Search

found 111 results

Images for earthquake ground shaking; more images...

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Facade of the Repertory Theatre ended on the ground following the magnitude 7.1 earthquake in Christchurch on Saturday 4-9-2010.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Facade of the Repertory Theatre ended on the ground following the magnitude 7.1 earthquake in Christchurch on Saturday 4-9-2010.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

A major hazard accompanying earthquake shaking in areas of steep topography is the detachment of rocks from bedrock outcrops that subsequently slide, roll, or bounce downslope (i.e. rockfalls). The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence caused recurrent and severe rockfall in parts of southern Christchurch. Coseismic rockfall caused five fatalities and significant infrastructural damage during the 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake. Here we examine a rockfall site in southern Christchurch in detail using geomorphic mapping, lidar analysis, geochronology (cosmogenic 3He dating, radiocarbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) from quartz, infrared stimulated luminescence from K-feldspar), numerical modeling of rockfall boulder trajectories, and ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Rocks fell from the source cliff only in earthquakes with interpolated peak ground velocities exceeding ~10 cm/s; hundreds of smaller earthquakes did not produce rockfall. On the basis of empirical observations, GMPEs and age chronologies we attribute paleo-rockfalls to strong shaking in prehistoric earthquakes. We conclude that earthquake shaking of comparable intensity to the strongest contemporary earthquakes in Christchurch last occurred at this site approximately 5000 to 7000 years ago, and that in some settings, rockfall deposits provide useful proxies for past strong ground motions.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

There are hopes an earthquake simulation in Porirua might result in homes being better prepared for a big shake. Houses on Christchurch's Port Hills suffered more damage than houses in other areas during the Canterbury Earthquakes - even though the ground shaking was roughly the same. Now the Earthquake Commission is on a mission to find out why that was - and prevent the same level of damage in a future quake. Checkpoint reporter Logan Church and video journalist Dom Thomas start their report up on a hilly farm above Wellington.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The ground literally opened up! On the previously unknown faultline along which the Saturday 4 September 2010 earthquake originated.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The ground literally opened up! On the previously unknown faultline along which the Saturday 4 September 2010 earthquake originated.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The ground literally opened up! On the previously unknown faultline along which the Saturday 4 September 2010 earthquake originated.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The ground literally opened up! On the previously unknown faultline along which the Saturday 4 September 2010 earthquake originated.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This report describes the earthquake hazard in Kaikoura district and gives details of historic earthquakes. It includes district-scale (1:250,000) active fault, ground shaking zone, liquefaction and landslide susceptibility maps. The report describes an earthquake scenario for a magnitude 7.0-7.3 Hope Fault earthquake near Kaikoura, and a subsequent local tsunami.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence was extremely damaging to structures in Christchurch and continues to have a large economic and social impact on the city and surrounding regions. In addition to strong ground shaking (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011 SRL; Bradley 2012 SDEE), extensive liquefaction was observed, particularly in the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Cubrinovski et al. 2010 BNZSEE; 2011 SRL). Large observed vertical ground motion amplitudes were recorded in the events in this sequence, with vertical peak ground accelerations of over 2.2g being observed at the Heathcote Valley Primary School during the Christchurch earthquake, and numerous other vertical motions exceeding 1.0g (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011 SRL; Bradley 2012 SDEE; Fry et al 2011 SRL). Vertical peak ground accelerations of over 1.2g were observed in the Darfield earthquake.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This report describes the earthquake hazard in Ashburton district and gives details of historic earthquakes. It includes district-scale (1:250,000) active fault, ground shaking zone, liquefaction and landslide susceptibility maps. The report describes earthquake scenarios for a magnitude 7.0-7.3 earthquake on the Mt Hutt-Mt Peel Fault Zone and a magnitude 8 Alpine Fault earthquake. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This report describes the earthquake hazard in Selwyn district and gives details of historic earthquakes. It includes district-scale (1:250,000) active fault, ground shaking zone, liquefaction and landslide susceptibility maps. The report describes earthquake scenarios for a magnitude 7.0-7.3 earthquake on the Porters Pass-Amberley Fault Zone and a magnitude 8 Alpine Fault earthquake. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This report describes the earthquake hazard in Timaru district and gives details of historic earthquakes. It includes district-scale (1:250,000) active fault, ground shaking zone, liquefaction and landslide susceptibility maps. The report describes earthquake scenarios for a magnitude 7.0-7.3 earthquake on the Mt Hutt-Mt Peel Fault Zone and a magnitude 8 Alpine Fault earthquake. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Two aluminium drink cans which have split open. The photographer comments, "We had around 24 cans of diet coke in the top of the fridge when the devastating 6.1 earthquake hit Christchurch in New Zealand. The shaking caused one of the front feet of the fridge to fold, which made the fridge tip forward and causing the door to open. After all the shaking the cans had already when they flew out and hit the ground a lot of them exploded. These two cans show the explosive pressure that occurred best".

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Liquefaction and buckled tarmac on a residential street in North New Brighton. The photographer comments, "In the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch the kerb at the end of my road was pushed from both ends. This caused it to move away from the grass verge and push itself under the tarmac. The tarmac would normally have been 3 inches below the top of the kerb. Between the kerb and the grass can be seen the colour of the liquefaction that spewed out from the ground. The tarmac in the area seemed to flow downhill".

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Looking along this previously unknown faultline that runs through this paddock, note how the ground had heaved and subsided; magnitude 7.1 earthquake in mid-Canterbury on Saturday 4 September 2010.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This study led on from Earthquake hazard and risk assessment study Stage 1 Part A: Earthquake source identification and characterisation (Pettinga et al, 1998). It used the location and characteristics of active faults in the Canterbury region, and the historic record of earthquakes to estimate levels of ground shaking (MM intensity, peak ground acceleration and spectral accelerations) across Canterbury for different return periods. The study also provided earthquake scenarios for selected towns and cities in Canterbury, and undertook detailed investigations into the largest historic earthquakes in Christchurch and parts of the Canterbury region. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This report describes the earthquake hazard in Waimate and Mackenzie districts and the part of Waitaki district within Canterbury, and gives details of historic earthquakes. It includes district-scale (1:500,000) active fault, ground shaking zone, liquefaction and landslide susceptibility maps. The report describes earthquake scenarios for a magnitude 7.2-7.4 Ostler Fault earthquake near Twizel, a magnitude 8 Alpine Fault earthquake, and a magnitude 6.9 Hunters Hills Fault Zone earthquake near Waimate. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Timber-based hybrid structures provide a prospective solution for utilizing environmentally friendly timber material in the construction of mid-rise or high-rise structures. This study mainly focuses on structural damage evaluation for a type of timber-steel hybrid structures, which incorporate prefabricated light wood frame shear walls into steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs). The structural damage of such a hybrid structure was evaluated through shake table tests on a four-story large-scale timber-steel hybrid structure. Four ground motion records (i.e., Wenchuan earthquake, Canterbury earthquake, El-Centro earthquake, and Kobe earthquake) were chosen for the tests, with the consideration of three different probability levels (i.e., minor, moderate and major earthquakes) for each record. During the shake table tests, the hybrid structure performed quite well with visual damage only to wood shear walls. No visual damage in SMRF and the frame-to-wall connections was observed. The correlation of visual damage to seismic intensity, modal-based damage index and inter-story drift was discussed. The reported work provided a basis of knowledge for performance-based seismic design (PBSD) for such timber-based hybrid structures.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The ground slipped laterally at this previously unknown faultline across Highfield Road in mid-Canterbury, resulting in a relative displacement of at least 2 metres and the magnitude 7.1 earthquake on Saturday 4 September 2010. Note the now misaligned fence posts, hedge and road.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Buildings subject to earthquake shaking will tend to move not only horizontally but also rotate in plan. In-plan rotation is known as “building torsion” and it may occur for a variety of reasons, including stiffness and strength eccentricity and/or torsional effects from ground motions. Methods to consider torsion in structural design standards generally involve analysis of the structure in its elastic state. This is despite the fact that the structural elements can yield, thereby significantly altering the building response and the structural element demands. If demands become too large, the structure may collapse. While a number of studies have been conducted into the behavior of structures considering inelastic building torsion, there appears to be no consensus that one method is better than another and as a result, provisions within current design standards have not adopted recent proposals in the literature. However, the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission recently made the recommendation that provisions to account for inelastic torsional response of buildings be introduced within New Zealand building standards. Consequently, this study examines how and to what extent the torsional response due to system eccentricity may affect the seismic performance of a building and considers what a simple design method should account for. It is concluded that new methods should be simple, be applicable to both the elastic and inelastic range of response, consider bidirectional excitation and include guidance for multi-story systems.