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.
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.
Damage distribution maps from strong earthquakes and recorded data from field experiments have repeatedly shown that the ground surface topography and subsurface stratigraphy play a decisive role in shaping the ground motion characteristics at a site. Published theoretical studies qualitatively agree with observations from past seismic events and experiments; quantitatively, however, they systematically underestimate the absolute level of topographic amplification up to an order of magnitude or more in some cases. We have hypothesized in previous work that this discrepancy stems from idealizations of the geometry, material properties, and incident motion characteristics that most theoretical studies make. In this study, we perform numerical simulations of seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous media with arbitrary ground surface geometry, and compare results with high quality field recordings from a site with strong surface topography. Our goal is to explore whether high-fidelity simulations and realistic numerical models can – contrary to theoretical models – capture quantitatively the frequency and amplitude characteristics of topographic effects. For validation, we use field data from a linear array of nine portable seismometers that we deployed on Mount Pleasant and Heathcote Valley, Christchurch, New Zealand, and we compute empirical standard spectral ratios (SSR) and single-station horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios (HVSR). The instruments recorded ambient vibrations and remote earthquakes for a period of two months (March-April 2017). We next perform two-dimensional wave propagation simulations using the explicit finite difference code FLAC. We construct our numerical model using a high-resolution (8m) Digital Elevation Map (DEM) available for the site, an estimated subsurface stratigraphy consistent with the geomorphology of the site, and soil properties estimated from in-situ and non-destructive tests. We subject the model to in-plane and out-of-plane incident motions that span a broadband frequency range (0.1-20Hz). Numerical and empirical spectral ratios from our blind prediction are found in very good quantitative agreement for stations on the slope of Mount Pleasant and on the surface of Heathcote Valley, across a wide range of frequencies that reveal the role of topography, soil amplification and basin edge focusing on the distribution of ground surface motion.
Semi-empirical models based on in-situ geotechnical tests have become the standard of practice for predicting soil liquefaction. Since the inception of the “simplified” cyclic-stress model in 1971, variants based on various in-situ tests have been developed, including the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). More recently, prediction models based soley on remotely-sensed data were developed. Similar to systems that provide automated content on earthquake impacts, these “geospatial” models aim to predict liquefaction for rapid response and loss estimation using readily-available data. This data includes (i) common ground-motion intensity measures (e.g., PGA), which can either be provided in near-real-time following an earthquake, or predicted for a future event; and (ii) geospatial parameters derived from digital elevation models, which are used to infer characteristics of the subsurface relevent to liquefaction. However, the predictive capabilities of geospatial and geotechnical models have not been directly compared, which could elucidate techniques for improving the geospatial models, and which would provide a baseline for measuring improvements. Accordingly, this study assesses the realtive efficacy of liquefaction models based on geospatial vs. CPT data using 9,908 case-studies from the 2010-2016 Canterbury earthquakes. While the top-performing models are CPT-based, the geospatial models perform relatively well given their simplicity and low cost. Although further research is needed (e.g., to improve upon the performance of current models), the findings of this study suggest that geospatial models have the potential to provide valuable first-order predictions of liquefaction occurence and consequence. Towards this end, performance assessments of geospatial vs. geotechnical models are ongoing for more than 20 additional global earthquakes.
