The south Leader Fault (SLF) is a newly documented active structure that ruptured the surface during the Mw 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake. The Leader Fault is a NNE trending oblique left lateral thrust that links the predominantly right lateral ‘The Humps’ and Conway-Charwell faults. The present research uses LiDAR at 0.5 m resolution and field mapping to determine the factors controlling the surface geometries and kinematics of the south Leader Fault ruptures at the ground surface. The SLF zone is up to 2km wide and comprises a series of echelon NE-striking thrusts linked by near-vertical N-S striking faults. The thrusts are upthrown to the west by up to 1 m and dip 35-45°. Thrust slip surfaces are parallel with Cretaceous-Cenozoic bedding and may reflect flexural slip folding. By contrast, the northerly striking faults dip steeply (65° west- 85° east), and accommodate up to 3m of oblique left lateral displacement at the ground surface and displace Cenozoic bedding. Some of the SLF has been mapped in bedrock, although none were known to be active prior to the earthquake or have a strong topographic expression. The complexity of fault rupture and the width of the fault zone appears to reflect the occurrence of faulting and folding at the ground surface during the earthquake.
The Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake ruptured ~200 km at the ground surface across the New Zealand plate boundary zone in the northern South Island. This study was conducted in an area of ~600 km2 in the epicentral region where the faults comprise two main non-coplanar sets that strike E-NE and NNE-NW with mainly steep dips (60о-80°). Analysis of the surface rupture using field and LiDAR data provides new information on the dimensions, geometries and kinematics of these faults which was not previously available from pre-earthquake active faults or bedrock structure. The more northerly striking fault set are sub-parallel to basement bedding and accommodated predominantly left-lateral reverse slip with net slips of ~1 and ~5 m for the Stone Jug and Leader faults, respectively. The E-NE striking Conway-Charwell and The Humps faults accrued right-lateral to oblique reverse with net slips of ~2 and ~3 m, respectively. The faults form a hard-linked system dominated by kinematics consistent with the ~260° trend of the relative plate motion vector and the transpressional structures recorded across the plate boundary in the NE South Island. Interaction and intersection of the main fault sets facilitated propagation of the earthquake and transfer of slip northwards across the plate boundary zone.
Surface rupture and slip from the Mw 7.8 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake have been mapped in the region between the Leader and Charwell rivers using field mapping and LiDAR data. The eastern Humps, north Leader and Conway-Charwell faults ruptured the ground surface in the study area. The E-NE striking ‘The Humps’ Fault runs along the base of the Mt Stewart range front, appears to dip steeply NW and intersects the NNW-NNE Leader Fault which itself terminates northwards at the NE striking Conway-Charwell Fault. The eastern Humps Fault is up to the NW and accommodates oblique slip with reverse and right lateral displacement. Net slip on ‘The Humps’ Fault is ≤4 m and produced ≤4 m uplift of the Mt Stewart range during the earthquake. The Leader Fault strikes NNW-NNE with dips ranging from ~10° west to 80° east and accommodated ≤4 m net slip comprising left-lateral and up-to-the-west vertical displacement. Like the Humps west of the study area, surface-rupture of the Leader Fault occurred on multiple strands. The complexity of rupture on the Leader Fault is in part due to the occurrence of bedding-parallel slip within the Cretaceous-Cenozoic sequence. Although the Mt Stewart range front is bounded by ‘The Humps’ Fault, in the study area neither this fault nor the Leader Fault were known to have been active before the earthquake. Fieldwork and trenching investigations are ongoing to characterise the geometry, kinematics and paleoseismic history of the mapped active faults.
This dissertation addresses several fundamental and applied aspects of ground motion selection for seismic response analyses. In particular, the following topics are addressed: the theory and application of ground motion selection for scenario earthquake ruptures; the consideration of causal parameter bounds in ground motion selection; ground motion selection in the near-fault region where directivity effect is significant; and methodologies for epistemic uncertainty consideration and propagation in the context of ground motion selection and seismic performance assessment. The paragraphs below outline each contribution in more detail. A scenario-based ground motion selection method is presented which considers the joint distribution of multiple intensity measure (IM) types based on the generalised conditional intensity measure (GCIM) methodology (Bradley, 2010b, 2012c). The ground motion selection algorithm is based on generating realisations of the considered IM distributions for a specific rupture scenario and then finding the prospective ground motions which best fit the realisations using an optimal amplitude scaling factor. In addition, using different rupture scenarios and site conditions, two important aspects of the GCIM methodology are scrutinised: (i) different weight vectors for the various IMs considered; and (ii) quantifying the importance of replicate selections for ensembles with different numbers of desired ground motions. As an application of the developed scenario-based ground motion selection method, ground motion ensembles are selected to represent several major earthquake scenarios in New Zealand that pose a significant seismic hazard, namely, Alpine, Hope and Porters Pass ruptures for Christchurch city; and Wellington, Ohariu, and Wairarapa ruptures for Wellington city. A rigorous basis is developed, and sensitivity analyses performed, for the consideration of bounds on causal parameters (e.g., magnitude, source-to-site distance, and site condition) for ground motion selection. The effect of causal parameter bound selection on both the number of available prospective ground motions from an initial empirical as-recorded database, and the statistical properties of IMs of selected ground motions are examined. It is also demonstrated that using causal parameter bounds is not a reliable approach to implicitly account for ground motion duration and cumulative effects when selection is based on only spectral acceleration (SA) ordinates. Specific causal parameter bounding criteria are recommended for general use as a ‘default’ bounding criterion with possible adjustments from the analyst based on problem-specific preferences. An approach is presented to consider the forward directivity effects in seismic hazard analysis, which does not separate the hazard calculations for pulse-like and non-pulse-like ground motions. Also, the ability of ground motion selection methods to appropriately select records containing forward directivity pulse motions in the near-fault region is examined. Particular attention is given to ground motion selection which is explicitly based on ground motion IMs, including SA, duration, and cumulative measures; rather than a focus on implicit parameters (i.e., distance, and pulse or non-pulse classifications) that are conventionally used to heuristically distinguish between the near-fault and far-field records. No ad hoc criteria, in terms of the number of directivity ground motions and their pulse periods, are enforced for selecting pulse-like records. Example applications are presented with different rupture characteristics, source-to-site geometry, and site conditions. It is advocated that the selection of ground motions in the near-fault region based on IM properties alone is preferred to that in which the proportion of pulse-like motions and their pulse periods are specified a priori as strict criteria for ground motion selection. Three methods are presented to propagate the effect of seismic hazard and ground motion selection epistemic uncertainties to seismic performance metrics. These methods differ in their level of rigor considered to propagate the epistemic uncertainty in the conditional distribution of IMs utilised in ground motion selection, selected ground motion ensembles, and the number of nonlinear response history analyses performed to obtain the distribution of engineering demand parameters. These methods are compared for an example site where it is observed that, for seismic demand levels below the collapse limit, epistemic uncertainty in ground motion selection is a smaller uncertainty contributor relative to the uncertainty in the seismic hazard itself. In contrast, uncertainty in ground motion selection process increases the uncertainty in the seismic demand hazard for near-collapse demand levels.
