1. Background and Objectives This poster presents results from ground motion simulations of small-to-moderate magnitude (3.5≤Mw≤5.0) earthquake events in the Canterbury, New Zealand region using the Graves and Pitarka (2010,2015) methodology. Subsequent investigation of systematic ground motion effects highlights the prediction bias in the simulations which are also benchmarked against empirical ground motion models (e.g. Bradley (2013)). In this study, 144 earthquake ruptures, modelled as point sources, are considered with 1924 quality-assured ground motions recorded across 45 strong motion stations throughout the Canterbury region, as shown in Figure 1. The majority of sources are Mw≥4.0 and have centroid depth (CD) 10km or shallower. Earthquake source descriptions were obtained from the GeoNet New Zealand earthquake catalogue. The ground motion simulations were performed within a computational domain of 140km x 120km x 46km with a finite difference grid spacing of 0.1km. The low-frequency (LF) simulations utilize the 3D Canterbury Velocity Model while the high-frequency (HF) simulations utilize a generic regional 1D velocity model. In the LF simulations, a minimum shear wave velocity of 500m/s is enforced, yielding a maximum frequency of 1.0Hz.
Today was the first time I have been to the earthquake memorial since it was completed and opened on 22nd February 2017, six years after the devastating quake that killed the 185 that are named on this wall.
I knew two of the people on the list.
This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
Liquefaction affects late Holocene, loose packed and water saturated sediment subjected to cyclical shear stress. Liquefaction features in the geological record are important off-fault markers that inform about the occurrence of moderate to large earthquakes (> 5 Mw). The study of contemporary liquefaction features provides a better understanding of where to find past (paleo) liquefaction features, which, if identified and dated, can provide information on the occurrence, magnitude and timing of past earthquakes. This is particularly important in areas with blind active faults.
The extensive liquefaction caused by the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) gave the geoscience community the opportunity to study the liquefaction process in different settings (alluvial, coastal and estuarine), investigating different aspects (e.g. geospatial correlation with landforms, thresholds for peak ground acceleration, resilience of infrastructures), and to collect a wealth geospatial dataset in the broad region of the Canterbury Plains.
The research presented in this dissertation examines the sedimentary architecture of two environments, the alluvial and coastal settings, affected by liquefaction during the CES. The novel aim of this study is to investigate how landform and subsurface sedimentary architecture influence liquefaction and its surface manifestation, to provide knowledge for locating studies of paleoliquefaction in future.
Two study cases documented in the alluvial setting showed that liquefaction features affected a crevasse splay and point bar ridges. However, the liquefaction source layer was linked to paleochannel floor deposits below the crevasse splay in the first case, and to the point bar deposits themselves in the second case.
This research documents liquefaction features in the coastal dune system of the Canterbury Plains in detail for the first time. In the coastal dune setting the liquefiable layer is near the surface. The pore water pressure is vented easily because the coastal dune soil profile is entirely composed of non-cohesive, very well sorted sandy sediment that weakly resists disturbance from fluidised sediment under pressure. As a consequence, the liquefied flow does not need to find a specific crack through which the sediment is vented at the surface; instead, the liquefied sand finds many closely spaced conduits to vent its excess of pore water pressure. Therefore, in the coastal dune setting it is rare to observe discrete dikes (as they are defined in the alluvial setting), instead A horizon delamination (splitting) and blistering (near surface sills) are more common. The differences in styles of surface venting lead to contrasts in patterns of ejecta in the two environments. Whereas the alluvial environment is characterised by coalesced sand blows forming lineations, the coastal dune environment hosts apparently randomly distributed isolated sand blows often associated with collapse features.
Amongst the techniques tested for the first time to investigate liquefaction features are: 3D GPR, which improved the accuracy of the trenching even six years after the liquefaction events; thin section analysis to investigate sediment fabric, which helped to discriminate liquefied sediment from its host sediment, and modern from paleoliquefaction features; a Random Forest classification based on the CES liquefaction map, which was used to test relationships between surface manifestation of liquefaction and topographic parameters. The results from this research will be used to target new study sites for future paleoliquefaction research and thus will improve the earthquake hazard assessment across New Zealand.
