Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 11, pp 4681–4717 | Cite as

Toward an empirical ground motion prediction equation for France: accounting for regional differences in the source stress parameter

  • Gabriele Ameri
  • Stéphane Drouet
  • Paola Traversa
  • Dino Bindi
  • Fabrice Cotton
Original Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In low-to-moderate seismicity regions such as metropolitan France, characterized by limited strong-motion records in the magnitude-distance range of interest for seismic hazard assessment, the derivation of empirical ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) is a major challenge. In this study, we take advantage of the RESORCE-2013 database (http://resorce-portal.eu/) that contains uniformly processed records for the Pan-European region including relevant number of French records. After discussing the metadata for French events and stations, we first derive a base-case GMPE that is used to investigate the within-event and between-event residuals. The short-period between-event residuals for French (and Swiss) events show larger variability with respect to larger magnitude events in other regions. We show that the between-event residuals are clearly correlated with the stress parameter and that such larger variability can be explained by accounting for stress-parameter scaling. We derive an empirical scaling of ground motion with stress parameter that is consistent across regions and with the scaling predicted by stochastic GMPEs. This suggests that the scaling of ground motion with stress parameter for a given magnitude is largely region independent whereas the absolute stress parameter values may vary regionally. Based on these results we propose to adopt the scaling model as a function of stress parameter and magnitude by Yenier and Atkinson (Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):1989–2009, 2015) by adapting the reference stress parameter to our target regions. By accounting for stress parameter scaling in the GMPE we reduce the between-event variability for French and Swiss small-magnitude events. Finally, we investigate the aleatory variability (σ) of the GMPE and its components (τ, ϕ, ϕss). We propose a heteroscedastic σ model to be used when the stress-parameter scaling is not considered in the GMPEs due to lack of information. If enough information on the stress-parameter is available the adjusted GMPE can be applied using a homoscedastic σ. Despite using small events, the ϕss for French stations is found to be consistent with other studies and confirms the stability of ϕss across different regions and datasets.

Keywords

GMPEs France Regional stress-parameter SIGMA 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the SeIsmic Ground-Motion Assessment (SIGMA) project funded by EDF, AREVA, CEA and ENEL. The authors would like to warmly thank the coordination team, as well as all the participants in the project, for the stimulating discussions during the project workshops. The SIGMA scientific committee members Frank Scherbaum, John Douglas, Jean Savy provided useful comments and criticism on early versions of this study. We thank two anonymous reviewers for the careful revisions the helped improving the quality of the paper.

Supplementary material

10518_2017_171_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 12 kb)
10518_2017_171_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 12 kb)
10518_2017_171_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 15 kb)
10518_2017_171_MOESM4_ESM.xls (30 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLS 30 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(1):505–510Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson N, Silva W (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24:67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the middle east. Seismol Res Lett 81(2):195–206. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Traversa P, Godey S, Frobert L, Douglas J, Hernandez B, Ameri G, Luzi L, Cotton F (2013) Database of earthquake ground motion. RESORCE 2013 version. Deliverable D2-91, SIGMA ProjectGoogle Scholar
  5. Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Şenyurt M, Sisi AA, Ay BO, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (2014a) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339. doi: 10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014b) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):359–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Al Atik L, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81(5):794–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ameri G (2014) Empirical ground motion model adapted to the French context. Deliverable SIGMA Project. Ref. SIGMA-2014-D2-131Google Scholar
  9. Ameri G, Oth A, Pilz M, Bindi D, Parolai S, Luzi L, Mucciarelli M, Cultrera G (2011) Separation of source and site effects by generalized inversion technique using the aftershock recordings of the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 9(3):717–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ameri G, Hollender F, Perron V, Martin C (2017) Site-specific partially nonergodic PSHA for a hard-rock critical site in southern France: adjustment of ground motion prediction equations and sensitivity analysis. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0118-6 Google Scholar
  11. Anderson JG, Brune JN (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment without the ergodic assumption. Seismol Res Lett 70:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Anderson JG, Hough SE (1984) A model for the shape of the fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74:1969–1993Google Scholar
  13. Atkinson G (2006) Single-station sigma. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for Eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Atkinson GM, Morrison M (2009) Regional variability in ground motion amplitudes along the west coast of North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2393–2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Baize S, Cushing EM, Lemeille F, Jomard H (2013) Updated seismotectonic zoning scheme of Metropolitan France, with reference to geologic and seismotectonic data. Bull Soc Géol 184(3):225–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bindi D, Parolai S, Grosser H, Milkereit C, Durukal E (2007) Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for northwestern Turkey using the aftershocks of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 34:L08305. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P (2014) Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull Earthq Eng 12:391–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bommer JJ, Akkar S (2012) Consistent source-to-site distance metrics in ground-motion prediction equations and seismic source models for PSHA. Earthq Spectra 28(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24:99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boore DM, Campbell KW, Atkinson GM (2010) Determination of stress parameters for eight well-recorded earthquakes in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:1632–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, Al Atik L, Ancheta TD, Atkinson GM, Baker J, Baltay A, Boore DM, Campbell KW, Chiou BS-J, Darragh RB, Day S, Donahue J, Graves RW, Gregor N, Hanks T, Idriss IM, Kamai R, Kishida T, Kottke A, Mahin SA, Rezaeian S, Rowshandel B, Seyhan E, Shahi S, Shantz T, Silva WJ, Spudich P, Stewart JP, Watson-Lamprey J, Wooddell KE, Youngs RR (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthq Spectra 30:973–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brune J (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1087–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cara M, Schlupp A, Sira et C (2007) Observations sismologiques : sismicité de la France en 2003, 2004, 2005. Bureau central sismologique français, ULP/EOST - CNRS/INSU, Strasbourg. Available at http://www.franceseisme.fr/donnees/publi/2003-2005/OBS_SISMO_2003-05_W.pdf
  28. Cara M, Cansi Y, Schlupp A et al (2015) SI-Hex: a new catalogue of instrumental seismicity for metropolitan France. Bull Soc Géol Fr 186:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cara M, Denieul M, Delouis O, Sèbe B, Cansi Y, Schlupp A (2016) Magnitude Mw in metropolitan France. J Seismol. doi: 10.1007/s10950-016-9617-1 Google Scholar
  30. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, Bianchini A (2015) Updated 561 predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1587–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24:173–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cotton F, Archuleta R, Causse M (2013) What is sigma of the stress drop? Seismol Res Lett 84:42–48. doi: 10.1785/0220120087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Courboulex F, Larroque C, Deschamps A, Kohrs-Sansorny C, Gélis C, Got JL, Charreau J, Stéphan JF, Béthoux N, Virieux J, Brunel D, Maron C, Duval AM, Perez J-L, Mondielli P (2007) Seismic hazard on the French Riviera: observations, interpretations and simulations. Geophys J Int 170:387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Douglas J (2004) An investigation of analysis of variance as a tool for exploring regional differences in strong ground motions. J Seismol 8:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Douglas J, Jousset P (2011) Modeling the difference in ground-motion magnitude-scaling in small and large earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 82(4):504–508. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.4.504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Douglas J, Gehl P, Bonilla LF, Gelis C (2010) A kappa model for mainland France. Pure Appl Geophys. doi: 10.1007/s00024-010-0146-5 Google Scholar
  37. Douglas J, Akkar S, Ameri G, Bard P-Y, Bindi D, Bommer JJ, Bora SS, Cotton F, Derras B, Hermkes M, Kuehn NM, Luzi L, Massa M, Pacor F, Riggelsen C, Sandikkaya MA, Scherbaum F, Stafford PJ, Traversa P (2014) Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:341–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Drouet S, Cotton F (2015) Regional stochastic GMPEs in low-seismicity areas: scaling and aleatory variability analysis—application to the French alps. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:1883–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Drouet S, Chevrot S, Cotton F, Souriau A (2008) Simultaneous inversion of source spectra, attenuation parameters, and site responses: application to the data of the French accelerometric network. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:198–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Drouet S, Cotton F, Guéguen P (2010) Vs30, κ, regional attenuation and Mw from accelerograms: application to magnitude 3–5 French earthquakes. J Int, Geophys. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04626.x Google Scholar
  41. Edwards B, Fäh D (2013) A stochastic ground-motion model for Switzerland. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(1):78–98. doi: 10.1785/0120110331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Vanini M (2015) Evaluation of Probabilistic Site-Specific Seismic- Hazard Methods and Associated Uncertainties, with Applications in the Po Plain. North Italy Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2787–2807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Goertz-Allmann BP, Edwards B (2014) Constraints on crustal attenuation and three-dimensional spatial distribution of stress drop in Switzerland. Geophys J Int 196(1):493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kale O, Akkar S, Ansari A, Hamzehloo H (2015) A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV and 5%-damped response spectrum: investigation of possible regional effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:963–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kotha SR, Bindi D, Cotton F (2016) Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and Middle-East. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):1245–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ktenidou O-J, Cotton F, Abrahamson N, Anderson J (2014) Taxonomy of kappa: a review of definitions and estimation approaches targeted to applications. Seismol Res Lett. doi: 10.1785/0220130027 Google Scholar
  47. Laurendeau A, Cotton F, Ktenidou O-J, Bonilla L-F, Hollender F (2013) Rock and stiff-soil site amplification: dependency on VS30 and kappa (κ0). Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(6):3131–3148. doi: 10.1785/0120130020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Gallipoli MR, Bindi D, Mucciarelli M (2011) Proposal for a soil classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to Vs, 30. Bull Earthq Eng 9(6):1877–1898. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9274-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luzi L, Bindi D, Puglia R, Pacor F, Oth A (2014) Single-station sigma for Italian strong-motion stations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(1):467–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oth A, Bindi D, Parolai S, Di Giacomo D (2010) Earthquake scaling characteristics and the scale-(in)dependence of seismic energy-to-moment ratio: insights from KiK-net data in Japan. Geophys Res Lett 37:L19304. doi: 10.1029/2010GL044572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oth A, Bindi D, Parolai S, Di Giacomo D (2011) Spectral analysis of K-NET and KiK-net data in Japan, Part II: on attenuation characteristics, source spectra, and site response of borehole and surface stations. Bull Seism Soc Am 101(2):667–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parolai S, Bindi D, Durukal E, Grosser H, Milkereit C (2007) Source parameters and seismic moment-magnitude scaling for northwestern Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:655–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Péquegnat C, Guéguen P, Hatzfeld D, Langlais M (2008) The french accelerometric network (RAP) and national data centre (RAP-NDC). Seismol Res Lett 79(1):79–89. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.79.1.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Péquegnat C, Jacquot R, Guéguen P, Godey S, Frobert L (2011) Distributed archive and single access system for accelerometric event data: a NERIES initiative. In: Akkar S, Gülkan P, van Eck T (eds) Earthquake data in engineering seismology. Geotechnical, geological, and earthquake engineering, vol 14(2). Springer, Berlin, pp 129–142. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0152-6_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Régnier J, Laurendeau A, Duval A-M, Gueguen P (2010) From heterogeneous set of soil data to vs profile: application on the French permanent accelerometric network (RAP) sites. In: Proceedings of fourteenth ECEE—European conference of earthquake engineering. Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, Paper ID 851Google Scholar
  56. Rietbrock A, Strasser FO, Edwards B (2013) A stochastic earthquake ground-motion prediction model for the United Kingdom. Bull Seism Soc Am 103:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rigo A, Souriau A, Dubos N, Sylvander M, Ponsolles C (2005) Analysis of the seismicity in the central part of the Pyrenees (France), and tectonic implications. J Seism 9:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roca A, Guéguen P, Godey S, Goula X, Susagna T, Péquegnat C, Oliveira CS, Clinton J, Pappaioanou C, Zulficar C (2011) The European-mediterranean distributed accelerometric database. In: Akkar S, Gülkan P, van Eck T (eds) Earthquake data in engineering seismology. Geotechnical, geological, and earthquake engineering, vol 14(2). Sprinegr, Berlin, pp 115–128. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0152-6_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F, Bonilla F (2011) Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bull Seism Soc Am 101:1242–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodriguez-Marek A, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA, Akkar S, Al Atik L, Edwards B, Montalva GA, Dawood HM (2013) A model for single-station standard deviation using data from various tectonic regions. Seism Soc Am, Bull. doi: 10.1785/0120130030 Google Scholar
  61. Rodriguez-Marek A, Rathje EM, Stafford PJ, Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ (2014) Application of single-station sigma and site response analyses in a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new nuclear site. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:1601–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stafford PJ (2014) Crossed and nested mixed-effects approaches for enhanced model development and removal of the ergodic assumption in empirical ground-motion models. Bull Seism Soc Am 104(2):702–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sylvander M, Souriau A, Rigo A, Tocheport A, Toutain J, Ponsolles C, Benahmed S (2008) The 2006 november, ML = 5.0 earthquake near Lourdes (France): new evidence for NS extension across the Pyrenees. Geophys J Int 175:649–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thouvenot F, Frechet J, Jenatton L, Garmond JF (2003) The Belledone border fault: identification of an active seismic strike-slip fault in the western Alps. Geophys J Int 155:174–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Traversa P, Akkar S, Ameri G, Cotton F, Douglas J, Frobert L, Godey S, Hernandez B, Luzi L, Sandıkkaya MA (2015) RESORCE: a ground motion database. In: Proceedings of the 9th AFPS meeting, Marne-la-Vallée, 30/11–02/12/2015, p 11Google Scholar
  66. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seism Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  67. White Halbert (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838. doi: 10.2307/1912934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yenier E, Atkinson GM (2014) Equivalent point-source modeling of moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes and associated groundmotion saturation effects. Bull Seism Soc Am 104:1458–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yenier E, Atkinson GM (2015) Regionally adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation based on equivalent point-source simulations: application to central and eastern north America. Bull Seism Soc Am 105(4):1989–2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Youngs RR, Abrahamson N, Makdisi FI, Singh K (1995) Magnitude-dependent variance of peak ground acceleration. Bull Seism Soc Am 85(4):1161–1176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geoter SAS - FugroAuriolFrance
  2. 2.EDF, CEIDRE/TEGG/SGGAix-en-ProvenceFrance
  3. 3.German Research Centre for Geosciences, GFZPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations