A large crack in the ground at Sullivan Park in Avonside which has resulted from the 4 September 2010 earthquake. Remnants of liquefaction silt can be seen around the edges of the crack.
Telegraph Road in Charing Cross, where the earthquake has shifted the road four metres to the right.
A large crack in the ground at Sullivan Park in Avonside which has resulted from the 4 September 2010 earthquake. Remnants of liquefaction silt can be seen around the edges of the crack.
Telegraph Road in Charing Cross, where the earthquake has shifted the road four metres to the right.
A footpath on Galbraith Avenue in Avonside showing cracking from the 4 September 2010 earthquake. Behind it, Sullivan Park can be seen.
Active faults capable of generating highly damaging earthquakes may not cause surface rupture (i.e., blind faults) or cause surface ruptures that evade detection due to subsequent burial or erosion by surface processes. Fault populations and earthquake frequency-‐magnitude distributions adhere to power laws, implying that faults too small to cause surface rupture but large enough to cause localized strong ground shaking densely populate continental crust. The rupture of blind, previously undetected faults beneath Christchurch, New Zealand in a suite of earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, including the fatal 22 February 2011 moment magnitude (Mw) 6.2 Christchurch earthquake and other large aftershocks, caused a variety of environmental impacts, including major rockfall, severe liquefaction, and differential surface uplift and subsidence. All of these effects occurred where geologic evidence for penultimate effects of the same nature existed. To what extent could the geologic record have been used to infer the presence of proximal, blind and / or unidentified faults near Christchurch? In this instance, we argue that phenomena induced by high intensity shaking, such as rock fragmentation and rockfall, revealed the presence of proximal active faults in the Christchurch area prior to the recent earthquake sequence. Development of robust earthquake shaking proxy datasets should become a higher scientific priority, particularly in populated regions.
A digger moving around earth on the Ilam Oval.
None
Photograph captioned by BeckerFraserPhotos, "Anzac Drive close to the Avon River showing the liquefaction and ground tearing".
Large cracks in the ground along Avonside Drive.
The driveway of a house on Avonside Drive. One of the concrete slabs has broken apart from another and lifted to create a gap between them.
Cracking along the bottom of a house in Avonside Drive. The house has lifted a few centimetres off its foundations.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
A book written by two Christchurch women to help the region's children deal with the stress of the earthquakes has been endorsed by the director of Civil Defence, John Hamilton.
Overview of the Presentation Jarg: • The seismic context & liquefaction Tom: • Potable Water Supply • Waste Water Network
Road workers digging earth out of a drain on Shirley Road near KFC.
A pair of see-saws at Sullivan Park in Avonside. Dried liquefaction silt can be seen in the lower section of the photograph.
A merry-go-round at Sullivan Park in Avonside. Its base is covered in dried liquefaction.
A broken driveway on Avonside Drive. The concrete slabs on the driveway have lifted during the earthquake, creating a large crack in the driveway. The crack has been filled with tiles and wood but the rubbish bins have still fallen in.
A hole in a broken driveway along Avonside drive with a rubbish bin fallen in.
A damaged property on Avonside Drive. Cracks can be seen running through the lawn. A woman is standing on a slab of concrete that has been raised by the earthquake.
This paper presents an examination of ground motion observations from 20 near-source strong motion stations during the most significant 10 events in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake to examine region-specific systematic effects based on relaxing the conventional ergodic assumption. On the basis of similar site-to-site residuals, surfical geology, and geographical proximity, 15 of the 20 stations are grouped into four sub-regions: the Central Business District; and Western, Eastern, and Northern suburbs. Mean site-to-site residuals for these sub-regions then allows for the possibility of non-ergodic ground motion prediction over these sub-regions of Canterbury, rather than only at strong motion station locations. The ratio of the total non-ergodic vs. ergodic standard deviation is found to be, on average, consistent with previous studies, however it is emphasized that on a site-by-site basis the non-ergodic standard deviation can easily vary by ±20%.
This study provides an initial examination of source parameter uncertainty in a New Zealand ground motion simulation model, by simulating multiple event realisations with perturbed source parameters. Small magnitude events in Canterbury have been selected for this study due to the small number of source input parameters, the wealth of recorded data, and the lack of appreciable off-fault non-linear effects. Which provides greater opportunity to identify systematic source, path and site effects, required to robustly investigate the causes of uncertainty.
A team of earthquake geologists, seismologists and engineering seismologists from GNS Science, NIWA, University of Canterbury, and Victoria University of Wellington have collectively produced an update of the 2002 national probabilistic seismic hazard (PSH) model for New Zealand. The new model incorporates over 200 new onshore and offshore fault sources, and utilises newly developed New Zealand-based scaling relationships and methods for the parameterisation of the fault and subduction interface sources. The background seismicity model has also been updated to include new seismicity data, a new seismicity regionalisation, and improved methodology for calculation of the seismicity parameters. Background seismicity models allow for the occurrence of earthquakes away from the known fault sources, and are typically modelled as a grid of earthquake sources with rate parameters assigned from the historical seismicity catalogue. The Greendale Fault, which ruptured during the M7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, was unknown prior to the earthquake. However, the earthquake was to some extent accounted for in the PSH model. The maximum magnitude assumed in the background seismicity model for the area of the earthquake is 7.2 (larger than the Darfield event), but the location and geometry of the fault are not represented. Deaggregations of the PSH model for Christchurch at return periods of 500 years and above show that M7-7.5 fault and background source-derived earthquakes at distances less than 40 km are important contributors to the hazard. Therefore, earthquakes similar to the Darfield event feature prominently in the PSH model, even though the Greendale Fault was not an explicit model input.