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).
his poster presents the ongoing development of a 3D Canterbury seismic velocity model which will be used in physics-based hybrid broadband ground motion simulation of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Velocity models must sufficiently represent critical aspects of the crustal structure over multiple length scales which will influence the results of the simulations. As a result, numerous sources of data are utilized in order to provide adequate resolution where necessary. Figure 2: (a) Seismic reflection line showing P-wave velocities and significant geologic horizons (Barnes et al. 2011), and (b) Shear wave profiles at 10 locations (Stokoe et al. 2013). Figure 4: Cross sections of the current version of the Canterbury velocity model to depths of 10km as shown in Figure 1: (a) at a constant latitude value of -43.6˚, and (b) at a constant longitude value of 172.64˚. 3. Ground Surface and Geologic Horizon Models Figure 3: (a) Ground surface model derived from numerous available digital elevation models, and (b) Base of the Quaternary sediments derived from structural contours and seismic reflection line elevations. The Canterbury region has a unique and complex geology which likely has a significant impact on strong ground motions, in particular the deep and loose deposits of the Canterbury basin. The Canterbury basin has several implications on seismic wave phenomena such as long period ground motion amplification and wave guide effects. Using a realistic 3D seismic velocity model in physics-based ground motion simulation will implicitly account for such effects and the resultant simulated ground motions can be studied to gain a fundamental understanding of the salient ground motion phenomena which occurred during the Canterbury earthquakes, and the potential for repeat occurrences in the Canterbury region. Figure 1 shows the current model domain as a rectangular area between Lat=[-43.2˚,-44.0˚], and Lon=[171.5˚,173.0˚]. This essentially spans the area between the foot of the Southern Alps in the North West to Banks Peninsula in the East. Currently the model extends to a depth of 50km below sea level.
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.
