This manuscript provides a critical examination of the ground motions recorded in the near-source region resulting from the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Particular attention is given to reconciling the observed spatial distribution of ground motions in terms of physical phenomena related to source, path and site effects. The large number of near-source observed strong ground motions show clear evidence of: forward-directivity, basin generated surface waves, liquefaction and other significant nonlinear site response. The pseudo-acceleration response spectra (SA) amplitudes and significant duration of strong motions agree well with empirical prediction models, except at long vibration periods where the influence of basin-generated surface waves and nonlinear site response are significant and not adequately accounted for in empirical SA models. Pseudo-acceleration response spectra are also compared with those observed in the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and routine design response spectra used in order to emphasise the amplitude of ground shaking and elucidate the importance of local geotechnical characteristics on surface ground motions. The characteristics of the observed vertical component accelerations are shown to be strongly dependent on source-to-site distance and are comparable with those from the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, implying the large amplitudes observed are simply a result of many observations at close distances rather than a peculiar source effect.
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.
This paper provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the Christchurch central business district in the 4 September 2010 Mw7.1 Darfield, and 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquakes with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. Despite Tokyo being located approximately 110km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were strong enough to cause structural damage in Tokyo and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo bay. Comparisons include the strong motion time histories, response spectra, significant durations and arias intensity. The implications for large earthquakes in New Zealand are also briefly discussed.
This paper provides an overview of the salient aspects of the dense array of ground motions observed in the 4 September 2010 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. Particular attention is given to inferred physical reasons for the observed ground motions, which include: (i) source features such as forward directivity effects; (ii) The effects of the Canterbury Plains sedimentary basin on basin-generated surface waves, and waveguide effects through the region; and (iii) the importance of local site response as evidenced by observations of large long period amplification and liquefaction. The significance of vertical ground motion intensity is also examined.
The University of Canterbury has initialized a research program focusing on the seismic sustainability of structures. As part of this program, the relative seismic sustainability of various structures will be assessed to identify those with the highest sustainability for the Christchurch rebuild and general use in New Zealand. This preliminary case study assesses one reinforced concrete (RC) frame structure and one RC wall structure. The scenario loss is evaluated for two earthquake records considering direct losses only in order to explain and illustrate the methodology.
The 4 September 2010 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes caused significant damage to Christchurch and surrounding suburbs as a result of the widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading that occurred. Ground surveying-based field investigations were conducted following these two events in order to measure permanent ground displacements in areas significantly affected by lateral spreading. Data was analysed with respect to the distribution of lateral spreading vs. distance from the waterway, and the failure patterns observed. Two types of failure distribution patterns were observed, a typical distributed pattern and an atypical block failure. Differences in lateral spreading measurements along adjacent banks of the Avon River in the area of Dallington were also examined. The spreading patterns between the adjacent banks varied with the respective river geometry and/or geotechnical conditions at the banks.
Novel Gel-push sampling was employed to obtain high quality samples of Christchurch sands from the Central Business District, at sites where liquefaction was observed in 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011 earthquakes. The results of cyclic triaxial testing on selected undisturbed specimens of typical Christchurch sands are presented and compared to empirical procedures used by practitioners. This comparison suggests cyclic triaxial data may be conservative, and the Magnitude Scaling Factor used in empirical procedures may be unconservative for highly compressible soils during near source moderate to low magnitude events. Comparison to empirical triggering curves suggests the empirical method generally estimates the cyclic strength of Christchurch sands within a reasonable degree of accuracy as a screening evaluation tool for liquefaction hazard, however for sands with moderate to high fines content it may be significantly unconservative, highlighting the need for high quality sampling and testing on important projects where seismic performance is critical.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand experienced four earthquakes greater than MW 6.0 between September 2010 and December 2011. This study employs system dynamics as well as hazard, recovery and organisational literature and brings together data collected via surveys, case studies and interviews with organisations affected by the earthquakes. This is to show how systemic interactions and interdependencies within and between industry and geographic sectors affect their recovery post-disaster. The industry sectors in the study are: construction for its role in the rebuild, information and communication technology which is a regional high-growth industry, trucking for logistics, critical infrastructure, fast moving consumer goods (e.g. supermarkets) and hospitality to track recovery through non-discretionary and discretionary spend respectively. Also in the study are three urban centres including the region’s largest Central Business District, which has been inaccessible since the earthquake of 22 February 2011 to the time of writing in February 2013. This work also highlights how earthquake effects propagated between sectors and how sectors collaborated to mitigate difficulties such as product demand instability. Other interacting factors are identified that influence the recovery trajectories of the different industry sectors. These are resource availability, insurance payments, aid from central government, and timely and quality recovery information. This work demonstrates that in recovering from disaster it is crucial for organisations to identify what interacting factors could affect their operations. Also of importance are efforts to reduce the organisation’s vulnerability and increase their resilience to future crises and in day-to-day operations. Lastly, the multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the recovery and resilience of organisations and industry sectors after disaster, leads to a better understanding of effects as well as more effective recovery policy.
A preliminary case study assessing the seismic sustainability of two reinforced concrete structures, a frame structure and a wall structure, was conducted to determine which structural system is more seismically sustainable. The two structures were designed to the same standards and were assumed to be located in Christchurch, New Zealand. A component-based probabilistic seismic loss assessment, considering direct losses only, was conducted for two ground motion records, regarded to approximately represent a 1 in 500 year earthquake event and a 1 in 2500 year earthquake event, respectively. It is shown that the wall structure results in lower direct losses than the frame structure in the less severe ground motion scenario. However, in the more severe ground motion scenario, the frame structure results in lower direct losses. Hence, this study demonstrates that which structural system has the lower direct losses depends on the ground motion intensity level.
The Mw 6.2 February 22nd 2011 Christchurch earthquake (and others in the 2010-2011 Canterbury sequence) provided a unique opportunity to study the devastating effects of earthquakes first-hand and learn from them for future engineering applications. All major events in the Canterbury earthquake sequence caused widespread liquefaction throughout Christchurch’s eastern suburbs, particularly extensive and severe during the February 22nd event. Along large stretches of the Avon River banks (and to a lesser extent along the Heathcote) significant lateral spreading occurred, affecting bridges and the infrastructure they support. The first stage of this research involved conducting detailed field reconnaissance to document liquefaction and lateral spreading-induced damage to several case study bridges along the Avon River. The case study bridges cover a range of ages and construction types but all are reinforced concrete structures which have relatively short, stiff decks. These factors combined led to a characteristic deformation mechanism involving deck-pinning and abutment back-rotation with consequent damage to the abutment piles and slumping of the approaches. The second stage of the research involved using pseudo-static analysis, a simplified seismic modelling tool, to analyse two of the bridges. An advantage of pseudo-static analysis over more complicated modelling methods is that it uses conventional geotechnical data in its inputs, such as SPT blowcount and CPT cone resistance and local friction. Pseudo-static analysis can also be applied without excessive computational power or specialised knowledge, yet it has been shown to capture the basic mechanisms of pile behaviour. Single pile and whole bridge models were constructed for each bridge, and both cyclic and lateral spreading phases of loading were investigated. Parametric studies were carried out which varied the values of key parameters to identify their influence on pile response, and computed displacements and damages were compared with observations made in the field. It was shown that pseudo-static analysis was able to capture the characteristic damage mechanisms observed in the field, however the treatment of key parameters affecting pile response is of primary importance. Recommendations were made concerning the treatment of these governing parameters controlling pile response. In this way the future application of pseudo-static analysis as a tool for analysing and designing bridge pile foundations in liquefying and laterally spreading soils is enhanced.
This paper provides a summary of the ground motions observed in the recent Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence. The sequence occurred in a region of relatively moderate seismicity, 130km to the east of the Alpine Fault, the major plate-boundary in the region. From an engineering perspective, the sequence has been primarily comprised of the initial 04/09/2010 Darfield earthquake (Mw7.1) followed by the 22/02/2011 Christchurch earthquake (Mw6.3), and two aftershocks on 13/06/ 2011 (Mw5.3 and 6.0, respectively). The dense spacing of strong motions in the region, and their close proximity to the respective causative faults, has resulted in strong ground motions far exceeding the previous catalogue of strong motion observed in New Zealand. The observed ground motions have exhibited clear evidence of: (i) near-source directivity; (ii) sedimentary basin focusing, amplification and basin effect refraction; (iii) non-linear site response; (iv) cyclic mobility postliquefaction; and (v) extreme vertical ground motions exceeding 2g, among others.
The objective of this study is to examine the influence of near-fault motions on liquefaction triggering in Christchurch and neighboring towns during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). The CES began with the 4 September 2010, Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake and included up to ten events that triggered liquefaction. However, most notably, widespread liquefaction was induced by the Darfield earthquake and the Mw6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Of particular relevance to this study is the forward directivity effects that were prevalent in the motions recorded during the Darfield earthquake, and to a much lesser extent, during the Christchurch earthquake. A 2D variant of the Richart-Newmark fatigue theory was used to compute the equivalent number of cycles (neq) for the ground motions, where volumetric strain was used as the damage metric. This study is unique because it considers the contribution and phasing of both the fault-normal and fault-parallel components of motion on neq and the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). It was found that when the fault-normal and fault-parallel motions were treated individually, the former yielded a lower neq than the latter. Additionally, when the combined effects of fault-normal and fault-parallel components were considered, it was found that the MSF were higher than those commonly used. This implies that motions containing near-fault effects are less demanding on the soil than motions that do not. This may be one of several factors that resulted in less severe liquefaction occurring during the Darfield earthquake than the Christchurch earthquake.
The 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes triggered extensive liquefaction-induced lateral spreading proximate to streams and rivers in the Christchurch area, causing significant damage to structures and lifelines. A case study in central Christchurch is presented and compares field observations with predicted displacements from the widely adopted empirical model of Youd et al. (2002). Cone penetration testing (CPT), with measured soil gradation indices (fines content and median grain size) on typical fluvial deposits along the Avon River were used to determine the required geotechnical parameters for the model input. The method presented attempts to enable the adoption of the extensive post-quake CPT test records in place of the lower quality and less available Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data required by the original Youd model. The results indicate some agreement between the Youd model predictions and the field observations, while the majority of computed displacements error on the side of over-prediction by more than a factor of two. A sensitivity analysis was performed with respect to the uncertainties used as model input, illustrating the model’s high sensitivity to the input parameters, with median grain size and fines content among the most influential, and suggesting that the use of CPT data to quantify these parameters may lead to variable results.
The city of Christchurch and its surrounds experienced widespread damage due to soil liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence that began in September 2010 with the Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake. Prior to the start of this sequence, the city had a large network of strong motion stations (SMSs) installed, which were able to record a vast database of strong ground motions. This paper uses this database of strong ground motion recordings, observations of liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface, and data from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation program at each SMS to assess a range of liquefaction evaluation procedures at the four SMSs in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). In general, the characteristics of the accelerograms recorded at each SMS correlated well with the liquefaction evaluation procedures, with low liquefaction factors of safety predicted at sites with clear liquefaction identifiers in the ground motions. However, at sites that likely liquefied at depth (as indicated by evaluation procedures and/or inferred from the characteristics of the recorded surface accelerograms), the presence of a non-liquefiable crust layer at many of the SMS locations prevented the manifestation of any surface effects. Because of this, there was not a good correlation between surface manifestation and two surface manifestation indices, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN).
This paper presents insights from recent advanced laboratory testing of undisturbed and reconstituted specimens of Christchurch silty-sands. The purpose of the testing was to establish the cyclic strength of silty-sands from sites in the Central Business District (CBD), where liquefaction was observed in 4 September 2010, 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011. Similar overall strengths were obtained from undisturbed and reconstituted tests prepared at similar densities, albeit with higher variability for the reconstituted specimens. Reconstituted specimens exhibited distinctly different response in terms of lower compressibility during initial loading cycles, and exhibited a more brittle response when large strains were mobilised, particularly for samples with high fines content. Given the lower variability in natural sample response and the possibility of age-related strength to be significant for sites not subjected to earthquakes, high quality undisturbed samples are recommended over the use of reconstituted specimens to establish the cyclic strength of natural sands.
This paper concerns the explicit consideration of near-fault directivity in conventional ground motion prediction models, and its implication for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in New Zealand. The proposed approach utilises recently developed models by Shahi & Baker (2011), which account for both the 'narrowband' nature of the directivity pulse on spectral ordinates, and the probability of pulse occurrence at the site of interest. Furthermore, in order to correctly consider directivity, distributed seismicity sources are considered as finite-faults, as opposed to their (incorrect) conventional treatment as point-sources. The significance of directivity on hazard analysis results is illustrated for various vibration periods at generic sites located in Christchurch and Otira, two locations whose seismic hazard is comprised of notably different seismic sources. When compared to the PSHA results considering directivity and distributed seismicity as finite faults, it is shown that the NZS1170.5:2004 directivity factor is notably unconservative for all vibration periods in Otira (i.e. high seismic hazard region); and unconservative for Christchurch at short-to-moderate vibration periods ( < 3s); but conservative at long periods ( > 4s).
This paper develops representative ground motion ensembles for several major earthquake scenarios in New Zealand. Cases considered include representative ground motions for the occurrence of Alpine, Hope, and Porters Pass earthquakes in Christchurch, and the occurrence of Wellington, Wairarapa, and Ohariu, fault ruptures in Wellington. Challenges in the development of ground motion ensembles for subduction zone earthquakes are also highlighted. The ground motions are selected based on the generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) approach, ensuring that the ground motion ensembles represent both the mean, and distribution of ground motion intensity which such scenarios could impose. These scenario-based ground motion sets can be used to complement ground motions which are often selected in conjunction with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, in order to understand the performance of structures for the question “what if this fault ruptures?”
The performance of conventionally designed reinforced concrete (RC) structures during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake has demonstrated that there is greater uncertainty in the seismic performance of RC components than previously understood. RC frame and wall structures in the Christchurch central business district were observed to form undesirable cracks patterns in the plastic hinge region while yield penetration either side of cracks, and into development zones, were less than theoretical predictions. The implications of this unexpected behaviour: (i) significantly less available ductility; (ii) less hysteretic energy dissipation; and (iii) the localization of peak reinforcement strains, results in considerable doubt for the residual capacity of RC structures. The significance of these consequences has prompted a review of potential sources of uncertainty in seismic experimentation with the intention to improve the current confidence level for newly designed conventional RC structures. This paper attempts to revisit the principles of RC mechanics, in particular, to consider the influence of loading history, concrete tensile strength, and reinforcement ratio on the performance of ‘real’ RC structures compared to experimental test specimens.
The abundance of cone penetration test (CPT) data from subsurface explorations in Christchurch and the surrounding areas provides a useful source of information for a characterization of the near surface shear wave velocity ( ) profile for the region. A portion of the investigations were conducted using seismic CPT, enabling the comparison of measured shear wave velocity with CPT data, and subsequently the evaluation of existing CPT- correlations for applicability to Canterbury-specific soils. The existing correlations are shown to be biased, generally over-predicting the observed with depth, thus demonstrating the need for a Canterbury-specific CPT- correlation.
The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence began with the 4 September 2010, Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake and includes up to ten events that induced liquefaction. Most notably, widespread liquefaction was induced by the Darfield and Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquakes. The combination of well-documented liquefaction response during multiple events, densely recorded ground motions for the events, and detailed subsurface characterization provides an unprecedented opportunity to add well-documented case histories to the liquefaction database. This paper presents and applies 50 high-quality cone penetration test (CPT) liquefaction case histories to evaluate three commonly used, deterministic, CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures. While all the procedures predicted the majority of the cases correctly, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) results in the lowest error index for the case histories analyzed, thus indicating better predictions of the observed liquefaction response.
This presentation discusses recent empirical ground motion modelling efforts in New Zealand. Firstly, the active shallow crustal and subduction interface and slab ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) which are employed in the 2010 update of the national seismic hazard model (NSHM) are discussed. Other NZ-specific GMPEs developed, but not incorporated in the 2010 update are then discussed, in particular, the active shallow crustal model of Bradley (2010). A brief comparison of the NZ-specific GMPEs with the near-source ground motions recorded in the Canterbury earthquakes is then presented, given that these recordings collectively provide a significant increase in observed strong motions in the NZ catalogue. The ground motion prediction expert elicitation process that was undertaken following the Canterbury earthquakes for active shallow crustal earthquakes is then discussed. Finally, ongoing GMPE-related activities are discussed including: ground motion and metadata database refinement, improved site characterization of strong motion station, and predictions for subduction zone earthquakes.
The extent of liquefaction in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch (Aranui, Bexley, Avonside, Avonhead and Dallington) from the February 22 2011 Earthquake resulted in extensive damage to in-ground waste water pipe systems. This caused a huge demand for portable toilets (or port-a-loos) and companies were importing them from outside Canterbury and in some instances from Australia. However, because they were deemed “assets of importance” under legislation, their allocation had to be coordinated by Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM). Consequently, companies supplying them had to ignore requests from residents, businesses and rest homes; and commitments to large events outside of the city such as the Hamilton 400 V8 Supercars and the Pasifika Festival in Auckland were impacted. Frustrations started to show as neighbourhoods questioned the equity of the port-a-loos distribution. The Prime Minister was reported as reassuring citizens in the eastern suburbs in the first week of March that1 “a report about the distribution of port-a-loos and chemical toilets shows allocation has been fair. Key said he has asked Civil Defence about the distribution process and where the toilets been sent. He said there aren’t enough for the scale of the event but that is quickly being rectified and the need for toilets is being reassessed all the time.” Nonetheless, there still remained a deep sense of frustration and exclusion over the equity of the port-a-loos distribution. This study took the simple approach of mapping where those port-a-loos were on 11-12 March for several areas in the eastern suburbs and this suggested that their distribution was not equitable and was not well done. It reviews the predictive tools available for estimating damage to waste water pipes and asks the question could this situation have been better planned so that pot-a-loo locations could have been better prioritised? And finally it reviews the integral roles of communication and monitoring as part of disaster management strategy. The impression from this study is that other New Zealand urban centres could or would also be at risk and that work is need to developed more rational management approaches for disaster planning.
Paper 3408The paper discusses modelling of cyclic stress-strain behaviour of soil, in particular a simple model that can produce a desired stiffness and hysteretic damping for a given strain level as observed in laboratory testing is formulated. The unloading-reloading relationship is developed for total stress seismic site response analysis with appropriate damping at large strain. The constitutive model employs a hyperbolic equation as the backbone curve, and uses a modification of the extended Masing unloading-reloading relationship leading to correct measured modulus reduction and damping curves simultaneously. A quasi-static cyclic loading of increasing amplitude is used to demonstrate the model’s performance and its capability to allow improved modelling of the magnitude of energy dissipation based on an experimental program on native sandy soils from Christchurch, New Zealand.
On the second day of teaching for 2011, the University of Canterbury (UC) faced the most significant crisis of its 138-year history. After being shaken severely by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on 4 September 2010, UC felt it was well along the pathway to getting back to ‘normal’. That all changed at 12:51pm on 22 February 2011, when Christchurch city was hit by an even more devastating event. A magnitude 6.3 (Modified Mercalli intensity ten – MM X) earthquake, just 13km south-east of the Christchurch city centre, caused vertical peak ground accelerations amongst the highest ever recorded in an urban environment, in some places more than twice the acceleration due to gravity. The earthquake caused immediate evacuation of the UC campus and resulted in significant damage to many buildings. Thankfully there were no serious injuries or fatalities on campus, but 185 people died in the city and many more suffered serious injuries. At the time of writing, eighteen months after the first earthquake in September, Christchurch is still experiencing regular earthquakes. Seismologists warn that the region may experience heightened seismicity for a decade or more. While writing this report we have talked with many different people from across the University. People’s experiences are different and we have not managed to talk with everyone, but we hope that by drawing together many different perspectives from across the campus that this report will serve two purposes; to retain our institutional memory of what we have learnt over the past eighteen months, and also to share our learnings with other organisations in New Zealand and around the world who, we hope, will benefit from learning about our experience.
This report presents an overview of the soil profile characteristics at a number of strong motion station (SMS) sites in Christchurch and its surrounds. An extensive database of ground motion records has been captured by the SMS network in the Canterbury region during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. However in order to comprehensively understand the ground motions recorded at these sites and to be able to relate these motions to other locations, a detailed understanding of the shallow geotechnical profile at each SMS is required. The original NZS1170.5 (SNZ 2004) site subsoil classifications for each SMS site is based on regional geological information and well logs located at varying distances from the site. Given the variability of Christchurch soils, more detailed investigations are required in close vicinity to each SMS to better understand stratigraphy and soil properties, which are important in seismic site response. In this regard, CPT, SPT and borehole data, shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles, and horizontal to vertical spectral ratio measurements (H/V) in close vicinity to the SMS were used to develop representative soil profiles at each site. NZS1170.5 (SNZ 2004) site subsoil classifications were updated using Vs and SPT N60 criteria. Site class E boundaries were treated as a sliding scale rather than as a discrete boundary to account for locations with similar site effects potential, an approach which was shown to result in a better delineation between the site classes. SPT N60 values often indicate a stiffer site class than the Vs data for softer soil sites, highlighting the disparity between the two site investigation techniques. Both SPT N60 and Vs based site classes did not always agree with the original site classifications. This emphasises the importance of having detailed site‐specific information at SMS locations in order to properly classify them. Furthermore, additional studies are required to harmonize site classification based on SPT N60 and Vs. Liquefaction triggering assessments were carried out for the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes, and compared against observed liquefaction surface manifestations and ground motions characteristics at each SMS. In general, the characteristics of the recorded ground motions at each site correlate well with the triggering analyses. However, at sites that likely liquefied at depth (as indicated by triggering analyses and/or inferred from the characteristics of the recorded surface acceleration time series), the presence of a non‐liquefiable crust layer at many of the SMS locations prevented the manifestation of any surface effects.
The majority of Christchurch’s stormwater has historically been discharged untreated directly into urban surface waterways. These receiving waterways have become adversely affected by the contaminants carried in the stormwater, particularly sediment and heavy metals. An event-based contaminant load model was developed to identify the distribution and magnitude of contaminant loads entering the waterway, as well as to assess the reduction in TSS and heavy metal loads that can be achieved by various stormwater management options. The GIS-Excel based model estimates contaminant loads from an individual storm event based on different contributing impervious surfaces and key rainfall characteristics (rainfall intensity, duration, pH and antecedent dry days). It then calculates contaminant reduction loads that could be achieved through source reduction (e.g. green roofs, repainting) as well as from treatment (e.g. raingardens, wet ponds) applied to different surfaces within the catchment. This model differs from other annual load models as it is event-based and accounts for storm characteristics in its calculation of contaminant loads. Christchurch is a valuable case setting due the unique opportunity for retrofitting improved stormwater management in the post-earthquake rebuild. It is anticipated that this modelling approach could later be adapted for use in other urban settings outside of Christchurch.
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in Christchurch and surrounding suburbs during the recent Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (2010-2011) caused significant damage to structures and lifelines located in close proximity to streams and rivers. Simplified methods used in current engineering practice for predicting lateral ground displacements exhibit a high degree of epistemic uncertainty, but provide ‘order of magnitude’ estimates to appraise the hazard. We wish to compare model predictions to field measurements in order to assess the model’s capabilities and limitations with respect to Christchurch conditions. The analysis presented focuses on the widely-used empirical model of Youd et al. (2002), developed based on multi-linear regression (MLR) of case history data from lateral spreading occurrence in Japan and the US. Two issues arising from the application of this model to Christchurch were considered: • Small data set of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and soil gradation indices (fines content FC, and mean grain size, D50) required for input. We attempt to use widely available CPT data with site specific correlations to FC and D50. • Uncertainty associated with the model input parameters and their influence on predicted displacements. This has been investigated for a specific location through a sensitivity analysis.
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.
