This paper examines the consistency of seismicity and ground motion models, used for seismic hazard analysis in New Zealand, with the observations in the Canterbury earthquakes. An overview is first given of seismicity and ground motion modelling as inputs of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, whose results form the basis for elastic response spectra in NZS1170.5:2004. The magnitude of earthquakes in the Canterbury earthquake sequence are adequately allowed for in the current NZ seismicity model, however the consideration of ‘background’ earthquakes as point sources at a minimum depth of 10km results in up to a 60% underestimation of the ground motions that such events produce. The ground motion model used in conventional NZ seismic hazard analysis is shown to provide biased predictions of response spectra (over-prediction near T=0.2s , and under-predictions at moderate-to-large vibration periods). Improved ground motion prediction can be achieved using more recent NZ-specific models.
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.
