Recent tsunami events have highlighted the importance of effective tsunami risk management strategies (including land-use planning, structural and natural mitigation, warning systems, education and evacuation planning). However, the rarity of tsunami means that empirical data concerning reactions to tsunami warnings and evacuation behaviour is rare when compared to findings for evacuations from other hazards. More knowledge is required to document the full evacuation process, including responses to warnings, pre-evacuation actions, evacuation dynamics, and the return home. Tsunami evacuation modelling has the potential to inform evidence-based tsunami risk planning and response. However, to date, tsunami evacuation models have largely focused on the timings of evacuations, rather than behaviours of those evacuating. In this research, survey data was gathered from coastal communities in Banks Peninsula and Christchurch, New Zealand, relating to behaviours and actions during the November 14th 2016 Kaikōura earthquake tsunami. Survey questions asked about immediate actions following the earthquake shaking, reactions to tsunami warnings, pre-evacuation actions, evacuation dynamics and details on congestion. This data was analysed to characterise trends and identify factors that influenced evacuation actions and behaviour, and was further used to develop a realistic evacuation model prototype to evaluate the capacity of the roading network in Banks Peninsula during a tsunami evacuation. The evacuation model incorporated tsunami risk management strategies that have been implemented by local authorities, and exposure and vulnerability data, alongside the empirical data collected from the survey. This research enhances knowledge of tsunami evacuation behaviour and reactions to tsunami warnings, and can be used to refine evacuation planning to ensure that people can evacuate efficiently, thereby reducing their tsunami exposure and personal risk.
Designing a structure for higher- than-code seismic performance can result in significant economic and environmental benefits. This higher performance can be achieved using the principles of Performance-Based Design, in which engineers design structures to minimize the probabilistic lifecycle seismic impacts on a building. Although the concept of Performance-Based Design is not particularly new, the initial capital costs associated with designing structures for higher performance have historically hindered the widespread adoption of performance-based design practices. To overcome this roadblock, this research is focused on providing policy makers and stakeholders with evidence-based environmental incentives for designing structures in New Zealand for higher seismic performance. In the first phase of the research, the environmental impacts of demolitions in Christchurch following the Canterbury Earthquakes were quantified to demonstrate the environmental consequences of demolitions following seismic events. That is the focus here. A building data set consisting of 142 concrete buildings that were demolished following the earthquake was used to quantify the environmental impacts of the demolitions in terms of the embodied carbon and energy in the building materials. A reduced set of buildings was used to develop a material takeoff model to estimate material quantities in the entire building set, and a lifecycle assessment tool was used to calculate the embodied carbon and energy in the materials. The results revealed staggering impacts in terms of the embodied carbon and energy in the materials in the demolished buildings. Ongoing work is focused developing an environmental impact framework that incorporates all the complex factors (e.g. construction methodologies, repair methodologies (if applicable), demolition methodologies (if applicable), and waste management) that contribute to the environmental impacts of building repair and demolition following earthquakes.
This poster presents work to date on ground motion simulation validation and inversion for the Canterbury, New Zealand region. Recent developments have focused on the collection of different earthquake sources and the verification of the SPECFEM3D software package in forward and inverse simulations. SPECFEM3D is an open source software package which simulates seismic wave propagation and performs adjoint tomography based upon the spectral-element method. Figure 2: Fence diagrams of shear wave velocities highlighting the salient features of the (a) 1D Canterbury velocity model, and (b) 3D Canterbury velocity model. Figure 5: Seismic sources and strong motion stations in the South Island of New Zealand, and corresponding ray paths of observed ground motions. Figure 3: Domain used for the 19th October 2010 Mw 4.8 case study event including the location of the seismic source and strong motion stations. By understanding the predictive and inversion capabilities of SPECFEM3D, the current 3D Canterbury Velocity Model can be iteratively improved to better predict the observed ground motions. This is achieved by minimizing the misfit between observed and simulated ground motions using the built-in optimization algorithm. Figure 1 shows the Canterbury Velocity Model domain considered including the locations of small-to-moderate Mw events [3-4.5], strong motion stations, and ray paths of observed ground motions. The area covered by the ray paths essentially indicates the area of the model which will be most affected by the waveform inversion. The seismic sources used in the ground motion simulations are centroid moment tensor solutions obtained from GeoNet. All earthquake ruptures are modelled as point sources with a Gaussian source time function. The minimum Mw limit is enforced to ensure good signal-to-noise ratio and well constrained source parameters. The maximum Mw limit is enforced to ensure the point source approximation is valid and to minimize off-fault nonlinear effects.
his poster presents the ongoing development of a 3D Canterbury seismic velocity model which will be used in physics-based hybrid broadband ground motion simulation of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Velocity models must sufficiently represent critical aspects of the crustal structure over multiple length scales which will influence the results of the simulations. As a result, numerous sources of data are utilized in order to provide adequate resolution where necessary. Figure 2: (a) Seismic reflection line showing P-wave velocities and significant geologic horizons (Barnes et al. 2011), and (b) Shear wave profiles at 10 locations (Stokoe et al. 2013). Figure 4: Cross sections of the current version of the Canterbury velocity model to depths of 10km as shown in Figure 1: (a) at a constant latitude value of -43.6˚, and (b) at a constant longitude value of 172.64˚. 3. Ground Surface and Geologic Horizon Models Figure 3: (a) Ground surface model derived from numerous available digital elevation models, and (b) Base of the Quaternary sediments derived from structural contours and seismic reflection line elevations. The Canterbury region has a unique and complex geology which likely has a significant impact on strong ground motions, in particular the deep and loose deposits of the Canterbury basin. The Canterbury basin has several implications on seismic wave phenomena such as long period ground motion amplification and wave guide effects. Using a realistic 3D seismic velocity model in physics-based ground motion simulation will implicitly account for such effects and the resultant simulated ground motions can be studied to gain a fundamental understanding of the salient ground motion phenomena which occurred during the Canterbury earthquakes, and the potential for repeat occurrences in the Canterbury region. Figure 1 shows the current model domain as a rectangular area between Lat=[-43.2˚,-44.0˚], and Lon=[171.5˚,173.0˚]. This essentially spans the area between the foot of the Southern Alps in the North West to Banks Peninsula in the East. Currently the model extends to a depth of 50km below sea level.
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
