This paper presents on-going challenges in the present paradigm shift of earthquakeinduced ground motion prediction from empirical to physics-based simulation methods. The 2010-2011 Canterbury and 2016 Kaikoura earthquakes are used to illustrate the predictive potential of the different methods. On-going efforts on simulation validation and theoretical developments are then presented, as well as the demands associated with the need for explicit consideration of modelling uncertainties. Finally, discussion is also given to the tools and databases needed for the efficient utilization of simulated ground motions both in specific engineering projects as well as for near-real-time impact assessment.
Many buildings with relatively low damage from the 2010-2011 Canterbury were deemed uneconomic to repair and were replaced [1,2]. Factors that affected commercial building owners’ decisions to replace rather than repair, included capital availability, uncertainty with regards to regional recovery, local market conditions and ability to generate cash flow, and repair delays due to limited property access (cordon). This poster provides a framework for modeling decision-making in a case where repair is feasible but replacement might offer greater economic value – a situation not currently modeled in engineering risk analysis.
Background Liquefaction induced land damage has been identified in more than 13 notable New Zealand earthquakes within the past 150 years, as presented on the timeline below. Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES), the consequences of liquefaction were witnessed first-hand in the city of Christchurch and as a result the demand for understanding this phenomenon was heightened. Government, local councils, insurers and many other stakeholders are now looking to research and understand their exposure to this natural hazard.
The latest two great earthquake sequences; 2010- 2011 Canterbury Earthquake and 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake, necessitate a better understanding of the New Zealand seismic hazard condition for new building design and detailed assessment of existing buildings. It is important to note, however, that the New Zealand seismic hazard map in NZS 1170.5.2004 is generalised in effort to cover all of New Zealand and limited to a earthquake database prior to 2001. This is “common” that site-specific studies typically provide spectral accelerations different to those shown on the national map (Z values in NZS 1170.5:2004); and sometimes even lower. Moreover, Section 5.2 of Module 1 of the Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Practice series provide the guidelines to perform site- specific studies.
Unreinforced masonry churches in New Zealand, similarly to everywhere else in the word have proven to be highly vulnerable to earthquakes, because of their particular construction features. The Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, 2010-2011 caused an invaluable loss of local architectural heritage and of churches, as regrettably, some of them were demolished instead of being repaired. It is critical for New Zealand to advance the data collection, research and understanding pertaining to the seismic performance and protection of church buildings, with the aim to:
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010-2011 (CES) induced widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch city. Liquefaction was more commonly observed in the eastern suburbs and along the Avon River where the soils were characterised by thick sandy deposits with a shallow water table. On the other hand, suburbs to the north, west and south of the CBD (e.g. Riccarton, Papanui) exhibited less severe to no liquefaction. These soils were more commonly characterised by inter-layered liquefiable and non-liquefiable deposits. As part of a related large-scale study of the performance of Christchurch soils during the CES, detailed borehole data including CPT, Vs and Vp have been collected for 55 sites in Christchurch. For this subset of Christchurch sites, predictions of liquefaction triggering using the simplified method (Boulanger & Idriss, 2014) indicated that liquefaction was over-predicted for 94% of sites that did not manifest liquefaction during the CES, and under-predicted for 50% of sites that did manifest liquefaction. The focus of this study was to investigate these discrepancies between prediction and observation. To assess if these discrepancies were due to soil-layer interaction and to determine the effect that soil stratification has on the develop-ment of liquefaction and the system response of soil deposits.
