Here - Stuff

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(A)Velocity, v (cm/s)100500-50-100100500-50-100Station:PRPC ; R rup=2.5 km, Fault ParallelFault Normal(B)Velocity, v (cm/s)(C)100500-50Vertical-1000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Time, t (s)80400-40-8080400-40-80Station:CHHC ; R rup=3.8 kmFault ParallelFault Normal8040Vertical0-40-800 10 20 30 40 50 60Time, t (s)10 0Station:CHHCR rup=3.8 kmSpectral Acc, Sa (g)10 -110 -2Z 1.0=1000mno directivityFault ParallelFault NormalHoriz gmZ 1.0=1000mdirectivity considered10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1Period, T (s)▲ ▲ Figure 9. A) velocity time history recorded at Pages Road (PRPC); B) velocity time history recorded at Christchurch hospital (CHHC);and C) empirically predicted effect of directivity on spectral amplitudes at Christchurch hospital. The prediction shown is for the horizontalgeometric mean and dashed lines represent the 16th and 84th percentiles.860 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
Vertical-to-horizontal PGA ratio54321PRPCHPSCCHHCLPOCBCDELiquefactionObservedBozorgnia andCampbell (2004)Firm SoilSoft RockLPCC00 5 10 15 20Source-to-site distance, R rup(km)▲▲Figure 10. Observed vertical-to-horizontal peak groundacceleration ratios.which are subsequently amplified and refracted toward verticalincidence due to the basin P-wave gradient (Silva 1997).Figure 10 illustrates the ratio of peak vertical accelerationand peak horizontal acceleration at the near-source strongmotion sites, as well as the empirical model of Bozorgnia andCampbell (2004). It can be seen that peak vertical-to-horizontalground acceleration ratios of up to 4.8 were observed. The peakvertical-to-horizontal ground acceleration ratios show a rapiddecay with source-to-site distance, and the observed ratios comparefavorably with the Bozorgnia and Campbell (2004) empiricalmodel for source-to-site distances beyond 5 km but significantlyunderpredict the ratios at closer distances. In Figure 10,data are also differentiated by whether liquefaction was observed(as discussed previously). Almost all strong motion records atdistances less than 5 km show liquefaction evidence (the exceptionbeing Heathcote Valley (HVSC)). At the aforementionedsites (with source-to-site distances less than 5 km), the large peakvertical-to-horizontal ground acceleration ratios observed areinterpreted to be the result of both the aforementioned steepfault dip leading to large vertical ground motions as well as significantnonlinear soil behavior (including liquefaction), whichgenerally results in more of a reduction in peak horizontal accelerationsthan peak vertical accelerations (e.g., Figure 1).(A)(B)Spectral acc, Sa (g)Spectral disp, Sd (cm)Eq:22/02/2011Solid:AvgHorizDashed:Vert10 -1 CCCCCHHCCBGSREHSNZS1170.510 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 110 0 Period, T (s)7060504030201000 2 4 6 8 10Period, T (s)▲ ▲ Figure 11. Comparison of response spectra from four strongmotionstations located in the Christchurch central business district:A) horizontal and vertical pseudo-acceleration responsespectra; and B) horizontal displacement response spectra.Ground Motion Intensity in the Central Business District(CBD)The Christchurch earthquake caused significant damage tocommercial structures in the CBD. At the time of writing, thepublic access to the majority of the 2 km 2 CBD is still prohibitedwhile an estimated 1,000 structures (of various typologies,construction materials, and age) are being demolished.The complete collapse of the Pine Gould Corporation andCanterbury Television buildings also led to the majority of the181 casualties (New Zealand Police 2011).Figures 11A and 11B illustrate the pseudo-accelerationand displacement response spectra of four strong motion stations(CCCC, CHHC, CBGS, REHS) located in the CBDregion. Despite their geographic separation distances (relativeto their respective source-to-site distances) it can be seen thatthe characteristics of the ground motion observed at theselocations is relatively similar. This is particularly the case forlong-period ground motion amplitudes, which have longerwavelengths and therefore are expected to be more coherent.On the other hand, at short vibration periods there is more ofa discrepancy in seismic intensity due to a shorter wavelengthand therefore lower wave coherency, and probably more importantlydue to the nonlinear response of significantly differentsurficial soil layers (Cubrinovski et al. 2011, page 893 of thisissue). Figure 11A, in particular, illustrates that the stronglong-period ground motion previously discussed with respectto CHHC (i.e., Figure 8B) was observed at all four CBD stationsand both A and Figures 11A and 11B illustrate that theseismic demands were above the 475-year return-period-designground motion for Christchurch site class D as specified bythe New Zealand loadings standard, New Zealand Standards1170.5 (2004). Figure 11B illustrates that for structures whosesecant period at peak displacement is in the region of 1.5 orSeismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 861
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 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: (A)(B)Spectral Acc, Sa (g)North/Wes
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?