The coseismicity and morphology of the Acheron rock avalanche deposit in t…

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Acheron rock avalanche is located in the Red Hill valley almost 80 km west of Christchurch and is one of 42 greywacke-derived rock avalanches identified in the central Southern Alps. It overlies the Holocene active Porters Pass Fault; a component of the Porters Pass-Amberley Fault Zone which extends from the Rakaia River to beyond the Waimakariri River. The Porters Pass Fault is a dextral strike-slip fault system viewed as a series of discontinuous fault scarps. The location of the fault trace beneath the deposit suggests it may represent a possible source of seismic shaking resulting in the formation of the Acheron rock avalanche. The rock mass composition of the rock avalanche source scar is Torlesse Supergroup greywacke consisting of massive sandstone and thinly bedded mudstone sequences dipping steeply north into the centre of the source basin. A stability analysis identified potential instability along shallow north dipping planar defects, and steep south dipping toppling failure planes. The interaction of the defects with bedding is considered to have formed conditions for potential instability most likely triggered by a seismic event. The dTositional area of the rock avalanche covers 7.2 x 105 m2 with an estimated volume of 9 x 10 m3 The mobilised rock mass volume was calculated at 7.5 x 106 m3• Run out of the debris from the top of the source scar to the distal limit reached 3500m, descending over a vertical fall of almost 700m with an estimated Fahrboschung of 0.2. The run out of the rock avalanche displayed moderate to high mobility, travelling at an estimated maximum velocity of 140-160 km/hour. The rapid emplacement of the deposit is confirmed by highly fragmented internal composition and burial of forest vegetation New radiocarbon ages from buried wood retrieved from the base of Acheron rock avalanche deposit represents an emplacement age closely post-dating (Wk 12094) 1152 ± 51 years B.P. This differs significantly from a previous radiocarbon age of (NZ547) 500 ± 69 years B.P. and modal lichenometry and weathering-rind thickness ages of approximately 460 ± 10 yrs and 490 ± 50 years B.P. The new age shows no resemblance to an earthquake event around 700- 500 years B.P. on the Porters Pass-Amberley Fault Zone. The DAN run out simulation using a friction model rheology successfully replicated the long run out and velocity of the Acheron rock avalanche using a frictron angle of 27° and high earth pressure coefficients of 5.5, 5.2, and 5.9. The elevated earth pressure coefficients represent dispersive pressures derived from dynamic fragmentation of the debris within the mobile rock avalanche, supporting the hypothesis of Davies and McSaveney (2002). The DAN model has potential applications for areas prone to large-scale instability in the elevated slopes and steep waterways of the Southern Alps. A paleoseismic investigation of a newly identified scarp of the Porters Pass Fault partially buried by the rock avalanche was conducted to identify any evidence of a coseismic relationship to the Acheron rock avalanche. This identified three-four fault traces striking at 078°, and a sag pond displaying a sequence of overbank deposits containing two buried soils representing an earthquake event horizon. A 40cm vertical offset of the ponded sediment and lower buried soil horizqn was recorded, which was dated to (Wk 13112 charcoal in palosol) 653 ± 54 years B.P. and (Wk 13034 palosol) 661 ± 34 years B.P. The evidence indicates a fault rupture occurred along the Porters Pass Fault, west of Porters Pass most likely extending to the Red Lakes terraces, post-dating 700 years B.P., resulting in 40cm of vertical displacement and an unknown component of dextral strike slip movement. This event post­ dates the event one (1000 ± 100 years B.P) at Porters Pass previously considered to represent the most recent rupture along the fault line. This points to a probable source for resetting of the modal weathering-rind thicknesses and lichen size populations in the Red Hill valley and possibly the Red Lakes terraces. These results suggest careful consideration must be given to the geomorphic and paleoseismic history of a specific site when applying surface dating techniques and furthermore the origin of dates used in literature and their useful range should be verified. An event at 700-500 years B.P did not trigger the Acheron rock avalanche as previously assumed supporting Howard's conclusions. The lack of similar aged rupture evidence in either of the Porters Pass and Coleridge trenches supports Howard's hypothesis of segmentation of the Porters Pass Fault; where rupture occurs along one fault segment but not along another. The new rock avalanche age closely post-dating 1200-1100 years B.P. resembles the poorly constrained event one rupture age of 1700-800 years B.P for the Porters Pass Fault and the tighter constrained Round Top event of 1010 ± 50 years B.P. on the Alpine Fault. Eight other rock avalanche deposits spread across the central Southern Alps also resemble the new ages however are unable to be assigned specific earthquake events due to the large associated error bars of± 270 years. This clustering of ages does represent compelling lines of evidence for large magnitude earthquake events occurring over the central Southern Alps. The presence of a rock avalanche deposit does not signify an earthquake based on the historical evidence in the Southern Alps however clustering of ages does suggest that large Mw >7 earthquakes occurred across the Southern Alps between 1200-900 years BP.

Seismic design of buildings: Looking towards the future

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.