Journal of Seismology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 87–100 | Cite as

Selection and ranking of ground motion models for seismic hazard analysis in the Pyrenees

  • Stéphane Drouet
  • Frank Scherbaum
  • Fabrice Cotton
  • Annie Souriau
Original Article


The issue addressed in this paper is the objective selection of appropriate ground motion models for seismic hazard assessment in the Pyrenees. The method of Scherbaum et al. (2004a) is applied in order to rank eight published ground motion models relevant to intraplate or to low deformation rate contexts. This method is based on a transparent and data-driven process which quantifies the model fit and also measures how well the underlying model assumptions are met. The method is applied to 15 accelerometric records obtained in the Pyrenees for events of local magnitude between 4.8 and 5.1, corresponding to moment magnitudes ranging from 3.7 to 3.9. Only stations at rock sites are considered. A total of 720 spectral amplitudes are used to rank the selected ground motion models. Some control parameters of these models, such as magnitude and distance definitions, may vary from one model to the other. It is thus important to correct the selected models for their difference with respect to the magnitude and distance definitions used for the Pyrenean data. Our analysis shows that, with these corrections, some of the ground motion models successfully fit the data. These are the Lussou et al. (2001) and the Berge-Thierry et al. (2003) models. According to the selected ground motion models, a possible scenario of a magnitude 6 event is proposed; it predicts response spectra accelerations of 0.08–0.1 g at 1 Hz at a hypocentral distance of 10 km.

Key words

seismic hazard ground motion models acceleration response spectra Pyrenees 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrahamson NA, Shedlock KM (1997) Overview. Seismol Res Lett 68:9–23Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68:94–127Google Scholar
  3. Ambraseys NN, Free MW (1997) Surface-wave magnitude calibration for European region earthquakes. J Earthq Eng 1:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys N, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Int J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1997) Some comparison between recent ground-motion relations. Seismol Res Lett 68:24–40Google Scholar
  6. Bay F, Fäh D, Malagnini L, Giardini D (2003) Spectral shear-wave ground-motion scaling in Switzerland. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:414–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berge-Thierry C, Cotton F, Scotti O, Griot-Pommera DA, Fukushima Y (2003) New empirical response spectral attenuation laws for moderate European earthquakes. J Earthq Eng 7:193–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bommer J, Scherbaum F, Bungum H, Cotton F, Sabetta F, Abrahamson NA (2005) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 works. Seismol Res Lett 68:128–153Google Scholar
  10. Braunmiller J, Deichmann N, Giardini D, Wiemer S, SED Magnitude Working Group (2005) Homogeneous moment–magnitude calibration in Switzerland. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell W, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near source ground motion relations for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:314–331, Errata: vol. 93 p. 1413, vol. 94. p 2417Google Scholar
  12. Campillo M, Plantet JL (1991) Frequency dependence and spatial distribution of seismic attenuation in France: experimental results and possible interpretations. Phys Earth Planet Int 67:48–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campillo M, Plantet JL, Bouchon M (1985) Frequency-dependent attenuation in the crust beneath central France from L g waves: data analysis and numerical modelling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1395–1411Google Scholar
  14. Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Bommer J, Bungum H, Sabetta F (2006) Criteria for selecting and adapting ground-motion models for specific target regions Application to Central Europe and rock sites. J Seismol 10:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Mets C, Gordon RG, Argus DF, Stein S (1990) Current plate motions. Geophys J Int 101:425–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas J (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectra ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61:43–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drouet S, Souriau A, Cotton F (2005) Attenuation, seismic moments, and site effects for weak-motion events: application to the Pyrenees. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95 BSSA 95(5):1731–1748, doi:10.1785/0120040105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drouet S, Chevrot S, Cotton F, Souriau A (2006) Joint inversion of seismic moments, attenuation parameters and site effects from the French accelerometric data. EGU Meeting, 2–7 April 2006, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubos N, Sylvander M, Souriau A, Ponsolles C, Chevrot S, Fels JF, Benahmed S (2004) Analysis of the May 2002 earthquake sequence in the central Pyrenees, consequences for the evaluation of the seismic risk at Lourdes, France. Geophys J Int 156:527–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heaton T, Tajima F, Mori AW (1986) Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms. Surv Geophys 8:25–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambert J, Levret-Albaret A (1996) Mille ans de séismes en France. Ouest Editions, Presses Académiques, p 80Google Scholar
  22. Lussou P, Fukushima Y, Bard PY, Cotton F (2001) Seismic design regulation codes: contribution of Knet data to site effect evaluation. J Earthq Eng 5:13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marin S, Avouac J-P, Nicolas M, Schlupp A (2004) A probabilistic approach to seismic hazard in metropolitan France. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2137–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell BJ, Pan YP, Xie J, Cong L (1997) ig coda Q variation across Eurasia and its relation to crustal evolution. J Geophys Res 102:22767–22779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mooney WD, Laske G, Masters TG (1998) CRUST 5.1: a global crustal model at 5° × 5°. J Geophys Res 103:727–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nocquet JM, Calais E (2003) Crustal velocity field of western Europe from permanent GPS array solutions, 1996–2001. Geophys J Int 154:72–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reiter L (1990) Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights. Columbia University Press, New York, p 254Google Scholar
  28. Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1996) Estimation of ground motion and simulation of Nonstationary earthquake ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:337–352Google Scholar
  29. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004a) 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 Seismol Soc Am 94:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scherbaum F, Schmedes J, Cotton F (2004b) On the conversion of source-to-site distance measures for extended earthquake source model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1053–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scholz CH, Aviles CA, Wesnousky SG (1986) Scaling differences between large intraplate and interplate earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 76:65–70Google Scholar
  32. Singh SK, Herrmann RB (1983) Regionalization of crustal coda Q in the continental United States. J Geophys Res 88:527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Souriau A, Pauchet H (1998) A new synthesis of Pyrenean seismicity and its tectonic implications. Tectonophysics 290:221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Souriau A, Sylvander M, Rigo A, Fels J-F, Douchain J-M, Ponsolles C (2001) Sismotectonique des Pyrénées: principales contraintes sismologiques. Bull Soc Géol France 172:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steidl JH, Tumarkin AG, Archuleta RJ (1996) What is a reference site? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1733–1748Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Drouet
    • 1
  • Frank Scherbaum
    • 3
  • Fabrice Cotton
    • 4
  • Annie Souriau
    • 2
  1. 1.CEA DIF/DASE/LDGBruyères-le-ChatelFrance
  2. 2.OMP/CNRSToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Inst. GeowissenschaftenUniversität PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  4. 4.LGIT, Observatoire de GrenobleUniversité Joseph FourierGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations