Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 271–299 | Cite as

A preliminary investigation of strong-motion data from the French Antilles

  • John Douglas
  • Didier Bertil
  • Agathe Roullé
  • Pascal Dominique
  • Philippe Jousset
Article

Abstract

Strong-motion networks have been operating in the Caribbean region since the 1970s, however, until the mid-1990s only a few analogue stations were operational and the quantity of data recorded was very low. Since the mid-1990s, digital accelerometric networks have been established on islands within the region. At present there are thought to be about 160 stations operating in this region with a handful on Cuba, 65 on the French Antilles (mainly Guadeloupe and Martinique), eight on Jamaica, 78 on Puerto Rico (plus others on adjacent islands) and four on Trinidad.

After briefly summarising the available data from the Caribbean islands, this article is mainly concerned with analysing the data that has been recorded by the networks operating on the French Antilles in terms of their distribution with respect to magnitude, source-to-site distance, focal depth and event type; site effects at certain stations; and also with respect to their predictability by ground motion estimation equations developed using data from different regions of the world. More than 300 good quality triaxial acceleration time-histories have been recorded on Guadeloupe and Martinique at a large number of stations from earthquakes with magnitudes larger than 4.8, however, most of the records are from considerable source-to-site distances. From the data available it is found that many of the commonly-used ground motion estimation equations for shallow crustal earthquakes poorly estimate the observed ground motions on the two islands; ground motions on Guadeloupe and Martinique have smaller amplitudes and are more variable than expected. This difference could be due to regional dependence of ground motions because of, for example, differing tectonics or crustal structures or because the ground motions so far recorded are, in general, from smaller earthquakes and greater distances than the range of applicability of the investigated equations.

Keywords

Strong-motion data Caribbean French Antilles Ground-motion models Ground-motion estimation Attenuation relations Site effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (2001) Empirical ground motion models. Technical report, 1996. Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory. Cited in Stewart et al. (2001)Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters 68(1):94–127Google Scholar
  3. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (2005) Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3(1):1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys NN, Free MW (1997) Surface-wave magnitude calibration for European region earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(4), 1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90(2), 255–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengoubou-Valerius M, Bertil D, Bazin S, Bosson A, Beauducel F (2006) CDSA: New seismological data center for French West Indies. Seismological Research Letters. In preparation.Google Scholar
  8. Berge-Thierry C, Cotton F, Scotti O, Griot-Pommera DA, Fukushima Y (2003) New empirical response spectral attenuation laws for moderate European earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 7(2):193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernard P, Lambert J (1986) Macrosismicité des Petites Antilles: Compte rendu des effets du séisme du 16 mars 1985 et exploitation des accélérogrammes. Technical Report 86 SGN 003 GEG, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  10. Bernard P, Lambert J (1988) Subduction and seismic hazard in the northern Lesser Antilles: Revision of the historical seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 78(6):1965–1983Google Scholar
  11. Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA, Strasser FO, Pecker A, Bard PY, Bungum H, Cotton F, Fäh D, Sabetta F, Scherbaum F, Studer J (2004) The challenge of defining upper bounds on earthquake ground motions. Seismological Research Letters 75(1):82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Strasser FO (2003) Style-of-faulting in ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1(2):171–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boore DM (2001) Comparisons of ground motions from the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake with empirical, predictions largely based on data from California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 91(5):1212–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics 160:635–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response, spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work. Seismological Research Letters 68(1):128–153Google Scholar
  16. Bour M, Fouissac D, Dominique P, Martin C (1998) On the use of microtremor recordings in seismic microzonation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 17:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. BRGM (2005) La Banque du Sous-Sol. http://www.infoterre.brgm.frGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological Research Letters 68(1):154–179Google Scholar
  19. Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(3):1012–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell KW (2004) Erratum to ‘Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America'. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94(6):2418Google Scholar
  21. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground-motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(1):314–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Castro RR, Fabriol H, Bour M, Le Brun B (2003) Attenuation and site effects in the region of Guadeloupe, Lesser Antilles. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(2):612–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chassagneux D, Martin C, Monge O, Samarcq F, Sedan O (1996) Microzonage sismique des communes de Schoelcher, Fort-de-France et Lamentin: Effets de site et liquéfaction. Final report R 39186, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  24. Chávez-Garcĺa FJ, Bard PY (1994) Site effects in Mexico City eight years after the September 1985 Michoacan earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 13:229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crouse CB (1991) Ground-motion attenuation equations for earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zones. Earthquake Spectra 7(2):201–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dominique P, Sabourault P, Le Brun Réseau B (2001) Accéléromètrique Permanent RAP – Année 2001 – Rapport complèmentaire. Final report BRGM/RP51406-FR, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  27. Douglas J (2003a) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: A review of. equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth-Science Reviews 61(1–2):43–104Google Scholar
  28. Douglas J (2003b) A note on the use of strong-motion data from small magnitude earthquakes for empirical ground motion estimation. In: Skopje Earthquake 40 Years of European Earthquake Engineering (SE-40EEE)Google Scholar
  29. Douglas J (2004) Ground motion estimation equations 1964–2003: Reissue of ESEE Report No. 01-1: ‘A comprehensive worldwide summary of strong-motion attenuation relationships for peak ground acceleration and spectral ordinates (1969 to 2000)' with corrections and additions. Technical Report 04-001-SM, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine; London; UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Douglas J, Bungum H, Scherbaum F (2006) Ground-motion prediction equations for southern Spain and southern Norway obtained using the composite model perspective. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10(1):33–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Douglas J, Roullé A, Dominique P, Maurin C, Dunand F (2005) Traitement des données accélérométriques du Conseil Général de la Martinique. Final report BRGM/RP-53906-FR, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  32. Feuillet N, Manighetti I, Tapponnier P, Jacques E (2002) Arc parallel extension and localization of volcanic complexes in Guadeloupe, Lesser Antilles. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(B12):2331. DOI: 10.1029/2001JB000308Google Scholar
  33. Frohlich C, Apperson KD (1992) Earthquake focal mechanisms, moment tensors, and the consistency of seismic activity near plate boundaries. Tectonics 11(2):279–296Google Scholar
  34. Fukushima Y (1996) Scaling relations for strong ground motion prediction models with M2 terms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86(2):329–336Google Scholar
  35. Gagnepain-Beyneix J, Lepine JC, Nercessian A, Hirn A (1995) Experimental study of site effects in the Fort-de-France area (Martinique island). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 85:478–495Google Scholar
  36. Geli L, Bard PY, Jullien B (1988) The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: A review and new results. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 78(1):42–63Google Scholar
  37. Hanks TC, Johnson DA (1976) Geophysical assessment of peak accelerations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 66(3):959–968Google Scholar
  38. Jackson TA (1988) The development and present status of seismic research work in Jamaica, West Indies. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 58(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jousset P, Bés de Berc S, Fabriol H, Chouet B (2004) Monitoring and exploration of geothermal fields using broadband seismology: Application to Bouillante, Guadeloupe. In IAVCEI General Assembly, Pucon, ChileGoogle Scholar
  40. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71(6):2011–2038Google Scholar
  41. Knudson CF (1975) Seismic engineering program report. Circular 0717-A, U. S. Geological Survey, Seismic Engineering BranchGoogle Scholar
  42. Lachet C, Bard PY (1994) Numerical and theoretical investigations on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamura's technique. Journal of the Physics of the Earth 42:377–397Google Scholar
  43. Le Brun B, Bour M, Fabriol H, Dominique P, Sabourault P, Vermeersch F, Martin C, Demand J (2001) Xlème Contrat de plan Etat/Région Guadeloupe relatif et la prévention du risque sismique. Réseau accélérométrique de Pointe-à-Pitre: rapport final, synthèse des résultats acquis depuis 1994. Final report BRGM/RP-50501-FR, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  44. Lebrun B, Duval AM, Bard PY, Monge O, Bour M, Vidal S, Fabriol H (2004) Seismic microzonation: A comparison between geotechnical and seismological approaches in Pointe-á-Pitre (French West Indies). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2(1):27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lebrun B, Fabriol H, Bour M, Dominique P, Demand J (2000) Réseau accélérométrique de Pointe-á-Pitre : traitement et interpretation des données de l'année 1999. Final report BRGM/RR-40905-FR, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  46. Lermo J, Chávez-García FJ (1993) Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 83:1574–1594Google Scholar
  47. Lermo J, Chávez-García FJ (1994) Site effect evaluation at Mexico City: Dominant period and relative amplification from strong motion and microtremor records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 13:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lussou P, Bard PY, Cotton F, Fukushima Y (2001) Seismic design regulation codes: Contribution of K-Net data to site effect evaluation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 5(1):13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martin C (1993) Restructuration du réseau accélérométrique permanent des Antilles françaises. Technical Report R 37822 PR9304232013, BRGM, France, Oct 1993. In French.Google Scholar
  50. Martin C, Chassagneux D, Dominique P (1994a) Nouvelle méthodologie de réalisation des microzonages sismiques – Application au microzonage de Jarry-Baie Mahault (Guadeloupe). Final report R 38053, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  51. Martin C, Chassagneux D, Dominique P (2003) Nouvelle méthodologie de réalisation des microzonages sismiques – Application au microzonage du Lamentin (Martinique). Final report R 38031, BRGM, France, 1994b. In French.Google Scholar
  52. J. A. Martinez-Cruzado (2003) An overview of the Puerto Rico strong motion network. Seismological Research Letters 74(2):205Google Scholar
  53. Mompelat JM, Le Brun B, Bertil D, Bitri A, Lembezat C, Pirrion T, Sabourault P, Vinćon J (2003) Microzonage sismique des communes de Basse-Terre, Saint Claude, Gourbeyre et Baillif (Guadeloupe). Final report BRGM/RP-52190-FR, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  54. Monge O (1997) Microzonage sismique de l'agglomération pontoise, Guadeloupe Reconnaissances spécifiques et étude de l'aléa sismique local. Final report R 39710, BRGM, France. In French. With the collaboration of P. Mouroux and C. Martin.Google Scholar
  55. Monge O, Vermeersh F, Martin C (1998) Microzonage sismique de l'agglomération pontoise, Guadeloupe: Extension aux communes des Abymes et du Gosier et homogénéisation. Technical Report R 39213, BRGM, France. In French. With the collaboration of A. Bourrousse and M. Terrier.Google Scholar
  56. Motazedian D, Atkinson G (2005) Ground-motion relations for Puerto Rico. In P. Mann, editor, Special Paper 385: Active Tectonics and Seismic Hazards of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Offshore Areas, pages 61–80. The Geological Society of America.Google Scholar
  57. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. QR of RTR1 30(1):25–32Google Scholar
  58. Sadigh K, Chang CY, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs R (1997) Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismological Research Letters 68(1):180–189.Google Scholar
  59. Sadigh RK, Egan JA (1998) Updated relationships for horizontal peak ground velocity and peak ground displacement for shallow crustal earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  60. Samarcq F, Dominique P, Martin C (1999) Réseau accélérométrique des Antilles (Guadeloupe, Martinique). Final report BRGM/RR-39207-FR, BRGM, France. In French.Google Scholar
  61. Samarcq F, Martin C, Smit P (1998) Contribution of Guadeloupe accelerometer network data for local hazard assessment. In: Proceedings of Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  62. Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA (2005) Composite ground-motion models and logic-trees: Methodology, sensitivities and uncertainties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95(5):1575–1593. DOI: 10.1785/0120040229.Google Scholar
  63. 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. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94(6):2164–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Somerville PG (2003) Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 137:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spudich P, Joyner WB, Lindh AG, Boore DM, Margaris BM, Fletcher JB (1999) SEA99: A revised ground motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regimes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89(5):1156–1170Google Scholar
  66. Stewart JP, Chiou SJ, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG, Abrahamson NA (2001) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. PEER Report 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  67. Tanner JG, Shedlock KM (2004) Seismic hazard maps of Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. Tectonophysics 390:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Travasarou T, Bray JD, Abrahamson NA (2003) Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32:1133–1155. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.270Google Scholar
  69. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65(3):581–626Google Scholar
  70. Wessel P, Smith WHF (1991) Free software helps map and display data. EOS Transactions AGU 72:441Google Scholar
  71. Westercamp D, Andreieff P (1989) Carte géologique à l'échelle du 1/50000: Martinique avec notice explicative. BRGM, France.Google Scholar
  72. Youngs RR, Chiou SJ, Silva WJ, Humphrey JR (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters 68(1):58–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Douglas
    • 1
  • Didier Bertil
    • 2
  • Agathe Roullé
    • 1
  • Pascal Dominique
    • 1
  • Philippe Jousset
    • 1
  1. 1.BRGMOrléans Cedex 2France
  2. 2.BRGMGourbeyre, GuadeloupeFrance

Personalised recommendations