Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 1867–1884 | Cite as

On the selection of GMPEs for Vrancea subcrustal seismic source

  • Radu Vacareanu
  • Florin PavelEmail author
  • Alexandru Aldea
Original Research Paper


The Vrancea subcrustal seismic source is characterized by large magnitude (\(M_{W} \ge 7\)) intermediate-depth earthquakes that occur two or three times during a century on average. In this study several procedures are used to grade four candidate ground motion prediction equations proposed for Vrancea source in the SHARE project. In the work of Delavaud et al. (J Seismol 16(3):451–473, 2012) four ground motion prediction models developed for subduction zones (Zhao et al. in Bull Seism Soc Am 96(3):898–913, 2006; Atkinson and Boore in Bull Seism Soc Am 93(4):1703–1729, 2003; Youngs et al. in Seism Res Lett 68(1):58–73, 1997; Lin and Lee in Bull Seism Soc Am 98(1):220–240, 2008) are suggested as suitable for Vrancea subcrustal seismic source. The paper presents the appropriateness analysis of the four suggested ground motion prediction equations done using a dataset of 109 triaxial accelerograms recorded during seven Vrancea seismic events with moment magnitude \(M_{W}\) between 5.4 and 7.4, occurred in the past 35 years. The strong ground motions were recorded in Romania, as well as in Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova and Serbia. Based on the ground motion dataset several goodness-of-fit measures are used in order to quantify how well the selected models match with the recorded data. The compatibility of the four ground motion prediction models with respect to magnitude scaling and distance scaling implied by strong ground motion dataset is investigated as well. The analyses show that the Youngs et al. (Seism Res Lett 68(1):58–73, 1997) and Zhao et al. (Bull Seism Soc Am 96(3):898–913, 2006) ground motion prediction models have a better fit with the data and can be candidate models for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment.


Ground motion prediction equation Peak ground acceleration Acceleration response spectra Residual Likelihood 



The results presented in this paper are obtained within the BIGSEES Project financed by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research (ANCS) under the Grant Number 72/2012. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The constructive feedback from two anonymous reviewers is greatly appreciated. Their comments and suggestions assisted us in considerably improving the quality of the manuscript.


  1. Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seism Res Lett 81(5):794–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson G, Boore D (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(4):1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bommer J, Akkar S (2012) Consistent source-to-site distance metrics in ground-motion prediction equations and seismic source models for PSHA. Earthq Spec 28(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN1998–1:2004. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  5. Delavaud E, Cotton F, Akkar S, Scherbaum F, Danciu L, Beauval C, Drouet S, Douglas J, Basili R, Sandikkaya A, Segou M, Faccioli E, Theodoulidis N (2012) Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe. J Seismol 16(3):451–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas J, Mohais R (2009) Comparing predicted and observed ground motions from subduction earthquakes in the Lesser Antilles. J Seismol 13:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas J (2011) Ground-motion prediction equations 1964–2010. PEER Report 2011/102 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, Berkeley, California*Google Scholar
  8. Drouet S, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Souriau A (2007) Selection and ranking of ground motion models for seismic hazard analysis in the Pyrenees. J Seismol 11(1):87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hintersberger E, Scherbaum F, Hainzl S (2007) Update of likelihood-based ground-motion model selection for seismic hazard analysis in western central Europe. Bull Earthq Eng 5(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lin PS, Lee CT (2008) Ground-motion attenuation relationships for subduction-zone earthquakes in Northeastern Taiwan. Bull Seism Soc Am 98(1):220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lungu D, Demetriu S, Radu C, Coman O (1994) Uniform hazard response spectra for Vrnacea earthquakes in Romania. In: Duma J (ed) Proceedings of the 10th European conference on earthquake engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 365–370Google Scholar
  12. Lungu D, Arion C, Aldea A, Demetriu S (1999) Assessment of seismic hazard in Romania based on 25 years of strong ground motion instrumentation. In: Erdik M, Celebi M, Mihailov V, Apaydin N (eds) Proceedings of the NATO advanced research workshop on strong motion instrumentation for civil. Engineering structures, vol 373, pp 505–518Google Scholar
  13. Lungu D, Aldea A, Arion C, Demetriu S, Cornea T (2000) Microzonage Sismique de la ville de Bucarest - Roumanie. Cahier Technique de l’Association Française du Génie Parasismique 20:31–63Google Scholar
  14. Marmureanu G, Cioflan CO, Marmureanu A (2010) Research regarding the local seismic hazard (microzonation) of the Bucharest metropolitan area (in Romanian). Tehnopress, IasiGoogle Scholar
  15. Milsom J (2005) The Vrancea seismic zone and its analogue in the Banda arc, eastern Indonesia. Tectonophysics 410:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mocanu V (2010) Mantle flow in the Carpathian bend zone? Integration of GPS and geophysical investigations. Evolving Orogens of Eurasia-Africa-Arabia, Geological Society of America International Meeting, Ankara, Turkey, Tectonic CrossroadsGoogle Scholar
  17. Müller B, Heidbach O, Negut M, Sperner B, Buchmann T (2010) Attached or not attacehd - evidence from crustal stress observations for a weak coupling of the Vrancea slab in Romania. Tectonophysics 482(1–4):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musson R (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard maps for the North Balkan region. Ann di Geof 42(6):1109–1124Google Scholar
  19. NEHRP (1994) Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings. Part 1: Provisions. FEMA 222A, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Radulian M, Mândrescu N, Popescu E, Utale A, Panza G (2000) Characterization of Romanian seismic zones. Pure Appl Geophys 157:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romplus seismic catalogue.
  22. Scasserra G, Stewart J, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F (2009) A comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seism Soc Am 99(5):2961–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, 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 Seism Soc Am 94(6):2164–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen E (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seism Soc Am 99(6):3234–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sokolov V, Bonjer KP, Wenzel F, Grecu B, Radulian M (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the intermediate depth Vrancea (Romania) earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 6(3):367–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sperner B, Lorenz F, Bonjer KP, Hettel S, Muller B, Wenzel F (2001) Slab break-off -abrupt cut or gradual detachment? New insights from the Vrancea region (SE Carpathians, Romania). Terra Nova 13:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stafford P, Strasser F, Bommer J (2008) An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Bull Earthq Eng 6(2):149–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stamatovska S, Petrovski D (1996) Empirical attenuation acceleration laws for Vrancea intermediate earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 11th World conference on earthquake engineering, p 146Google Scholar
  29. Strasser FO, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ (2009) Sigma: Issues, insights and challenges. Seism Res Lett 1:40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trendafilovski G, Wyss M, Rosset P, Marmureanu G (2009) Constructing city models to estimate losses due to earthquakes worldwide: application to Bucharest. Romania Earthq Spec 25(3):665–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu CF (1986) Jackknife, bootstrap and other resampling methods in regression analysis. Ann Math Stat 14:1261–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Youngs RR, Chiou SJ, Silva WJ, Humphrey JR (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seism Res Lett 68(1):58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhao J, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio H, Somerville P, Fukushima Y, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seism Soc Am 96(3):898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of Civil Engineering BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations