ercise, in which we generate three different models, all hav-
ing the same time-averaged shear-wave velocity of the upper
50 m. The first is a three-layer model with a velocity reversal,
the second is a model in which the order of L1 and L2 is
switched so there is no velocity reversal (while maintaining
their thickness and velocities), and the third is a two-layer
model in which the upper layer has the time-averaged
shear-wave velocity of L1 and L2 above. An example of
the profiles and their corresponding transfer functions is pre-
sented in Figure 8.
We performed this exercise on 40 combinations of V SL1 ,
V SL2 , and TR. We found that in all simulated combinations,
the resonance frequency of the two-layer model is in between
the frequencies of the two three-layer models, and in most
simulations it is lower in amplitude than both. The peak
of the reversal containing model is always lower in frequency
and almost always lower in amplitude with respect to the
nonreversal model. This is in agreement with previous work
on velocity reversals (e.g., Pehlivan et al., 2015) in which
reversal was associated with increased profile damping.
Therefore, we believe it is safe to say that in most cases
the amplitude of the model containing a velocity reversal
is closer to that of the two-layer model than it is to the non-
reversal model, which suggests that using the two-layer
approximation (and the time-averaged velocity) serves as
a reasonable representation in most cases.
BSSA Early Edition
5
Finally, we note that this entire exer-
cise was performed in the Fourier domain,
using linear transfer functions only. It
should be expanded to the response spec-
tral domain, using equivalent linear calcu-
lations, before drawing a more general
conclusion that could be further used for
engineering applications. This is beyond
the scope of this study, but will be further
explored in the future.
Summary and Conclusions
In this study, we defined a criterion
for velocity reversals that have a minor ef-
fect on the amplitude at the fundamental
frequency of the 1D linear transfer func-
tion. We did so by modeling multiple
three-layer velocity profiles with variable
velocities and thickness of the upper two
layers. We found the amplitude to be,
on a first order, a function of the IR between the half-space
and a layer having the combined thickness of the upper two
and their time-averaged shear-wave velocity, which we de-
fined as the IRE. Eventually, we derived a criterion for am-
plitude change of 10% compared with a nonreversal model,
which links the velocity of the layers and their TR.
Data and Resources
The modeling, simulations, and plots are performed using
the MATLAB software (http://www.mathworks.com/products/
matlab/, last accessed May 2017).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Associate Editor Hiroshi Kawase and an anonymous
reviewer for their useful comments, which greatly improved the quality of this
article. This study was funded by the Ministry of National Infrastructures,
Water and Resources of the State of Israel through Grant Number 214-17-015.
References
Boore, D. M. (2016). Determining generic velocity and density models for
crustal amplification calculations, with an update of the Boore and Joy-
ner (1997) generic site amplification for VsZ
760 m=s, Bull. Seis-
mol. Soc. Am. 106, 313317.
Bordoni, P., J. Haines, G. Milana, S. Marcucci, F. Cara, and G. D. Giulio
(2011). Seismic response of LAquila downtown from comparison be-
tween 2D synthetics spectral ratios of SH, P-SVand Rayleigh waves and
observations of the 2009 earthquake sequence, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 9,
761781.
Bordoni, P., G. Milana, J. Haines, M. Tallini, and F. D. Monaco (2011). The
role of lateral heterogeneities and reversals of velocity at LAquila
town (Central Apennines, Italy) from a comparison between 2D
modeling and observations from the 2009 earthquake sequence, 4th
IASPEI/IAEE International Symposium: Effects of Surface Geology
on Seismic Motion, University of California Santa Barbara, California,
2326 August 2011.
6 Short Note

Castellaro, S., and F. Mulargia (2009). The effect of velocity inversions on Rathje, E. M., and S. Navidi (2013). Identification of site parameters that
H/V, Pure Appl. Geophys. 166, 567592. improve predictions of site amplification, Report PEER 2013-19,
Di Giulio, G., R. de Nardis, P. Bonico, and G. Lavecchia (2016). Seismic PEER Berkeley.
response of a deep continental basin including velocity inversion: The Yagoda-Biran, G., and J. G. Anderson (2015). Investigation of the ground
Sulmona intramontane basin (Central Apennines, Italy), Geophys. J. motion variability associated with site response for sites with V S30 over
Int. 204, 418439. 500 m=s, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105, 10111028.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993). Guidelines for determining
design basis ground motions: Methods and guidelines for estimating
The Geological Survey of Israel
earthquake ground motion in Eastern North America, Report EPRI TR- 30 Malkhe Israel Street
102293, Vol. 1, Electric Power Research Institute. Jerusalem 95501, Israel
Jahanandish, M., H. Zafarani, and A. H. Shafiee (2017). Implementation of gonyb@gsi.gov.il
the square-root-impedance method to estimate site amplification in (G.Y.-B.)
Iran using random profile generation, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 107,
doi: 10.1785/0120160119.
Kamai, R., N. A. Abrahamson, and W. J. Silva (2016). V S30 in the NGA Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences
GMPEs: Regional differences and suggested practice, Earthq. Spectra Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
32, 20832108. P.O. Box 653
NTC (2008). Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, DM 14/01/2008 in GU Beer Sheva 84990, Israel
n.29 del 04/02/2008, Suppl. Ord. 30 (in Italian). (B.K.)
Pehlivan, M., Y. Hashash, J. A. Harmon, E. M. Rathje, J. P. Stewart, W. J.
Silva, K. W. Campbell, and S. Nikolaou (2015). Influence of
shear wave velocity reversals on one-dimensional site response of Department of Structural Engineering
spatially varied profiles, 6th International Conference on Earthquake Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Geotechnical Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 14 Novem- P.O. Box 653
ber 2015. Beer Sheva 84990, Israel
Rahpeyma, S., B. Halldorsson, C. Olivera, R. A. Green, and S. Jnsson (R.K.)
(2016). Detailed site effect estimation in the presence of strong veloc-
ity reversals within a small-aperture strong-motion array in Iceland, Manuscript received 26 January 2017;
Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 89, 136151. Published Online 11 July 2017

BSSA Early Edition