Search

found 151 results

Images for seismic hazard; more images...

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This study updated the 1999 Earthquake hazard and risk assessment study Stage 1 Part B: Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and Earthquake scenarios for the Canterbury region, and historic earthquakes in Christchurch report. It incorporated new fault data, a new distributed seismicity model and new methods for estimating Modified Mercalli intensities. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This study updated the 1999 Earthquake hazard and risk assessment study Stage 1 Part B: Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and Earthquake scenarios for the Canterbury region, and historic earthquakes in Christchurch report. It incorporated new fault data, a new distributed seismicity model and new methods for estimating Modified Mercalli intensities. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper concerns the explicit consideration of near-fault directivity in conventional ground motion prediction models, and its implication for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in New Zealand. The proposed approach utilises recently developed models by Shahi & Baker (2011), which account for both the 'narrowband' nature of the directivity pulse on spectral ordinates, and the probability of pulse occurrence at the site of interest. Furthermore, in order to correctly consider directivity, distributed seismicity sources are considered as finite-faults, as opposed to their (incorrect) conventional treatment as point-sources. The significance of directivity on hazard analysis results is illustrated for various vibration periods at generic sites located in Christchurch and Otira, two locations whose seismic hazard is comprised of notably different seismic sources. When compared to the PSHA results considering directivity and distributed seismicity as finite faults, it is shown that the NZS1170.5:2004 directivity factor is notably unconservative for all vibration periods in Otira (i.e. high seismic hazard region); and unconservative for Christchurch at short-to-moderate vibration periods ( < 3s); but conservative at long periods ( > 4s).

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper examines the consistency of seismicity and ground motion models, used for seismic hazard analysis in New Zealand, with the observations in the Canterbury earthquakes. An overview is first given of seismicity and ground motion modelling as inputs of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, whose results form the basis for elastic response spectra in NZS1170.5:2004. The magnitude of earthquakes in the Canterbury earthquake sequence are adequately allowed for in the current NZ seismicity model, however the consideration of ‘background’ earthquakes as point sources at a minimum depth of 10km results in up to a 60% underestimation of the ground motions that such events produce. The ground motion model used in conventional NZ seismic hazard analysis is shown to provide biased predictions of response spectra (over-prediction near T=0.2s , and under-predictions at moderate-to-large vibration periods). Improved ground motion prediction can be achieved using more recent NZ-specific models.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Damage scenario and seismic risk analysis, along with the use of a GIS-environment to represent the results, are helpful tools to support the decision making for planning and prioritizing seismic risk management strategies. The common framework for developing seismic risk analysis and damage scenarios is based on the traditionally accepted definition of the seismic risk as a convolution of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. This paper focuses on the importance of an appropriate geotechnical hazard representation within a seismic risk analysis process. After an overview of alternative methods for geotechnical zonation available in literature, with a different level of refinement depending on the information available, examples of their implementation are provided with reference to a case study. Significant differences in terms of the resulting microzoning can be observed. It is worth noting that in such methods, the definition of the site effect amplifications does not account for the characteristics of the built environment, affecting the soil-structure interaction. Alternative methods able to account for either the soil conditions and the characteristics of the built environment have been recently proposed and are herein discussed. Within a framework for seismic risk analysis, different formulation would thus derive depending on both the intensity measure (i.e. macrose3ismic intensity or response spectra) and the vulnerability approach (i.e. macroseismic/observational or mechanical -based approach) adopted. In conclusion, an immediate visualization of the importance of the geotechnical hazard evaluation within a seismic risk analysis is provided in terms of the variation of the expected damage and consequence distribution.