Here - Stuff
Here - Stuff Here - Stuff
Ground Motion Attenuation during M 7.1Darfield and M 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand,Earthquakes and Performance of GlobalPredictive ModelsMargaret Segou and Erol KalkanMargaret Segou and Erol KalkanU.S. Geological SurveyEOnline material: Flat-file for both eventsINTRODUCTIONThe M 7.1 Darfield earthquake occurred 40 km west ofChristchurch (New Zealand) on 4 September 2010. Sixmonths after, the city was struck again with an M 6.2 eventon 22 February local time (21 February UTC). These eventsresulted in significant damage to infrastructure in the city andits suburbs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performanceof global predictive models (GMPEs) using the strongmotion data obtained from these two events to improve futureseismic hazard assessment and building code provisions for theCanterbury region.The Canterbury region is located on the boundarybetween the Pacific and Australian plates; its surface expressionis the active right lateral Alpine fault (Berryman et al.1993). Beneath the North Island and the north South Island,the Pacific plate subducts obliquely under the Australianplate, while at the southwestern part of the South Island, areverse process takes place. Although New Zealand has experiencedseveral major earthquakes in the past as a result of itscomplex seismotectonic environment (e.g., M 7.1 1888 NorthCanterbury, M 7.0 1929 Arthur’s Pass, and M 6.2 1995 Cass),there was no evidence of prior seismic activity in Christchurchand its surroundings before the September event. The Darfieldand Christchurch earthquakes occurred along the previouslyunmapped Greendale fault in the Canterbury basin, which iscovered by Quaternary alluvial deposits (Forsyth et al. 2008).In Figure 1, site conditions of the Canterbury epicentral areaare depicted on a V S30 map. This map was determined on thebasis of topographic slope calculated from a 1-km grid usingthe method of Allen and Wald (2007). Also shown are thelocations of strong motion stations.The Darfield event was generated as a result of a complexrupture mechanism; the recordings and geodetic data revealthat earthquake consists of three sub-events (Barnhart et al.2011, page 815 of this issue). The first event was due to rupturingof a blind reverse fault with M 6.2, followed by a secondevent (M 6.9), releasing the largest portion of the energyon the right-lateral Greendale fault. The third sub-event (M5.7) is due to a reverse fault with a right-lateral component(Holden et al. 2011). The Christchurch earthquake occurredon an oblique thrust fault. The comparison of spectral accelerationvalues at stations near Christchurch reveals that thesecond event produced much larger amplitudes of shakingthan the Darfield event due to its proximity to the epicenter.Both events resulted in noticeably large amplitudes ofthe vertical motion, often exceeding horizontal motion inthe near-fault area. The vertical motions, showing asymmetricacceleration traces and pulses, reached 1.26 g during theDarfield earthquake and 2.2 g during the Christchurch event.These events were recorded by more than 100 strong motionstations operated by the Institute of Geological and NuclearSciences (http://www.geonet.org.nz/). Using the processeddata from these stations, peak ground acceleration (PGA) and5%-damped spectral acceleration values at 0.3, 1, and 3 s areused for performance evaluation of the global ground motionpredictive equations (GMPEs). The selected GMPEs are theNext Generation Attenuation (NGA) models of Abrahamsonand Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell andBozorgnia (2008), and Chiou and Youngs (2008). The Graizerand Kalkan (2007, 2009) model, which is based on the NGAproject database, is also included. These GMPEs are abbreviatedrespectively as AS08, BA08, CB08, CY08, and GK07.Because they have been used widely for seismic hazard analysisfor crustal earthquakes, their performance assessmentbecomes a critical issue especially for immediate response andrecovery planning after major events. The occurrence of aftershockssimilar to the Christchurch event will most probablycontrol seismic hazard in the broader area, as confirmed bythe recent M 6.0 event on June 13, 2011.866 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.866
▲ ▲ Figure 1. Shear-wave velocity (unit = m/s) down to 30 m derived from topographic slope; the locations of strong motion stations arealso shown.PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF GROUNDMOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONSIn order to evaluate the relative performance of the GMPEsand their ranking to be used for logic tree weighting in hazardanalysis, we used traditional residual analysis and an informationtheoretic approach. In residual analysis the predictionerror for each observation and standard deviation of the errorsfor each event are computed for each GMPE. Residuals correspondto the difference between the observations and predictionsin natural-log space; negative residuals are interpreted asoverprediction, whereas positive residuals indicate underestimationof the predictive model. The applied information theoreticapproach is based on a log-likelihood value (LLH), whichdescribes the information loss when a GMPE approximates anobservation (Scherbaum et al. 2009). The average sample loglikelihood(LLH) value of a GMPE, noted herein as g, over Nnumber of x observations, represented by a log-normal distribution,is calculated as:log( L( g x )) = − 1 N log ( g ( x i ))N∑ (1)i=1The negative average log-likelihood value is a measure of distancebetween the predictions and observations; therefore, aGMPE exhibiting a smaller absolute value of LLH, relative toother GMPEs, corresponds to a better performing model.For the Darfield event, the relative performance of GMPEswas evaluated for strike slip faulting since the greater amountof moment release occurred during the second sub-event. Forthe Christchurch event, however, the evaluation is based on thethrust fault (as discussed before). The hanging wall effects wereconsidered, although their effects are not significant because thecausative faults appear to be steep (Bradley and Cubrinovski2011, page 853 of this issue). The flat-file, listing distance metrics,V S30 for each station, and corresponding observations (PGAand spectral values), is provided for each event as an electronicsupplement (http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/ekalkan/NZ/index.html).Using this flat-file, predictions of GMPEs were computed foreach event. Figures 2–5 summarize the results for the M 7.1Darfield (top panels) and M 6.2 Christchurch (bottom panels)earthquakes. The plots shown in row A in each figure represent16th, 50th (median), and 84th percentile of predictions consideringan average V S30 value of 400 m/s. In these plots, observationscorrespond to the maximum value of two horizontal components.Because the NGA models predict geometric mean ofground motion, their predictions were adjusted for maximumhorizontal component by multiplying their predictions with 1.1for PGA and 1.15, 1.18, and 1.18 for spectral acceleration at 0.3 s,1 s, and 3 s, respectively. These adjustment factors were adaptedfrom Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008). The GK07 model predictsthe maximum of the two horizontal components. It shouldbe also noted that both observations and predictions are plottedagainst a distance metric specific to the model; for the BA08,the distance metric is the “Joyner-Boore distance” (R JB ), definedas the closest distance from the recording station to the surfaceprojection of the fault rupture plane (Boore et al. 1997). For theremaining models, the distance measure is the “closest fault dis-Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 867
- 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: REFERENCESAagaard, B. T., J. F. Hal
- 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
Ground Motion Attenuation during M 7.1Darfield and M 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand,Earthquakes and Performance of GlobalPredictive ModelsMargaret Segou and Erol KalkanMargaret Segou and Erol KalkanU.S. Geological SurveyEOnline material: Flat-file for both eventsINTRODUCTIONThe M 7.1 Darfield earthquake occurred 40 km west ofChristchurch (New Zealand) on 4 September 2010. Sixmonths after, the city was struck again with an M 6.2 eventon 22 February local time (21 February UTC). These eventsresulted in significant damage to infrastructure in the city andits suburbs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performanceof global predictive models (GMPEs) using the strongmotion data obtained from these two events to improve futureseismic hazard assessment and building code provisions for theCanterbury region.The Canterbury region is located on the boundarybetween the Pacific and Australian plates; its surface expressionis the active right lateral Alpine fault (Berryman et al.1993). Beneath the North Island and the north South Island,the Pacific plate subducts obliquely under the Australianplate, while at the southwestern part of the South Island, areverse process takes place. Although New Zealand has experiencedseveral major earthquakes in the past as a result of itscomplex seismotectonic environment (e.g., M 7.1 1888 NorthCanterbury, M 7.0 1929 Arthur’s Pass, and M 6.2 1995 Cass),there was no evidence of prior seismic activity in Christchurchand its surroundings before the September event. The Darfieldand Christchurch earthquakes occurred along the previouslyunmapped Greendale fault in the Canterbury basin, which iscovered by Quaternary alluvial deposits (Forsyth et al. 2008).In Figure 1, site conditions of the Canterbury epicentral areaare depicted on a V S30 map. This map was determined on thebasis of topographic slope calculated from a 1-km grid usingthe method of Allen and Wald (2007). Also shown are thelocations of strong motion stations.The Darfield event was generated as a result of a complexrupture mechanism; the recordings and geodetic data revealthat earthquake consists of three sub-events (Barnhart et al.2011, page 815 of this issue). The first event was due to rupturingof a blind reverse fault with M 6.2, followed by a secondevent (M 6.9), releasing the largest portion of the energyon the right-lateral Greendale fault. The third sub-event (M5.7) is due to a reverse fault with a right-lateral component(Holden et al. 2011). The Christchurch earthquake occurredon an oblique thrust fault. The comparison of spectral accelerationvalues at stations near Christchurch reveals that thesecond event produced much larger amplitudes of shakingthan the Darfield event due to its proximity to the epicenter.Both events resulted in noticeably large amplitudes ofthe vertical motion, often exceeding horizontal motion inthe near-fault area. The vertical motions, showing asymmetricacceleration traces and pulses, reached 1.26 g during theDarfield earthquake and 2.2 g during the Christchurch event.These events were recorded by more than 100 strong motionstations operated by the Institute of Geological and NuclearSciences (http://www.geonet.org.nz/). Using the processeddata from these stations, peak ground acceleration (PGA) and5%-damped spectral acceleration values at 0.3, 1, and 3 s areused for performance evaluation of the global ground motionpredictive equations (GMPEs). The selected GMPEs are theNext Generation Attenuation (NGA) models of Abrahamsonand Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell andBozorgnia (2008), and Chiou and Youngs (2008). The Graizerand Kalkan (2007, 2009) model, which is based on the NGAproject database, is also included. These GMPEs are abbreviatedrespectively as AS08, BA08, CB08, CY08, and GK07.Because they have been used widely for seismic hazard analysisfor crustal earthquakes, their performance assessmentbecomes a critical issue especially for immediate response andrecovery planning after major events. The occurrence of aftershockssimilar to the Christchurch event will most probablycontrol seismic hazard in the broader area, as confirmed bythe recent M 6.0 event on June 13, 2011.866 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.866