▲ ▲ Figure 12. Standard spectral ratios (SSRs) of the four stations of CBD: A) CCCC, B) REHS, C), and D) CBGS located on soft alluvialsediments, over the rock reference station LPCC. The SSRs obtained from strong ground motion recordings during the Darfield earthquakeare compared with the 1D analytical transfer function and with the SSRs computed with the 3D numerical simulations (GNS“smooth” model).2011, the most devastating and deadliest event of the seismicsequence that struck the Canterbury Plains, and particularlythe city of Christchurch, between September 2010 and June2011, and to compare the numerical results with strong groundmotion observations.The numerical simulations of seismic wave propagationwithin the Canterbury Plains, where widespread damage wasrecognized during the post-earthquake reconnaissance surveys,were performed by means of the Spectral Element codeGeoELSE (http://geoelse.stru.polimi.it). Based on the availablegeological and seismological data, 3D numerical simulationsof the Christchurch earthquake were carried out, combiningthe following features: 1) two different kinematic finite faultmodels, provided by INGV and GNS seismic source inversionstudies, and 2) two simplified models for the descriptionof the interface between the stiff volcanic rock of the BanksPeninsula and the soft materials within the Canterbury Plains,referred to as the “step-like” and the “smooth” model. As apreliminary assumption a linear visco-elastic soil behavior wasassumed. The comparison of the results obtained through 3Dnumerical simulations with the strong ground motion recordsin the epicentral area of the earthquake (R e < 40 km) shows agood agreement both in time and frequency domain, especiallyfor the “smooth” model with the GNS kinematic extendedfault model. It is worth remarking that the simplified assumptionof linear visco-elastic soil behavior cannot adequatelydescribe the amplification phenomena and the shift of fundamentalfrequency, clearly recorded in many stations located onthe alluvial soil of the Canterbury Plains. Although the GNS“smooth” model is found to produce the best agreement with780 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
the observed waveforms, it should be noted that accounting fora more complex constitutive model could improve significantlythe results of the INGV smooth model.3D numerical simulations allow us to reproduce the mostsignificant features of surface earthquake ground motion inthe near-fault region. Ground motion shaking maps, in termsof PGV, and snapshots of simulated velocity wavefield are discussed,giving insights into seismic wave propagation effects inrealistic geological structures and under near-fault conditions.In spite of the simplified assumptions behind the numericalmodel, 3D numerical simulations represent a relevant tool topredict realistic earthquake ground motion in complex tectonicand geological environments, and for different seismicsource scenarios that may play a major role in seismic hazardassessment studies.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors acknowledge Simone Atzori of INGV for kindlyproviding the data about the seismic source inversion studies.John Beavan and Caroline Holden of GNS are greatlyacknowledged for their useful suggestions and remarks aboutthe GNS source inversion adopted in this work. Also gratefullyacknowledged are Pilar Villamor, Andrew King, RafaelBenites of GNS, Misko Cubrinovski, Brendon Bradley, JohnBerril of the Canterbury University, and Hugh Cowan of theEarthquake Commission of New Zealand (EQC). We are alsograteful to Anselm Smolka, Martin Käser, and AlexanderAllmann (Munich RE) for their fruitful comments. We deeplythank the research center CRS4 (http://www.crs4.it/) and inparticular Fabio Maggio and Luca Massidda, for the essentialcooperation in the development of GeoELSE. Finally, a particularthanks to Robert Graves, U.S. Geological Survey, forthe detailed, constructive criticism he devoted to our paper.REFERENCESAnderson, J. G. (2004). Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit ofsynthetic seismograms. In Proceedings of the 13 th World Conferenceon Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper no.243. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.Atzori, S., and S. Salvi (2011). Preliminary source of the destructiveChristchurch earthquake identified by the SIGRIS system. SIGRISActivities for the Christchurch (New Zealand) Earthquake; http://www.sigris.it/.Bannister, S., B. Fry, M. Reyners, J. Ristau, and H. Zhang (2011).Fine-scale relocation of aftershocks of the 22 February M w 6.2Christchurch earthquake using double-difference tomography.Seismological Research Letters 82, 839–845.Beavan, J., E. Fielding, M. Motagh, S. Samsonov, and N. Donnelly(2011). Fault location and slip distribution of the 22 February 2011M W 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake from geodeticdata. Seismological Research Letters 82, 789–799.Boon, D., N. D. Perrin, G. D. Dellow, R. Van Dissen, and B. Lukovic(2011). NZS 1170.5:2004 Site Subsoil Classification of LowerHutt. Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on EarthquakeEngineering, Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society. 14–16April 2011, Auckland, New Zealand, paper no. 13. Auckland, NewZealand: 9PCEE.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.Casarotti, E., M. Stupazzini, S. Lee, D. Komatitsch, A. Piersanti, andJ. Tromp (2007). CUBIT and seismic wave propagation basedupon the spectral-element method: An advanced unstructuredmesher for complex 3D geological media. In Proceedings of the16th International Meshing Roundtable, ed. M. L. Brewer and D.Marcum, 579–597. New York: Springer.Cubrinovski, M., and R. A. Green, eds. (2010). Geotechnical reconnaissanceof the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bulletin of theNew Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 243–320.Faccioli, E., F. Maggio, R. Paolucci, and A. Quarteroni (1997). 2D and3D elastic wave propagation by a pseudospectral domain decompositionmethod. Journal of Seismology 1 (3), 237–251.Forsyth, P. J., D. J. A. Barrell, and R. Jongens (2008). Geology of theChristchurch Area. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences.1:250 000 geological map 16, 1 sheet + 67 pp. Lower Hutt, NewZealand: GNS Science.Gledhill, K., J. Ristau, M. Reyners, B. Fry, and C. Holden (2011). TheDarfield (Canterbury, New Zealand) M W 7.1 earthquake ofSeptember 2010: A preliminary seismological report. SeismologicalResearch Letters 82, 379–386.Godfrey, N. J., F. Davey, T. A. Stern, and D. Okaya (2001). Crustal structureand thermal anomalies of the Dunedin region, South Island,New Zealand. Journal of Geophysical Research 106 (B12), 30,835–30,848.Godfrey, N. J., N. I. Christensen, and D. Okaya (2002). The effect ofcrustal anisotropy on reflector depth and velocity determinationfrom wide-angle seismic data: A synthetic example based on SouthIsland, New Zealand. Tectonophysics 355, 145–161.Green, A. G., F. M. Campbell, A. E. Kaiser, C. Dorn, S. Carpentier, J. A.Doetsch, H. Horstmeyer, D. Nobes, J. Campbell, M. Finnemore,R. Jongens, F. Ghisetti, A. R. Gorman, R. M. Langridge, and A.F. McClymont (2010). Seismic reflection images of active faults onNew Zealand’s South Island. In Fourth International Conference onEnvironmental and Engineering Geophysics, Chengdu, China, June2010.Green, R. A., C. Wood, B. Cox, M. Cubrinovski, L. Wotherspoon,B. Bradley, T. Algie, J. Allen, A. Bradshaw, and G. Rix (2011).Use of DCP and SASW tests to evaluate liquefaction potential:Predictions vs. observations during the recent New Zealand earthquakes.Seismological Research Letters 82, 927–938.Holden, C. (2011). Kinematic source model of the 22 February 2011M w 6.2 Christchurch earthquake using strong motion data.Seismological Research Letters 82, 783–788.Kam, W. Y., U. Akguzel, and S. Pampanin (2011). 4 Weeks On:Preliminary Reconnaissance Report from the Christchurch 22 Feb2011 6.3 M W Earthquake; http://db.nzsee.org.nz:8080/en/web/chch 2011/structural/.Kleffmann, S., F. Davey, A. Melhuish, D. Okaya, T. Stern, and theSIGHT Team (1998). Crustal structure in the central South Island,New Zealand, from the Lake Pukaki seismic experiment. NewZealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 41, 39–49.Long, D. T., S. C. Cox, S. Bannister, M. C. Gerstenberger, and D. Okaya(2003). Upper crustal structure beneath the eastern Southern Alpsand the Mackenzie Basin, New Zealand, derived from seismicreflection data. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 46,21–39.Melhuish, A., S. Holbrook, F. Davey, D. Okaya, and T. Stern (2005).Crustal and upper mantle seismic structure of the Australian plate,South Island, New Zealand. Tectonophysics 395, 113–135.Mortimer, N., F. J. Davey, A. Melhuish, J. Yu, and N. J. Godfrey (2002).Geological interpretation of a deep seismic reflection profile acrossthe Eastern Province and Median Batholith, New Zealand: Crustalarchitecture of an extended Phanerozoic convergent orogen. NewZealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 45, 349–363.Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 781
- 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 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