This paper presents a methodology by which both site-specific and spatially distributed ground motion intensity can be obtained immediately following an earthquake event. The methodology makes use of both prediction models for ground motion intensity and its correlation over spatial distances. A key benefit of the methodology is that the ground motion intensity at a given location is not a single value but a distribution of values. The distribution is comprised of both a mean and also standard deviation, with the standard deviation being a function of the distance to nearby strong motion stations. The methodology is illustrated for two applications. Firstly, maps of conditional peak ground acceleration (PGA) have been developed for the major events in the Canterbury earthquake sequence. It is illustrated how these conditional maps can be used for post-event evaluation of liquefaction triggering criteria which have been adopted by the Department of Building and Housing (DBH). Secondly, the conditional distribution of response spectral ordinates is obtained at a specific location for the purposes of determining appropriate ground motion records for use in seismic response analyses of important structures at locations where direct recordings are absent.
The purpose of this thesis is to conduct a detailed examination of the forward-directivity characteristics of near-fault ground motions produced in the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes, including evaluating the efficacy of several existing empirical models which form the basis of frameworks for considering directivity in seismic hazard assessment. A wavelet-based pulse classification algorithm developed by Baker (2007) is firstly used to identify and characterise ground motions which demonstrate evidence of forward-directivity effects from significant events in the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The algorithm fails to classify a large number of ground motions which clearly exhibit an early-arriving directivity pulse due to: (i) incorrect pulse extraction resulting from the presence of pulse-like features caused by other physical phenomena; and (ii) inadequacy of the pulse indicator score used to carry out binary pulse-like/non-pulse-like classification. An alternative ‘manual’ approach is proposed to ensure 'correct' pulse extraction and the classification process is also guided by examination of the horizontal velocity trajectory plots and source-to-site geometry. Based on the above analysis, 59 pulse-like ground motions are identified from the Canterbury earthquakes , which in the author's opinion, are caused by forward-directivity effects. The pulses are also characterised in terms of their period and amplitude. A revised version of the B07 algorithm developed by Shahi (2013) is also subsequently utilised but without observing any notable improvement in the pulse classification results. A series of three chapters are dedicated to assess the predictive capabilities of empirical models to predict the: (i) probability of pulse occurrence; (ii) response spectrum amplification caused by the directivity pulse; (iii) period and amplitude (peak ground velocity, PGV) of the directivity pulse using observations from four significant events in the Canterbury earthquakes. Based on the results of logistic regression analysis, it is found that the pulse probability model of Shahi (2013) provides the most improved predictions in comparison to its predecessors. Pulse probability contour maps are developed to scrutinise observations of pulses/non-pulses with predicted probabilities. A direct comparison of the observed and predicted directivity amplification of acceleration response spectra reveals the inadequacy of broadband directivity models, which form the basis of the near-fault factor in the New Zealand loadings standard, NZS1170.5:2004. In contrast, a recently developed narrowband model by Shahi & Baker (2011) provides significantly improved predictions by amplifying the response spectra within a small range of periods. The significant positive bias demonstrated by the residuals associated with all models at longer vibration periods (in the Mw7.1 Darfield and Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquakes) is likely due to the influence of basin-induced surface waves and non-linear soil response. Empirical models for the pulse period notably under-predict observations from the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes, inferred as being a result of both the effect of nonlinear site response and influence of the Canterbury basin. In contrast, observed pulse periods from the smaller magnitude June (Mw6.0) and December (Mw5.9) 2011 earthquakes are in good agreement with predictions. Models for the pulse amplitude generally provide accurate estimates of the observations at source-to-site distances between 1 km and 10 km. At longer distances, observed PGVs are significantly under-predicted due to their slower apparent attenuation. Mixed-effects regression is employed to develop revised models for both parameters using the latest NGA-West2 pulse-like ground motion database. A pulse period relationship which accounts for the effect of faulting mechanism using rake angle as a continuous predictor variable is developed. The use of a larger database in model development, however does not result in improved predictions of pulse period for the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes. In contrast, the revised model for PGV provides a more appropriate attenuation of the pulse amplitude with distance, and does not exhibit the bias associated with previous models. Finally, the effects of near-fault directivity are explicitly included in NZ-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using the narrowband directivity model of Shahi & Baker (2011). Seismic hazard analyses are conducted with and without considering directivity for typical sites in Christchurch and Otira. The inadequacy of the near-fault factor in the NZS1170.5: 2004 is apparent based on a comparison with the directivity amplification obtained from PSHA.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls involve the use of geosynthetic reinforcement (polymer material) within the retained backfill, forming a reinforced soil block where transmission of overturning and sliding forces on the wall to the backfill occurs. Key advantages of GRS systems include the reduced need for large foundations, cost reduction (up to 50%), lower environmental costs, faster construction and significantly improved seismic performance as observed in previous earthquakes. Design methods in New Zealand have not been well established and as a result, GRS structures do not have a uniform level of seismic and static resistance; hence involve different risks of failure. Further research is required to better understand the seismic behaviour of GRS structures to advance design practices. The experimental study of this research involved a series of twelve 1-g shake table tests on reduced-scale (1:5) GRS wall models using the University of Canterbury shake-table. The seismic excitation of the models was unidirectional sinusoidal input motion with a predominant frequency of 5Hz and 10s duration. Seismic excitation of the model commenced at an acceleration amplitude level of 0.1g and was incrementally increased by 0.1g in subsequent excitation levels up to failure (excessive displacement of the wall panel). The wall models were 900mm high with a full-height rigid facing panel and five layers of Microgird reinforcement (reinforcement spacing of 150mm). The wall panel toe was founded on a rigid foundation and was free to slide. The backfill deposit was constructed from dry Albany sand to a backfill relative density, Dr = 85% or 50% through model vibration. The influence of GRS wall parameters such as reinforcement length and layout, backfill density and application of a 3kPa surcharge on the backfill surface was investigated in the testing sequence. Through extensive instrumentation of the wall models, the wall facing displacements, backfill accelerations, earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at the varying levels of model excitation. Additionally, backfill deformation was also measured through high-speed imaging and Geotechnical Particle Image Velocimetry (GeoPIV) analysis. The GeoPIV analysis enabled the identification of the evolution of shear strains and volumetric strains within the backfill at low strain levels before failure of the wall thus allowing interpretations to be made regarding the strain development and shear band progression within the retained backfill. Rotation about the wall toe was the predominant failure mechanism in all excitation level with sliding only significant in the last two excitation levels, resulting in a bi-linear displacement acceleration curve. An increase in acceleration amplification with increasing excitation was observed with amplification factors of up to 1.5 recorded. Maximum seismic and static horizontal earth pressures were recorded at failure and were recorded at the wall toe. The highest reinforcement load was recorded at the lowest (deepest in the backfill) reinforcement layer with a decrease in peak load observed at failure, possibly due to pullout failure of the reinforcement layer. Conversely, peak reinforcement load was recorded at failure for the top reinforcement layer. The staggered reinforcement models exhibited greater wall stability than the uniform reinforcement models of L/H=0.75. However, similar critical accelerations were determined for the two wall models due to the coarseness of excitation level increments of 0.1g. The extended top reinforcements were found to restrict the rotational component of displacement and prevented the development of a preliminary shear band at the middle reinforcement layer, contributing positively to wall stability. Lower acceleration amplification factors were determined for the longer uniform reinforcement length models due to reduced model deformation. A greater distribution of reinforcement load towards the top two extended reinforcement layers was also observed in the staggered wall models. An increase in model backfill density was observed to result in greater wall stability than an increase in uniform reinforcement length. Greater acceleration amplification was observed in looser backfill models due to their lower model stiffness. Due to greater confinement of the reinforcement layers, greater reinforcement loads were developed in higher density wall models with less wall movement required to engage the reinforcement layers and mobilise their resistance. The application of surcharge on the backfill was observed to initially increase the wall stability due to greater normal stresses within the backfill but at greater excitation levels, the surcharge contribution to wall destabilising inertial forces outweighs its contribution to wall stability. As a result, no clear influence of surcharge on the critical acceleration of the wall models was observed. Lower acceleration amplification factors were observed for the surcharged models as the surcharge acts as a damper during excitation. The application of the surcharge also increases the magnitude of reinforcement load developed due to greater confinement and increased wall destabilising forces. The rotation of the wall panel resulted in the progressive development of shears surface with depth that extended from the backfill surface to the ends of the reinforcement (edge of the reinforced soil block). The resultant failure plane would have extended from the backfill surface to the lowest reinforcement layer before developing at the toe of the wall, forming a two-wedge failure mechanism. This is confirmed by development of failure planes at the lowest reinforcement layer (deepest with the backfill) and at the wall toe observed at the critical acceleration level. Key observations of the effect of different wall parameters from the GeoPIV results are found to be in good agreement with conclusions developed from the other forms of instrumentation. Further research is required to achieve the goal of developing seismic guidelines for GRS walls in geotechnical structures in New Zealand. This includes developing and testing wall models with a different facing type (segmental or wrap-around facing), load cell instrumentation of all reinforcement layers, dynamic loading on the wall panel and the use of local soils as the backfill material. Lastly, the limitations of the experimental procedure and wall models should be understood.
