Here - Stuff

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 1Peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) values recorded for the stations within a 40-km radius fromthe epicenter. Stations located on rock are typed in italic (data from CESMD, Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data:http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/; bandpass filter transition bands are 0.1–0.25 Hz and 24.50–25.50 Hz). R e denotes theepicentral distance.NameStationsIdR e[km]PGAEW[g]PGANS[g]PGAUP[g]PGVEW[cm/s]PGVNS[cm/s]Heathcote Valley Primary School HVSC 1 1.230 1.261 1.466 79.96 89.12 38.51Lyttelton Port Company LPCC 4 0.919 0.771 0.413 37.27 40.97 16.43Pages Road Pumping Station PRPC 6 0.665 0.589 1.629 82.26 74.83 49.48Christchurch Cathedral College CCCC 6 0.415 0.375 0.692 64.75 43.58 21.53Christchurch Cashmere High School CMHS 6 0.369 0.403 0.796 41.69 46.79 15.17Christchurch Resthaven REHS 8 0.719 0.372 0.529 87.30 45.54 21.29Christchurch Hospital CHHC 8 0.357 0.337 0.511 65.17 56.58 20.87Christchurch Botanic Gardens CBGS 9 0.536 0.432 0.271 63.95 43.12 13.42Shirley Library SHLC 9 0.324 0.319 0.500 52.73 51.74 21.73Hulverstone Drive Pumping Station HPSC 9 0.232 0.155 0.858 36.21 26.75 33.93Riccarton High School RHSC 12 0.297 0.254 0.188 29.95 23.63 12.11Christchurch Papanui High School PPHS 12 0.187 0.243 0.195 36.73 28.24 16.82Styx Mill Transfer Station SMTC 14 0.182 0.144 0.176 28.55 20.49 12.31McQueens Valley MQZ 15 0.147 0.098 0.072 7.10 5.44 4.05Christchurch Canterbury Aero Club CACS 18 0.182 0.180 0.185 15.85 13.88 11.84Lincoln Crop and Food Research LINC 19 0.081 0.164 0.084 7.59 16.17 5.41Templeton School TPLC 19 0.091 0.099 0.136 10.36 10.09 8.16Kaiapoi North School KPOC 23 0.211 0.201 0.057 14.19 19.39 5.71Rolleston School ROLC 26 0.164 0.163 0.072 6.30 7.77 4.28Swannanoa School SWNC 29 0.251 0.143 0.056 14.69 13.94 4.73Selwyn Lake Road SLRC 33 0.086 0.088 0.049 7.25 8.32 2.92Ashley School ASHS 35 0.088 0.076 0.037 7.28 5.44 2.30Cust School CSTC 39 0.075 0.078 0.042 6.46 6.71 3.09PGVUP[cm/s]Lyttelton-Akaroa volcanic region, was performed throughthe software package GeoELSE (http://geoelse.stru.polimi.it). Based on the Spectral Element formulation proposed byFaccioli et al. (1997), GeoELSE is designed to perform linearand nonlinear dynamic wave propagation analyses in heterogeneousmedia, exploiting in 3D its implementation in parallelcomputer architectures. Examples of application of GeoELSEto seismic wave propagation studies in complex geologicalconfigurations can be found in Stupazzini et al. (2009) andSmerzini et al. (2011). Different 3D numerical models wereconstructed for the Christchurch earthquake, to check thedependence of the results on: 1) the kinematic source model,based on the information retrieved from recent seismic sourceinversion studies, and 2) the shape of the alluvial-bedrockinterface within the Canterbury Plains. To check the accuracyof the numerical models, the synthetic results are comparedagainst the strong ground motion records. The misfit betweensimulated and recorded waveforms is evaluated in a quantitativeway in a format suitable for engineering applications,making use of the criteria proposed by Anderson (2004). Togive insights into the variability of surface earthquake groundmotion, due to the interaction between near-fault conditionsand strong geological variations, ground-shaking maps andsnapshots of the velocity wavefield are shown.GEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTCHURCH REGIONThe area under study extends from the Southern Alps tothe Lyttelton-Akaroa volcanic region and includes the cityof Christchurch and parts of the Canterbury Plains and theBanks Peninsula. Information about the geology of this areacomes from the 1:250,000 geological map of Christchurch,produced by GNS (Forsyth et al. 2008). Based on the geologicalmap and on the available cross-sections, it was possible toinfer a preliminary stratigraphy for the alluvial cover fillingthe Canterbury Plains in the area of interest (Figure 1). Thebasement rock of the whole region is the Torlesse compositeterrane, a deformed package of Carboniferous to Cretaceoussedimentary rocks. Late Miocene volcanism forms the twomajor overlapping volcanoes Lyttelton and Akaroa on BanksPeninsula, today largely eroded. Erosion of the shallow landmassand glacial-interglacial climatic fluctuations led to the768 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
▲ ▲ Figure 1. A) Area of the model under study, including part of the Canterbury Plains and the Lyttelton-Akaroa volcanic region, alongwith the strong ground motion stations. B) Geological A-A’ cross-section.widespread decomposition of unconsolidated Quaternarysediments that constitute the Canterbury Plains. The alluvialsequence is formed by coal, clay, limestone, and sand (Forsythet al. 2008).It is possible to consider the deep crustal model as basinsediments overlying a layer of Torlesse graywacke down toaround 5 km, overlying, in turn, a layer of Haast Schist downto around 20 km depth. The lower crust is interpreted as mafic(diorite, diabase, and gabbro) Mesozoin ocean crust (Reynersand Cowan 1993; Godfrey et al. 2001, 2002; Melhuish et al.2005). This deep crustal layer subdivision is confirmed by thehigh-resolution seismic wide-angle data, collected within theframework of the South Island Geophysical Transect (SIGHT)experiment (Kleffmann et al 1998; Mortimer et al. 2002; Longet al. 2003; Scherwarth et al. 2003).3D NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE SEISMICRESPONSE OF THE CANTERBURY PLAINS3D numerical simulations consist of the following features:1) kinematic description of the close-by seismic source, 2)horizontally layered deep geological model, 3) a simplifiedbut realistic description for the Cretaceous-Cenozoic alluvialCanterbury Plains, and 4) a linear visco-elastic soil behavior.Note that in these preliminary analyses we considereda relatively rough model for the soil behavior by assuming alinear-visco elastic constitutive law, with a quality factor Q proportionalto frequency (further details about the implementationof the visco-elastic soil behavior model can be found inStupazzini et al. 2009). Different 3D numerical models werebuilt for the Christchurch earthquake to achieve the best fitwith the ground motion observations, combining: 1) two differentkinematic seismic fault solutions, based on recent seismicsource inversion studies, and 2) two simplified models for theshape that defines the interface between the alluvial soft soilsediments and the rigid volcano materials. The 3D model ofthe region of the South Island of New Zealand covers an area ofapproximately 60 x 60 x 20 km around the city of Christchurch,including the information available in the geological map andthe 2D cross-sections, shown in Figure 1 and described in theprevious section.Two different models were constructed to approximatethe complex geological configuration of the Canterbury Plains.The models, referred to hereafter as “step-like” and “smooth,”basically differ in the transition between the alluvial soft sedimentsand the rigid volcano materials, as sketched in Figure 2.In the “step-like” model (Figure 2A), a rough approximationof the alluvial-bedrock shape is adopted. More specifically, thethickness of the alluvial basin is assumed constant across thewhole area under study and equal to 1.5 km. In the “smooth”model, the shape of the interface between the soft soil and thevolcanic materials is improved, with constraints inferred fromthe topography of the volcano (Figure 2B). For both models,the alluvial basin consists of three different layers with V Sranging from 300 m/s in the top 300 m to 1,500 m/s at theinterface with the volcanic materials (top three layers of TableSeismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 769
Page 1: Volume 82, Number 6 November/Decemb
Page 7: News and Notes (continued)Nominatio
Page 11: Preface to the Focused Issue on the
Page 16 and 17: ▲▲Figure 2. A) Sketch of the
Page 18 and 19: ▲▲Figure 4. A) Adopted moment r
Page 20 and 21: ▲▲Figure 7. As in Figure 6 but
Page 22 and 23: ▲ ▲ Figure 8. Misfit parameters
Page 24 and 25: ▲ ▲ Figure 10. Spatial variabil
Page 26 and 27: ▲ ▲ Figure 12. Standard spectra
Page 28 and 29: Quigley, M., R. Van Dissen, P. Vill
Page 30 and 31: slip on a 59-degree striking fault
Page 32 and 33: ▲▲Figure 4. Convergence of inve
Page 34 and 35: observations and other source studi
Page 36 and 37: -42. 5-43. 0-43. 5-44. 0-44. 5-43.2
Page 38 and 39: “Product CSK © ASI, (ItalianSpac
Page 40 and 41: TABLE 2Solutions for fault location
Page 42 and 43: -43.45(A)degrees N-43.50-43.552.52.
Page 44 and 45: is still a good fit to the horizont
Page 46 and 47: Coulomb Stress Change Sensitivity d
Page 48 and 49: mation takes on a larger strike-sli
Page 50 and 51: P 9.4267BLDU45P 20.1213CASY39P 2.62
Page 52 and 53: ERMJNUMAJOINUJHJ2CBIJMIDWJOWYHNBTPU
Page 54 and 55: (A)6.146.13(B)6.246.36Misfit6.156.1
Page 56 and 57: (A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 10. The co
Page 58 and 59: (A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 12. The co
Page 60 and 61: Luo, Y., Y. Tan, S. Wei, D. Helmber
Page 62 and 63: −44˚00' −43˚00'4-Sep-2010Mw 7
Page 64 and 65:
TABLE 1Pairs of SAR imagery used in
Page 67 and 68:
Depth (km)Coulomb Stress Change(bar
Page 69 and 70:
Crippen, R. E. (1992). Measurement
Page 71 and 72:
AlpineFaultHope Fault38 mm/yr0+ +-1
Page 73 and 74:
σ 1dσ 3Nuσ 3CM w 7.1dw 6.2u70°M
Page 75 and 76:
Right-lateral Faults(A) Range Front
Page 77 and 78:
DISCUSSIONThe 2010-2011 Canterbury
Page 79 and 80:
Large Apparent Stresses from the Ca
Page 81 and 82:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Observed vs. pred
Page 83 and 84:
10Obs SA(1s)AS1AS+SDAB 2006AB+SDSA(
Page 85 and 86:
Fine-scale Relocation of Aftershock
Page 87 and 88:
−43.25°OXZ0 10 20km−43.5°−4
Page 89 and 90:
A’0 km 4 8−43.5°B’B−43.6°
Page 91 and 92:
REFERENCESAvery, H. R., J. B. Berri
Page 93 and 94:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. A) shows three-co
Page 95 and 96:
▲ ▲ Figure 4. Vertical accelera
Page 97 and 98:
0.8PRPC Z0.40Normalized (Max PGA +
Page 99 and 100:
Near-source Strong Ground MotionsOb
Page 101 and 102:
(A)Magnitude, M w876542009 NZdataba
Page 103 and 104:
Scale0.5 g5 seconds▲▲Figure 4.
Page 105 and 106:
(A)(B)Spectral Acc, Sa (g)North/Wes
Page 107 and 108:
Vertical-to-horizontal PGA ratio543
Page 109 and 110:
(A)(B)Station:CCCCSolid:AvgHorizDas
Page 111 and 112:
REFERENCESAagaard, B. T., J. F. Hal
Page 113 and 114:
▲ ▲ Figure 1. Shear-wave veloci
Page 115 and 116:
Spectral Acceleration (0.3 s), (g)I
Page 117 and 118:
Spectral Acceleration (3 s), (g)In[
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 1Mean (μ LLH ) and standard
Page 121 and 122:
Strong Ground Motions and Damage Co
Page 123 and 124:
ings and the Modified Takeda-Slip M
Page 125 and 126:
high, but there were no buildings d
Page 127 and 128:
REFERENCES▲▲Figure 8. Heavily d
Page 129 and 130:
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)▲▲Figure 1. A) M
Page 131 and 132:
(A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 3. A) Typ
Page 133 and 134:
(A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 4. A) Typ
Page 135 and 136:
Case StudyKey ParametersTABLE 1Key
Page 137 and 138:
▲ ▲ Figure 9. Representative bu
Page 139 and 140:
Soil Liquefaction Effects in the Ce
Page 141 and 142:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Representative su
Page 143 and 144:
Location of structures illustrated
Page 145 and 146:
Shading indicates areaover which pr
Page 147 and 148:
1.8 deg15 cmGround cracking due to
Page 149 and 150:
30 cm17 cm30 cmFoundation beam▲
Page 151 and 152:
Comparison of Liquefaction Features
Page 153 and 154:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 2. A) Simplified
Page 155 and 156:
(A)Acceleration (Gal)6004002000-200
Page 157 and 158:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Distribution
Page 159 and 160:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 10. Damage to a
Page 161 and 162:
(A)(B)▲ ▲ Figure 14. A) Subside
Page 163 and 164:
▲▲Figure 17. A trench in a resi
Page 165 and 166:
Ambient Noise Measurements followin
Page 167 and 168:
▲▲Figure 1. Location of the noi
Page 169 and 170:
▲▲Figure 5. Site N20 showing HV
Page 171 and 172:
▲▲Figure 8. Comparison between
Page 173 and 174:
Use of DCP and SASW Tests to Evalua
Page 175 and 176:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Aerial image of C
Page 177 and 178:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 4. DCP test bein
Page 179 and 180:
▲▲Figure 7. SASW setup at a sit
Page 181 and 182:
where X ~ N(μ X , σ X 2 ) is shor
Page 183 and 184:
Using the same critical layers as s
Page 185 and 186:
Performance of Levees (Stopbanks) d
Page 187 and 188:
▲▲Figure 3. Typical geometry an
Page 189 and 190:
TABLE 1Damage severity categories (
Page 191 and 192:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 6. A) Large sand
Page 193 and 194:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 8. A) Representa
Page 195 and 196:
each of the Waimakariri River and a
Page 197 and 198:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Horizontal peak g
Page 199 and 200:
only minor damage, mostly to their
Page 201 and 202:
(A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 5. Ferrymead
Page 203 and 204:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Damage to sou
Page 205 and 206:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 11. Settlement o
Page 207 and 208:
(A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 14. Railway B
Page 209 and 210:
Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Associ
Page 211 and 212:
New PublicationsCanGeoRefThe Americ
Page 213 and 214:
Wednesday, 18 AprilTechnical Sessio
Page 215 and 216:
Verification of a Spectral-Element
Page 217 and 218:
EASTERN SECTIONRESEARCH LETTERSReas
Page 219 and 220:
(A)70°N100°W 60°W70°N(B)100°E1
Page 221 and 222:
Mongolia SCRThe presence or absence
Page 223 and 224:
the small horizontal relative motio
Page 225 and 226:
80°100°120°140°EXPLANATIONBorde
Page 227 and 228:
Chang, K. H. (1997). Korean peninsu
Page 229 and 230:
Wheeler, R. L. (2008). Paleoseismic
Page 231 and 232:
A significant outcome of this study
Page 233 and 234:
TABLE 1 (continued)Earthquakes for
Page 235 and 236:
▲▲Figure 2. Earthquakes used in
Page 237 and 238:
Meeting CalendarM E E T I N GC A L
Page 239 and 240:
201 Plaza Professional Bldg. • El
Page 241 and 242:
Seismological Research Letters (SRL
Page 243 and 244:
Christa von Hillebrandt-Andrade, Pr
show all

Here - Stuff

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?