The objective of this study is to examine the influence of near-fault motions on liquefaction triggering in Christchurch and neighboring towns during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). The CES began with the 4 September 2010, Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake and included up to ten events that triggered liquefaction. However, most notably, widespread liquefaction was induced by the Darfield earthquake and the Mw6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Of particular relevance to this study is the forward directivity effects that were prevalent in the motions recorded during the Darfield earthquake, and to a much lesser extent, during the Christchurch earthquake. A 2D variant of the Richart-Newmark fatigue theory was used to compute the equivalent number of cycles (neq) for the ground motions, where volumetric strain was used as the damage metric. This study is unique because it considers the contribution and phasing of both the fault-normal and fault-parallel components of motion on neq and the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). It was found that when the fault-normal and fault-parallel motions were treated individually, the former yielded a lower neq than the latter. Additionally, when the combined effects of fault-normal and fault-parallel components were considered, it was found that the MSF were higher than those commonly used. This implies that motions containing near-fault effects are less demanding on the soil than motions that do not. This may be one of several factors that resulted in less severe liquefaction occurring during the Darfield earthquake than the Christchurch earthquake.
This paper provides a summary of the ground motions observed in the recent Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence. The sequence occurred in a region of relatively moderate seismicity, 130km to the east of the Alpine Fault, the major plate-boundary in the region. From an engineering perspective, the sequence has been primarily comprised of the initial 04/09/2010 Darfield earthquake (Mw7.1) followed by the 22/02/2011 Christchurch earthquake (Mw6.3), and two aftershocks on 13/06/ 2011 (Mw5.3 and 6.0, respectively). The dense spacing of strong motions in the region, and their close proximity to the respective causative faults, has resulted in strong ground motions far exceeding the previous catalogue of strong motion observed in New Zealand. The observed ground motions have exhibited clear evidence of: (i) near-source directivity; (ii) sedimentary basin focusing, amplification and basin effect refraction; (iii) non-linear site response; (iv) cyclic mobility postliquefaction; and (v) extreme vertical ground motions exceeding 2g, among others.
The city of Christchurch and its surrounds experienced widespread damage due to soil liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence that began in September 2010 with the Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake. Prior to the start of this sequence, the city had a large network of strong motion stations (SMSs) installed, which were able to record a vast database of strong ground motions. This paper uses this database of strong ground motion recordings, observations of liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface, and data from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation program at each SMS to assess a range of liquefaction evaluation procedures at the four SMSs in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). In general, the characteristics of the accelerograms recorded at each SMS correlated well with the liquefaction evaluation procedures, with low liquefaction factors of safety predicted at sites with clear liquefaction identifiers in the ground motions. However, at sites that likely liquefied at depth (as indicated by evaluation procedures and/or inferred from the characteristics of the recorded surface accelerograms), the presence of a non-liquefiable crust layer at many of the SMS locations prevented the manifestation of any surface effects. Because of this, there was not a good correlation between surface manifestation and two surface manifestation indices, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN).
