4.6 Article

Simulations for the development of a ground motion model for induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands

期刊

BULLETIN OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 4441-4456

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10518-018-0479-5

关键词

Earthquake ground motion; Duration; Stochastic simulation; Finite-difference simulation; Seismic hazard

资金

  1. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (NAM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present simulations performed for the development of a ground motion model for induced earthquakes in the Groningen gas field. The largest recorded event, with M3.5, occurred in 2012 and, more recently, a M3.4 event in 2018 led to recorded ground accelerations exceeding 0.1g. As part of an extensive hazard and risk study, it has been necessary to predict ground motions for scenario earthquakes up to M7. In order to achieve this, while accounting for the unique local geology, a range of simulations have been performed using both stochastic and full-waveform finite-difference simulations. Due to frequency limitations and lack of empirical calibration of the latter approach, input simulations for the ground motion model used in the hazard and risk analyses have been performed with a finite-fault stochastic method. However, in parallel, extensive studies using the finite-difference simulations have guided inputs and modelling considerations for these simulations. Three approaches are used: (1) the finite-fault stochastic method, (2) elastic point- and (3) finite-source 3D finite-difference simulations. We present a summary of the methods and their synthesis, including both amplitudes and durations within the context of the hazard and risk model. A unique form of wave-propagation with strong lateral focusing and defocusing is evident in both peak amplitudes and durations. The results clearly demonstrate the need for a locally derived ground motion model and the potential for reduction in aleatory variability in moving toward a path-specific fully non-ergodic model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据