Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 363–376 | Cite as

Inferred ground motions on Guadeloupe during the 2004 Les Saintes earthquake

  • John Douglas
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Accurate estimates of the ground motions that occurred during damaging earthquakes are a vital part of many aspects of earthquake engineering, such as the study of the size and cause of the uncertainties within earthquake risk assessments. This article compares a number of methods to estimate the ground shaking that occurred on Guadeloupe (French Antilles) during the 21st November 2004 (M w 6.3) Les Saintes earthquake, with the aim of providing more accurate shaking estimates for the investigation of the sources of uncertainties within loss evaluations, based on damage data from this event. The various techniques make differing use of the available ground-motion recordings of this earthquake and by consequence the estimates obtained by the different approaches are associated with differing uncertainties. Ground motions on the French Antilles are affected by strong local site effects, which have been extensively investigated in previous studies. In this article, use is made of these studies in order to improve the shaking estimates. It is shown that the simple methods neglecting the spatial correlation of earthquake shaking lead to uncertainties similar to those predicted by empirical ground-motion models and that these are uniform across the whole of Guadeloupe. In contrast, methods (such as the ShakeMap approach) that take account of the spatial correlation in motions demonstrate that shaking within roughly 10 km of a recording station (covering a significant portion of the investigated area) can be defined with reasonable accuracy but that motions at more distant points are not well constrained.

Keywords

Ground-motion estimation Guadeloupe Les Saintes ShakeMap Site effects Spatial correlation Strong ground motion Uncertainties 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambraseys NN and Douglas J (2004). Magnitude calibration for north Indian earthquakes. Geophys J Int 159(1): 165–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02323.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK and Smit PM (2005). Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1): 1–53. doi: 10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beresnev IA and Wen K-L (1996). Nonlinear soil response—a reality?. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6): 1964–1978 Google Scholar
  4. Bertil D, Bes De Berc S, Douglas J (2005) Synthèse de la crise sismique des Saintes (Guadeloupe) entre le 21 novembre 2004 et le 30 mars 2005. Final report RP-54401-FR, BRGM, France. http://www.brgm.fr/publication/rechRapportSP.jspGoogle Scholar
  5. Bommer JJ and Crowley H (2006). The influence of ground-motion variability in earthquake loss modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 4(3): 231–248. doi: 10.1007/s10518-006-9008-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Douglas J and Strasser FO (2003). Style-of-faulting in ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Earthq Eng 1(2): 171–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boore DM, Gibbs JF, Joyner WB, Tinsley JC and Ponti DJ (2003). Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake at the site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard bridge collapse, west Los Angeles, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(6): 2737–2751 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bour M, Fabriol H, Monge O, Sedan O (2000) XIème CPER Guadeloupe: Evaluation des mouvements sismiques locaux à l’échelle régionale (cas du séisme lointain et du comportement linéaire équivalent). Technical Report R40897, BRGM, France, Mar 2000. http://www.brgm.fr/publication/rechRapportSP.jspGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell KW (1991). An empirical analysis of peak horizontal acceleration for the Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of 18 October 1989. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(5): 1838–1858 Google Scholar
  10. Carr JR, Deng ED and Glass CE (1986). An application of disjunctive kriging for earthquake ground motion estimation. Math Geo 18(2): 197–213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley H, Bommer JJ, Pinho R and Bird J (2005). The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 34(14): 1653–1685. doi: 10.1002/eqe.498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas J (2003). Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth-Sci Rev 61(1–2): 43–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas J, Bertil D, Roullé A, Dominique P and Jousset P (2006). A preliminary investigation of strong-motion data from the French Antilles. Journal of Seismology 10(3): 271–299. doi: 10.1007/s10950-006-9016-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeon S-S and O’Rourke TD (2005). Northridge earthquake effects on pipelines and residential buildings. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(1): 294–318. doi: 10.1785/0120040020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King SA, Hortacsu A, Hart GC (2004) Post-earthquake estimation of site-specific strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Paper no. 2834Google Scholar
  16. Le Brun B, Monge O, Bour M, Sedan O, Mirgon C (2001) XIe Contrat de Plan Etat – Région Guadeloupe relatif à l’évaluation et la prévention du risqué sismique: Définition des séismes de scénario et résultats des simulations. Technical Report BRGM/RP-50798-FR, BRGM, France. http://www.brgm.fr/publication/rechRapportSP.jspGoogle Scholar
  17. Le Brun B, Sedan O, Mirgon C, Bertil D (2005) Simulation of damage caused by an earthquake: a case study for Guadeloupe (France). Written communicationGoogle Scholar
  18. Lebrun B, Duval A-M, Bard P-Y, Monge O, Bour M, Vidal S and Fabriol H (2004). Seismic microzonation: a comparison between geotechnical and seismological approaches in Pointe-à-Pitre (French West Indies). Bull Earthq Eng 2(1): 27–50. doi: 10.1023/B:BEEE.0000038949.91495.91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin KW, Wald DJ, Worden CB, Shakal AF (2006) Progress toward quantifying CISN Shakemap uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the Eighth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Paper no. 1482Google Scholar
  20. Scherbaum F, Cotton F and Smit P (2004). On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6): 2164–2185. doi: 10.1785/0120030147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shabestari KT, Yamazaki F, Saita J and Matsuoka M (2004). Estimation of the spatial distribution of ground motion parameters for two recent earthquakes in Japan. Tectonophysics 390: 193–204. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2004.03.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suetomi I, Fukushima Y, Ishida E, Isoyama R, Sawada S (2006) Estimation of detailed distribution of peak ground motion using observed records during the Niigata Chuetsu earthquake on October 23, 2004. In: Proceedings of First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC), 2006. Paper number 346Google Scholar
  23. Trifunac MD and Todorovska MI (2001). Evolution of accelerographs, data processing, strong motion arrays and amplitude and spatial resolution in recording strong earthquake motion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21(6): 537–555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wald DJ, Worden BC, Quitoriano V, Pankow KL (2006) ShakeMap manual. Technical Manual, users guide, and software guide Version 1.0, Advanced National Seismic System, June 2006Google Scholar
  25. Wang M and Takada T (2005). Macrospatial correlation model of seismic ground motions. Earthq Spectra 21(4): 1137–1156. doi: 10.1193/1.2083887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wells DL and Coppersmith KJ (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4): 974–1002 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARN/RIS, BRGMOrléans Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations