Search

found 10 results

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

his poster presents the ongoing development of a 3D Canterbury seismic velocity model which will be used in physics-based hybrid broadband ground motion simulation of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Velocity models must sufficiently represent critical aspects of the crustal structure over multiple length scales which will influence the results of the simulations. As a result, numerous sources of data are utilized in order to provide adequate resolution where necessary. Figure 2: (a) Seismic reflection line showing P-wave velocities and significant geologic horizons (Barnes et al. 2011), and (b) Shear wave profiles at 10 locations (Stokoe et al. 2013). Figure 4: Cross sections of the current version of the Canterbury velocity model to depths of 10km as shown in Figure 1: (a) at a constant latitude value of -43.6˚, and (b) at a constant longitude value of 172.64˚. 3. Ground Surface and Geologic Horizon Models Figure 3: (a) Ground surface model derived from numerous available digital elevation models, and (b) Base of the Quaternary sediments derived from structural contours and seismic reflection line elevations. The Canterbury region has a unique and complex geology which likely has a significant impact on strong ground motions, in particular the deep and loose deposits of the Canterbury basin. The Canterbury basin has several implications on seismic wave phenomena such as long period ground motion amplification and wave guide effects. Using a realistic 3D seismic velocity model in physics-based ground motion simulation will implicitly account for such effects and the resultant simulated ground motions can be studied to gain a fundamental understanding of the salient ground motion phenomena which occurred during the Canterbury earthquakes, and the potential for repeat occurrences in the Canterbury region. Figure 1 shows the current model domain as a rectangular area between Lat=[-43.2˚,-44.0˚], and Lon=[171.5˚,173.0˚]. This essentially spans the area between the foot of the Southern Alps in the North West to Banks Peninsula in the East. Currently the model extends to a depth of 50km below sea level.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Novel Gel-push sampling was employed to obtain high quality samples of Christchurch sands from the Central Business District, at sites where liquefaction was observed in 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011 earthquakes. The results of cyclic triaxial testing on selected undisturbed specimens of typical Christchurch sands are presented and compared to empirical procedures used by practitioners. This comparison suggests cyclic triaxial data may be conservative, and the Magnitude Scaling Factor used in empirical procedures may be unconservative for highly compressible soils during near source moderate to low magnitude events. Comparison to empirical triggering curves suggests the empirical method generally estimates the cyclic strength of Christchurch sands within a reasonable degree of accuracy as a screening evaluation tool for liquefaction hazard, however for sands with moderate to high fines content it may be significantly unconservative, highlighting the need for high quality sampling and testing on important projects where seismic performance is critical.