Capturing spatial variability in the regional Ground Motion Model of Groningen, the Netherlands

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKruiver, Pauline P.en
dc.contributor.authorPefkos, Manosen
dc.contributor.authorRodriguez-Marek, Adrianen
dc.contributor.authorCampman, Xanderen
dc.contributor.authorOoms-Asshoff, Kiraen
dc.contributor.authorLavoue, Anaisen
dc.contributor.authorStafford, Peter J.en
dc.contributor.authorvan Elk, Janen
dc.contributor.authorChmiel, Malgorzataen
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-17T12:51:25Zen
dc.date.available2022-10-17T12:51:25Zen
dc.date.issued2022-08-17en
dc.description.abstractLong-term exploration of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands led to induced seismicity. Over the past nine years, an increasingly sophisticated Ground Motion Model (GMM) has been developed to assess the site response and the related seismic hazard. The GMM output strongly depends on the shear-wave velocity (V ( S )), among other input parameters. To date, V ( S ) model data from soil profiles (Kruiver et al., Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(9): 3555-3580, 2017; Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 96(5): s215-s233, 2017) have been used in the GMM. Recently, new V ( S ) profiles above the Groningen gas field were constructed using ambient noise surface wave tomography. These so-called field V ( S ) data, even though spatially limited, provide an independent source of V ( S ) to check whether the level of spatial variability in the GMM is sufficient. Here, we compared amplification factors (AF) for two sites (Borgsweer and Loppersum) calculated with the model V ( S ) and the field V ( S ) (Chmiel et al., Geophysical Journal International, 218(3), 1781-1795, 2019 and new data). Our AF results over periods relevant for seismic risk (0.01-1.0 s) show that model and field V ( S ) profiles agree within the uncertainty range generally accepted in geo-engineering. In addition, we compared modelled spectral accelerations using either field V ( S ) or model V ( S ) in Loppersum to the recordings of an earthquake that occurred during the monitoring period (M-L 3.4 Zeerijp on 8 January 2018). The modelled spectral accelerations at the surface for both field V ( S ) and model V ( S ) are coherent with the earthquake data for the resonance periods representative of most buildings in Groningen (T = 0.2 and 0.3 s). These results confirm that the currently used V ( S ) model in the GMM captures spatial variability in the site response and represents reliable input for the site response calculations.en
dc.description.notesFinancial support was received from Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (NAM). This support is gratefully acknowledged.en
dc.description.sponsorshipNederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (NAM)en
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1017/njg.2022.13en
dc.identifier.eissn1573-9708en
dc.identifier.issn0016-7746en
dc.identifier.othere16en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/112177en
dc.identifier.volume101en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectearthquake dataen
dc.subjectfield dataen
dc.subjectground motion modelsen
dc.subjectsite response analysisen
dc.subjectspatial variationen
dc.titleCapturing spatial variability in the regional Ground Motion Model of Groningen, the Netherlandsen
dc.title.serialNetherlands Journal of Geosciences-Geologie en Mijnbouwen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
KruiverCapturing.pdf
Size:
4.08 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Civil and Environmental Engineering