Using case studies from the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence, this study assesses the accuracies of paleoliquefaction back-analysis methods and explores the challenges, techniques, and uncertainties associated with their application. While liquefaction-based back-analyses have been widely used to estimate the magnitudes of paleoearthquakes, their uncertain efficacies continue to significantly affect the computed seismic hazard in regions where they are relied upon. Accordingly, their performance is evaluated herein using liquefaction data from modern earthquakes with known magnitudes. It is shown that when the earthquake source location and mechanism are known, back-analysis methods are capable of accurately deriving seismic parameters from liquefaction evidence. However, because the source location and mechanism are often unknown in paleoseismic studies, and because accurate interpretation is shown to be more difficult in such cases, new analysis techniques are proposed herein. An objective parameter is proposed to geospatially assess the likelihood of any provisional source location, enabling an analyst to more accurately estimate the magnitude of a liquefaction-inducing paleoearthquake. This study demonstrates the application of back-analysis methods, provides insight into their potential accuracies, and provides a framework for performing paleoliquefaction analyses worldwide.
Data from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess and advance the current state of practice for evaluating liquefaction triggering. Towards this end, select case histories from the CES are used herein to assess the predictive capabilities of three alternative CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures: Robertson and Wride (1998); Moss et al. (2006); and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). Additionally, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) framework for predicting the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is also used to assess the predictive capabilities of the liquefaction evaluation procedures. Although it is not without limitations, use of the LPI framework for this purpose circumvents the need for selecting “critical” layers and their representative properties for study sites, which inherently involves subjectivity and thus has been a point of contention among researchers. It was found that while all the assessed liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures performed well for the parameter ranges of the sites analyzed, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) yielded predictions that are more consistent with field observations than the other procedures. However, use of the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure in conjunction with a Christchurch-specific correlation to estimate fines content showed a decreased performance relative to using a generic fines content correlation. As a result, the fines correction for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure needs further study.
Despite their good performance in terms of their design objectives, many modern code-prescriptive buildings built in Christchurch, New Zealand had to be razed after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes because repairs were deemed too costly due to widespread sacrificial damage. Clearly a more effective design paradigm is needed to create more resilient structures. Rocking, post-tensioned connections with supplemental energy dissipation can contribute to a damage avoidance designs (DAD). However, few have achieved all three key design objectives of damage-resistant rocking, inherent recentering ability, and repeatable, damage-free energy dissipation for all cycles, which together offer a response which is independent of loading history. Results of experimental tests are presented for a near full-scale rocking beam-column sub-assemblage. A matrix of test results is presented for the system under varying levels of posttensioning, with and without supplemental dampers. Importantly, this parametric study delineates each contribution to response. Practical limitations on posttensioning are identified: a minimum to ensure static structural re-centering, and a maximum to ensure deformability without threadbar yielding. Good agreement between a mechanistic model and experimental results over all parameters and inputs indicates the model is robust and accurate for design. The overall results indicate that it is possible to create a DAD connection where the non-linear force-deformation response is loading history independent and repeatable over numerous loading cycles, without damage, creating the opportunity for the design and implementation of highly resilient structures.
In practice, several competing liquefaction evaluation procedures (LEPs) are used to compute factors of safety against soil liquefaction, often for use within a liquefaction potential index (LPI) framework to assess liquefaction hazard. At present, the influence of the selected LEP on the accuracy of LPI hazard assessment is unknown, and the need for LEP-specific calibrations of the LPI hazard scale has never been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of three CPT-based LEPs from the literature, operating within the LPI framework, for predicting the severity of liquefaction manifestation. Utilising more than 7000 liquefaction case studies from the 2010–2011 Canterbury (NZ) earthquake sequence, this study found that: (a) the relationship between liquefaction manifestation severity and computed LPI values is LEP-specific; (b) using a calibrated, LEP-specific hazard scale, the performance of the LPI models is essentially equivalent; and (c) the existing LPI framework has inherent limitations, resulting in inconsistent severity predictions against field observations for certain soil profiles, regardless of which LEP is used. It is unlikely that revisions of the LEPs will completely resolve these erroneous assessments. Rather, a revised index which more adequately accounts for the mechanics of liquefaction manifestation is needed.
The objective of this project is to collect perishable seismic response data from the baseisolated Christchurch Women's Hospital. The strong and continuing sequence of aftershocks presents a unique opportunity to capture high-fidelity data from a modern base-isolated facility. These measurements will provide quantitative information required to assess the mechanisms at play in this and in many other seismically-isolated structures.
The September 2010 Canterbury and February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and associated aftershocks have shown that the isolator displacement in Christchurch Women's Hospital (Christchurch City's only base-isolated structure) was significantly less than expected. Occupant accounts of the events have also indicated that the accelerations within the hospital superstructure were larger than would usually be expected within a base-isolated structure and that residual low-level shaking lasts for a longer period of time following the strong-motion of an event than for non-isolated structures.
Since the early 1980s seismic hazard assessment in New Zealand has been based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). The most recent version of the New Zealand National Seismic Hazard Model, a PSHA model, was published by Stirling et al, in 2012. This model follows standard PSHA principals and combines a nation-wide model of active faults with a gridded point-source model based on the earthquake catalogue since 1840. These models are coupled with the ground-motion prediction equation of McVerry et al (2006). Additionally, we have developed a time-dependent clustering-based PSHA model for the Canterbury region (Gerstenberger et al, 2014) in response to the Canterbury earthquake sequence. We are now in the process of revising that national model. In this process we are investigating several of the fundamental assumptions in traditional PSHA and in how we modelled hazard in the past. For this project, we have three main focuses: 1) how do we design an optimal combination of multiple sources of information to produce the best forecast of earthquake rates in the next 50 years: can we improve upon a simple hybrid of fault sources and background sources, and can we better handle the uncertainties in the data and models (e.g., fault segmentation, frequency-magnitude distributions, time-dependence & clustering, low strain-rate areas, and subduction zone modelling)? 2) developing revised and new ground-motion predictions models including better capturing of epistemic uncertainty – a key focus in this work is developing a new strong ground motion catalogue for model development; and 3) how can we best quantify if changes we have made in our modelling are truly improvements? Throughout this process we are working toward incorporating numerical modelling results from physics based synthetic seismicity and ground-motion models.
This paper provides a photographic tour of the ground-surface rupture features of the Greendale Fault, formed during the 4th September 2010 Darfield Earthquake. The fault, previously unknown, produced at least 29.5 km of strike-slip surface deformation of right-lateral (dextral) sense. Deformation, spread over a zone between 30 and 300 m wide, consisted mostly of horizontal flexure with subsidiary discrete shears, the latter only prominent where overall displacement across the zone exceeded about 1.5 m. A remarkable feature of this event was its location in an intensively farmed landscape, where a multitude of straight markers, such as fences, roads and ditches, allowed precise measurements of offsets, and permitted well-defined limits to be placed on the length and widths of the surface rupture deformation.
None
Surface rupture of the previously unrecognised Greendale Fault extended west-east for ~30 km across alluvial plains west of Christchurch, New Zealand, during the Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake of September 2010. Surface rupture displacement was predominantly dextral strike-slip, averaging ~2.5 m, with maxima of ~5 m. Vertical displacement was generally less than 0.75 m. The surface rupture deformation zone ranged in width from ~30 to 300 m, and comprised discrete shears, localised bulges and, primarily, horizontal dextral flexure. About a dozen buildings, mainly single-storey houses and farm sheds, were affected by surface rupture, but none collapsed, largely because most of the buildings were relatively flexible and resilient timber-framed structures and also because deformation was distributed over a relatively wide zone. There were, however, notable differences in the respective performances of the buildings. Houses with only lightly-reinforced concrete slab foundations suffered moderate to severe structural and non-structural damage. Three other buildings performed more favourably: one had a robust concrete slab foundation, another had a shallow-seated pile foundation that isolated ground deformation from the superstructure, and the third had a structural system that enabled the house to tilt and rotate as a rigid body. Roads, power lines, underground pipes, and fences were also deformed by surface fault rupture and suffered damage commensurate with the type of feature, its orientation to the fault, and the amount, sense and width of surface rupture deformation.
