Here - Stuff

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TransitionsEdwin Victor Apel III recently moved to Risk ManagementSolutions from AMEC Geomatrix.Jonathan Bray, a professor of geotechnical engineering atUniversity of California Berkeley, has been selected as the 2012Joyner Lecturer.Ethan D. Brown recently moved to RDRTec from ScienceApplications International Corp.Andres Chavarria recently moved from Vialogy to SR2020Borehole Seismic Services.Vedran Lekic recently moved to the University of Marylandfrom Brown University.Wayne D. Pennington was inducted as the new presidentAmerican Geosciences Institute (AGI) at the recent GeologicalSociety of America Annual Meeting in Minneapolis,Minnesota. He is chairman of the Department of Geologicaland Mining Engineering and Sciences at MichiganTechnological University.Stephane Rondenay moved recently from the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology to University of Bergen.Takahiko Uchide recently moved from Scripps Institutionof Oceanography at University of California San Diego to theDisaster Prevention Research Institute at Kyoto University inJapan.Peter Yanev recently founded Yanev Associates, a consultingfirm that specializes in earthquake risk management and engineering.Your contributions of items for “Transitions” are most welcome.Please tell us about your awards, promotions, job changes,reorganizations, and retirements. Send announcements to SRLEditor Jonathan M. Lees in care of the SRL managing editor atsrl@seismosoc.org.764 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.764
Preface to the Focused Issue on the 22 February2011 Magnitude 6.2 Christchurch EarthquakeErol KalkanErol KalkanU.S. Geological Survey, Menlo ParkThe 22 February 2011 magnitude 6.2 Christchurch earthquake,centered southeast of Christchurch, was part of the aftershocksequence that has been occurring since the September 2010magnitude 7.1 quake near Darfield, 40 km west of the city. TheChristchurch earthquake killed more than 180 people, damagedor destroyed more than 100,000 buildings, and is NewZealand’s most deadly disaster since the earthquake that struckthe Napier and Hastings area on 3 February 1931.This special focused issue of Seismological Research Letters,which I had the fortune to edit, contains a selected set of 19original technical papers. These papers cover different aspectsof the 2011 Christchurch earthquake from seismological, geodetic,geological, and engineering perspectives.The first eight papers focus on earthquake source modeling,fault stress variation, and aftershock sequence. The paper byGuidotti et al. presents three-dimensional numerical simulationsof the Christchurch earthquake by comparing different faultand interface models. Using data from a dense network of strongmotion instruments, Holden et al. presents the inversion schemefor constraining the source kinematics of the Christchurchevent. The constrained geodetic source model is presented nextby Beavan et al. using a large amount of ground-displacementdata. The following paper by Zhan et al. concentrates on howapplicable the static Coulomb stress triggering mechanism is tothe 2011 Christchurch aftershock, and it examines the sensitivityof the stress changes to mainshock slip distribution and aftershockfault orientation. Along the same line, Barnhart et al. performsinversions of optical imagery data for spatial distributionof fault slip that occurred during the Darfield and Christchurchearthquakes, and assesses the potential contribution of the staticCoulomb stress change during the Darfield event to the eventualrupture of the Christchurch event. The next paper, by Sibsonet al., evaluates how the complex earthquake sequence of theregion likely has arisen through reactivation under the contemporarytectonic stress field of a mixture of comparatively newlyformed and older inherited fault structures. The paper by Fryand Gerstenberger presents apparent stresses of the three largestregional earthquakes, and compares them to global and regionaldata to improve future seismic hazard estimates due to similarhigh-stress events. In order to better understand the regionalcomplex fault system, Bannister et al. provides relocation analysisof aftershocks that have occurred since the February earthquakethrough May 2011.The next three papers concentrate on recorded strongground motions and their engineering implications. Fry et al.investigates characteristics of recorded horizontal and verticalwaveforms and their correlation with the observed nonlinearsite response. The following paper, by Bradley and Cubrinovski,provides a preliminary assessment of the near-source groundmotions recorded in the Christchurch region by examiningtheir spatial distribution including source, path, and siteeffects. The next paper of this series is by Segou and Kalkan,which evaluates the performance of global ground-motion predictionmodels using the strong motion data obtained from theDarfield and Christchurch earthquakes in order to improvefuture seismic hazard assessment and building code provisionsfor the Canterbury region.The next set of eight papers focus on observed structuraland geotechnical damages associated with strong ground shakingduring both the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes.The paper by Iizuka et al. investigates the damage around theseismic stations to determine the relationship between structuraldamage and strong motions during the Christchurchearthquake. Similarly, Smyrou et al. evaluates the strongground motions of this event in an effort to broadly explain andquantify the observed structural and geotechnical damages.The next paper, by Zupan et al., summarizes the key field observationsmade following the Christchurch earthquake regardingthe effects of soil liquefaction on building performance inthe central business district. Along the same line, Orense et al.compares the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes accordingto the results of the reconnaissance works with emphasis onthe geotechnical implications of liquefaction-observed damagein the affected areas. Using the ambient noise measurementsfollowing the Christchurch earthquake, Mucciarelli investigatesthe relationships with previous microzonation studies,liquefaction, and soil nonlinear response. Green, Wood et al.compare the observed versus predicted liquefaction occurrenceduring the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes usingDCP and SASW tests; and Green, Allen et al., summarizes theperformance of the levees along the Waimakariri and Kaiapoirivers during these two events. The final paper of this specialfocused issue is by Wotherspoon et al. and presents a summaryof field observations, and subsequent analyses on the damage tosome of the bridges in the Canterbury region as a result of theChristchurch earthquake.doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.765Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 765
Page 1: Volume 82, Number 6 November/Decemb
Page 7: News and Notes (continued)Nominatio
Page 14 and 15: TABLE 1Peak ground acceleration (PG
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?