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

Long-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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Geologie en mijnbouw 2022-01, Vol.101, Article e16
Main Authors: Kruiver, Pauline P., Pefkos, Manos, Rodriguez-Marek, Adrian, Campman, Xander, Ooms-Asshoff, Kira, Chmiel, Małgorzata, Lavoué, Anaïs, Stafford, Peter J., van Elk, Jan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ambient noise
Arrays
Datasets
Earthquake engineering
Earthquakes
Environmental risk
Geological hazards
Ground motion
Oil and gas fields
Original Article
Sediments
Seismic activity
Seismic engineering
Seismic hazard
Seismic response
Seismic velocities
Seismicity
Soil profiles
Soil properties
Spatial variations
Stratigraphy
Surface water waves
Surface waves
Tomography
Velocity
Wave velocity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Long-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 (ML 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.
ISSN:0016-7746
1573-9708
DOI:10.1017/njg.2022.13