To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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 (VS), among other input parameters. To date, VS 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 VS profiles above the Groningen gas field were constructed using ambient noise surface wave tomography. These so-called field VS data, even though spatially limited, provide an independent source of VS 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 VS and the field VS (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 VS profiles agree within the uncertainty range generally accepted in geo-engineering. In addition, we compared modelled spectral accelerations using either field VS or model VS 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 VS and model VS 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 VS model in the GMM captures spatial variability in the site response and represents reliable input for the site response calculations.