Comparing predicted and observed ground motions from subduction earthquakes in the Lesser Antilles

Abstract

This brief article presents a quantitative analysis of the ability of eight published empirical ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for subduction earthquakes (interface and intraslab) to estimate observed earthquake ground motions on the islands of the Lesser Antilles (specifically Guadeloupe, Martinique, Trinidad and Dominica). In total, over 300 records from 22 earthquakes from various seismic networks are used within the analysis. It is found that most of the GMPEs tested perform poorly, which is mainly due to a larger variability in the observed ground motions than predicted by the GMPEs, although two recent GMPEs derived using Japanese strong-motion data provide reasonably good predictions. Analyzing separately the interface and intraslab events does not significant modify the results. Therefore, it is concluded that seismic hazard assessments for this region should use a variety of GMPEs in order to capture this large epistemic uncertainty in earthquake ground-motion prediction for the Lesser Antilles.

Validating Intensity Prediction Equations for Italy by Observations

“…Testing is important for validating decisions made based on model predictions; test results form the basis of model improvement. Recently, the importance of model validation using independent observations has been recognized by the engineering seismology community: since the completion of the first phase of the Next Generation Attenuation project (Power et al, 2008), there have been a number of studies dedicated to validating and comparing the newly developed GMPEs (Stafford et al, 2008;Delavaud et al, 2009Delavaud et al, , 2012Douglas and Mohais, 2009;Scasserra et al, 2009;Kaklamanos and Baise, 2011;Arango et al, 2012;Beauval et al, 2012;Vilanova et al, 2012). Through these studies, the improvements in predictive power of the new models over old models are documented and the applicability of individual models to specific regions are tested.…”

Geodetic Strain Observations and Return Period of the Strongest Earthquakes of a Given Seismic Source Zone

“…Statistical methods have contributed substantially to the development of seismic risk assessment, yet they are not able to predict the expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) with an accuracy that is required nowadays. Predicted and observed acceleration values differs substantially (DOUGLAS and MOHAIS, 2009;PANZA et al, 2004) (Table 2).…”

Estimation of design basis earthquake using region-specific Mmax, for the NPP site at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India

“…earthquake source, path and site attributes at the same time. GMPE developments over the past four decades have shown rather consistency in the associated variability and epistemic uncertainty notwithstanding the increasing complexities (Strasser et al, 2009;Douglas and Mohais, 2009;Douglas, 2010;Nath and Thingbaijam, 2011). This necessitates the selection and ranking of GMPEs Cotton et al, 2006;Sabetta et al, 2005;Scherbaum et al, 2004Scherbaum et al, , 2005Hintersberger et al, 2007;Nath and Thingbaijam, 2011) and consequent usage of multiple GMPEs in a logic tree framework for the hazard analysis.…”