REFERENCESAbrahamson, N. A., and W. J. Silva (2008). Summary of the Abrahamsonand Silva NGA ground motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(1), 67–98.Allen, T. I., and D. J. Wald. (2007). Topographic Slope as a Proxy forSeismic Site Conditions (V s 30 ) and Amplification around the Globe.USGS Open-File Report 2007-1357, 69 pp.; http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/.Barnhart, W. D., M. J. Willis, R. W. Lohman, and A. K. Melkonian(2011). InSAR and optical constraints on fault slip during the2010–2011 New Zealand earthquake sequence. SeismologicalResearch Letters 82, 815–823.Berryman, K. R., S. Beanland, A. F. Cooper, H. N. Cutten, R. J. Norris,and P. R. Wood (1993). The Alpine fault, New Zealand: Variationin Quaternary structural style and geomorphic expression. AnnalesTectonicae 6, special issue supplement, S126–163.Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson (2008). Ground motion predictionequations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV,and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s.Earthquake Spectra 24 (1), 99–138.Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal (1997). Equations for estimatinghorizontal response spectra and peak acceleration fromwestern North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work.Seismological Research Letters 68, 128–153.Bradley, B. A., and M. Cubrinovski (2011). Near-source strong groundmotions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake.Seismological Research Letters 82, 853–865.Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia (2008). NGA ground motion modelfor the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD,and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods rangingfrom 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24 (1), 139–172.Chiou, B. S. J, and R. R. Youngs (2008). An NGA model for the averagehorizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra.Earthquake Spectra 24 (1), 173–215.Forsyth, P. J., D. J. A. Barrell, and R. Jongens (2008). Geology of theChristchurch Area. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences1;250,000 geological map 16, 1 sheet + 67 pp. Lower Hutt, NewZealand: GNS Science.Graizer, V., and E. Kalkan (2007). Ground motion attenuation modelfor peak horizontal acceleration from shallow crustal earthquakes.Earthquake Spectra 23, 585–613.Graizer V., and E. Kalkan (2009). Prediction of response spectral accelerationordinates based on PGA attenuation. Earthquake Spectra25 (1), 36–69.Holden, C., J. Beavan, B. Fry, M. Reyners, J. Ristau, R. Van Dissen, P.Villamor, and M. Quigley (2011). Preliminary source model of theMw 7.1 Darfield earthquake from geological, geodetic and seismicdata. Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on EarthquakeEngineering: Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society, 14–16April 2011, paper no. 164. Auckland, New Zealand: New ZealandSociety for Earthquake Engineering.Kaklamanos, J., D. M. Boore, E. M. Thomson, and K. W. Campbell(2010). Implementation of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)Ground-motion Prediction Equations in Fortran and R. USGSOpen-File Report 2010-1296, 47 pp.Scherbaum, F., E. Delavaud, and C. Riggelsen (2009). Model selectionin seismic hazard analysis: An information-theoretic perspective.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99, 3,234–3,247.Zhao, J. X., and M. Gerstenberger (2010). Comparison of attenuationcharacteristics between the data from two distant regions.Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on EarthquakeEngineering: Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society, 14–16 April2011, Auckland, New Zealand. Paper no. 008.Earthquake Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey345 Middlefield RoadMenlo Park, California 94025 U.S.A.msegkou@usgs.gov(M.S.)874 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
Strong Ground Motions and Damage ConditionsAssociated with Seismic Stations in theFebruary 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand,EarthquakeHiroaki Iizuka, Yuki Sakai, and Kazuki KoketsuHiroaki Iizuka, 1 Yuki Sakai, 1 and Kazuki Koketsu 2INTRODUCTIONThe February 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakewas highly destructive, causing a number of buildings to collapseand killing many people. We examined the properties ofstrong ground motions in this earthquake using the recordsreleased by GeoNet (http://www.geonet.org.nz/). We alsoinvestigated the damage around the seismic stations to determinethe relationship between structural damage and strongground motions.SEISMIC GROUND MOTION INTENSITIES ANDELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUMThe locations of the seismic stations in our study are shown inFigure 1. Accelerograms and the elastic acceleration responsespectra, with a damping factor of 0.05 in the maximum horizontaldirection, are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Peakground accelerations (PGA) and peak ground velocities (PGV)are shown in Table 1. I j and I 1–2 are also shown in Table 1. I j isJMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) seismic intensity (Tables2, 3 and 4). It is publicly used to describe the damaging powerof seismic shaking in Japan. I 1–2 is also an index like I j . It wasdefined by Sakai, Kanno, and Koketsu (2002, 2004) based onelastic responses between 1 and 2 seconds period that wereclosely related with heavy structural damage (the subscript 1–2means between 1 and 2 seconds) and represents the damagingpower of an earthquake much better than I j .As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the records of stationsREHS, CCCC, and PRPC display pulse waves with a periodof 1–2 seconds and have high response in the region of 1–2seconds, whereas stations HVSC and LPCC with large PGAare dominated by short periods below 1 second, and theirresponses between 1 and 2 seconds are low. We comparedREHS’s spectrum, which shows the highest response in the1. Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering,University of Tsukuba, Japan2. Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan▲▲Figure 1. Locations of the seismic stations.1–2-second period, with those at Takatori, Fukiai, and JMAKobe recorded in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which devastatedthe city of Kobe and the surrounding region (Figure4). REHS’s response in the 1–2-second period is similar tothat of JMA Kobe, but it is lower than that of Takatori andFukiai.NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSISWe performed a nonlinear seismic response analysis with asingle-degree-of-freedom system, accounting for Japanesereinforced concrete (RC) buildings (Kumamoto and Sakai2007) and wooden houses (Sakai and Iizuka 2009) and comparedthat data with REHS’s record, which shows the highestelastic response in the period of 1–2 seconds. We adopted theTakeda Model (Figure 5A; Takeda et al. 1970) for RC build-doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.875Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 875
- 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 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: TABLE 1Mean (μ LLH ) and standard
- 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