Welcome to the Recover newsletter Issue 4 from the Marine Ecology Research Group (MERG) of the University of Canterbury. Recover is designed to keep you updated on our MBIE-funded earthquake recovery project called RECOVER (Reef Ecology, Coastal Values & Earthquake Recovery). This 4th instalment covers recent work on seaweed recovery in the subtidal zone, ecological engineering in Waikoau / Lyell Creek, and a sneak preview of drone survey results!
Well-validated liquefaction constitutive models are increasingly important as non-linear time history analyses become relatively more common in industry for key projects. Previous validation efforts of PM4Sand, a plasticity model specifically for liquefaction, have generally focused on centrifuge tests; however, pore pressure transducers installed at several free-field sites during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in Christchurch, New Zealand provide a relatively unique dataset to validate against. This study presents effective stress site response analyses performed in the finite difference software FLAC to examine the capability of PM4Sand to capture the generation of excess pore pressures during earthquakes. The characterization of the subsurface is primarily based on extensive cone penetration tests (CPT) carried out in Christchurch. Correlations based on penetration resistances are used to estimate soil parameters, such as relative density and shear wave velocity, which affect liquefaction behaviour. The resulting free-field FLAC model is used to estimate time histories of excess pore pressure, which are compared with records during several earthquakes in the CES to assess the suitability of PM4Sand.
Heathcote Valley school strong motion station (HVSC) consistently recorded ground motions with higher intensities than nearby stations during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. For example, as shown in Figure 1, for the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, peak ground acceleration at HVSC reached 1.4 g (horizontal) and 2 g (vertical), the largest ever recorded in New Zealand. Strong amplification of ground motions is expected at Heathcote Valley due to: 1) the high impedance contrast at the soil-rock interface, and 2) the interference of incident and surface waves within the valley. However, both conventional empirical ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) and the physics-based large scale ground motions simulations (with empirical site response) are ineffective in predicting such amplification due to their respective inherent limitations.
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.
1. Background and Objectives This poster presents results from ground motion simulations of small-to-moderate magnitude (3.5≤Mw≤5.0) earthquake events in the Canterbury, New Zealand region using the Graves and Pitarka (2010,2015) methodology. Subsequent investigation of systematic ground motion effects highlights the prediction bias in the simulations which are also benchmarked against empirical ground motion models (e.g. Bradley (2013)). In this study, 144 earthquake ruptures, modelled as point sources, are considered with 1924 quality-assured ground motions recorded across 45 strong motion stations throughout the Canterbury region, as shown in Figure 1. The majority of sources are Mw≥4.0 and have centroid depth (CD) 10km or shallower. Earthquake source descriptions were obtained from the GeoNet New Zealand earthquake catalogue. The ground motion simulations were performed within a computational domain of 140km x 120km x 46km with a finite difference grid spacing of 0.1km. The low-frequency (LF) simulations utilize the 3D Canterbury Velocity Model while the high-frequency (HF) simulations utilize a generic regional 1D velocity model. In the LF simulations, a minimum shear wave velocity of 500m/s is enforced, yielding a maximum frequency of 1.0Hz.
Geospatial liquefaction models aim to predict liquefaction using data that is free and readily-available. This data includes (i) common ground-motion intensity measures; and (ii) geospatial parameters (e.g., among many, distance to rivers, distance to coast, and Vs30 estimated from topography) which are used to infer characteristics of the subsurface without in-situ testing. Since their recent inception, such models have been used to predict geohazard impacts throughout New Zealand (e.g., in conjunction with regional ground-motion simulations). While past studies have demonstrated that geospatial liquefaction-models show great promise, the resolution and accuracy of the geospatial data underlying these models is notably poor. As an example, mapped rivers and coastlines often plot hundreds of meters from their actual locations. This stems from the fact that geospatial models aim to rapidly predict liquefaction anywhere in the world and thus utilize the lowest common denominator of available geospatial data, even though higher quality data is often available (e.g., in New Zealand). Accordingly, this study investigates whether the performance of geospatial models can be improved using higher-quality input data. This analysis is performed using (i) 15,101 liquefaction case studies compiled from the 2010-2016 Canterbury Earthquakes; and (ii) geospatial data readily available in New Zealand. In particular, we utilize alternative, higher-quality data to estimate: locations of rivers and streams; location of coastline; depth to ground water; Vs30; and PGV. Most notably, a region-specific Vs30 model improves performance (Figs. 3-4), while other data variants generally have little-to-no effect, even when the “standard” and “high-quality” values differ significantly (Fig. 2). This finding is consistent with the greater sensitivity of geospatial models to Vs30, relative to any other input (Fig. 5), and has implications for modeling in locales worldwide where high quality geospatial data is available.
