The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes were recorded over a dense strong motion network in the near-source region, yielding significant observational evidence of seismic complexities, and a basis for interpretation of multi-disciplinary datasets and induced damage to the natural and built environment. This paper provides an overview of observed strong motions from these events and retrospective comparisons with both empirical and physics-based ground motion models. Both empirical and physics-based methods provide good predictions of observations at short vibration periods in an average sense. However, observed ground motion amplitudes at specific locations, such as Heathcote Valley, are seen to systematically depart from ‘average’ empirical predictions as a result of near surface stratigraphic and topographic features which are well modelled via sitespecific response analyses. Significant insight into the long period bias in empirical predictions is obtained from the use of hybrid broadband ground motion simulation. The comparison of both empirical and physics-based simulations against a set of 10 events in the sequence clearly illustrates the potential for simulations to improve ground motion and site response prediction, both at present, and further in the future.
This paper presents an examination of ground motion observations from 20 near-source strong motion stations during the most significant 10 events in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake to examine region-specific systematic effects based on relaxing the conventional ergodic assumption. On the basis of similar site-to-site residuals, surfical geology, and geographical proximity, 15 of the 20 stations are grouped into four sub-regions: the Central Business District; and Western, Eastern, and Northern suburbs. Mean site-to-site residuals for these sub-regions then allows for the possibility of non-ergodic ground motion prediction over these sub-regions of Canterbury, rather than only at strong motion station locations. The ratio of the total non-ergodic vs. ergodic standard deviation is found to be, on average, consistent with previous studies, however it is emphasized that on a site-by-site basis the non-ergodic standard deviation can easily vary by ±20%.
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
A major hazard accompanying earthquake shaking in areas of steep topography is the detachment of rocks from bedrock outcrops that subsequently slide, roll, or bounce downslope (i.e. rockfalls). The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence caused recurrent and severe rockfall in parts of southern Christchurch. Coseismic rockfall caused five fatalities and significant infrastructural damage during the 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake. Here we examine a rockfall site in southern Christchurch in detail using geomorphic mapping, lidar analysis, geochronology (cosmogenic 3He dating, radiocarbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) from quartz, infrared stimulated luminescence from K-feldspar), numerical modeling of rockfall boulder trajectories, and ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Rocks fell from the source cliff only in earthquakes with interpolated peak ground velocities exceeding ~10 cm/s; hundreds of smaller earthquakes did not produce rockfall. On the basis of empirical observations, GMPEs and age chronologies we attribute paleo-rockfalls to strong shaking in prehistoric earthquakes. We conclude that earthquake shaking of comparable intensity to the strongest contemporary earthquakes in Christchurch last occurred at this site approximately 5000 to 7000 years ago, and that in some settings, rockfall deposits provide useful proxies for past strong ground motions.
