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, this issue.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, this issue.Beavan, R. J., S. Samsonov, M. Motagh, L. M. Wallace, S. M. Ellis, andN. Palmer (2010). The Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake: Geodeticobservations and preliminary source model. Bulletin of the NewZealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43 (4), 228–235.Biot, M. A. (1956a). Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid saturatedporous solid. I. Low frequency range. Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America 28, 168–178; doi:10.1121/1.1908239.Biot, M. A. (1956b). Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluidsaturated porous solid. II. Higher frequency range. Journal of theAcoustical Society of America 28, 179–191; doi:10.1121/1.1908241.Bouchon, M. (1979). Discrete wave number representation of elasticwave fields in three-space dimensions. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 84, 3,609–3,614.Cochran, E., J. Lawrence, A. Kaiser, B. Fry, A. Chung, and C.Christensen (2011). Comparison between low-cost and traditionalMEMS accelerometers: A case study from the M7.1 Darfield, NewZealand aftershock deployment.Eberhart-Phillips, D., M. E. Reyners, S. C. Bannister, M. P. Chadwick,and S. M. Ellis, (2010). Establishing a versatile 3-D seismic velocitymodel for New Zealand. Seismological Research Letters 81 (6),992–1,000; doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.6.992.Geli, L., P. Bard, and D. Schmitt (1987). Seismic wave propagation in avery permeable water-saturated surface layer. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 92, 7,931–7,944.Gledhill, K., J. Ristau, M. E. Reyners, B. Fry, and C. Holden (2011).The Darfield (Canterbury, New Zealand) M w 7.1 earthquake ofSeptember 2010: A preliminary seismological report. SeismologicalResearch Letters 82 (3), 378–386; doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.6.378.Holden, C. (2011). Kinematic source model of the 22 February 2011M w 6.2 Christchurch earthquake using strong motion data.Seismological Research Letters this issue.Kaiser, A., C. Holden, J. Beavan, D. Beetham, R. Benites, A. Celentano,D. Collett et al. (2011). The February 2011 Christchurch earthquake:A preliminary report. Submitted to New Zealand Journal ofGeology and Geophysics.Stephenson, B., P. Barker, Z. Bruce, and D. Beetham (2011). ImmediateReport on the Use of Microtremors for Assessing LiquefactionPotential in the Christchurch Area. GNS Science Report 2010/30,26 pp. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: GNS Science.Tobita, T., I. Susumu, and T. Iwata (2010). Numerical analysis of nearfieldasymmetric vertical motion. Bulletin of the SeismologicalSociety of America 100, 1,456–1,469.Yamada, M., J. Mori, and T. Heaton (2009). The slapdown phase in highaccelerationrecords of large earthquakes. Seismological ResearchLetters 80, 559–564.GNS Science1 Fairway DriveLower Hutt, New Zealandb.fry@gns.cri.nz(B. F.)852 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
Near-source Strong Ground MotionsObserved in the 22 February 2011 ChristchurchEarthquakeBrendon A. Bradley and Misko CubrinovskiBrendon A. Bradley and Misko CubrinovskiUniversity of CanterburyINTRODUCTIONOn 22 February 2011 at 12:51 p.m. local time, a momentmagnitude M w 6.3 earthquake occurred beneath the cityof Christchurch, New Zealand, causing an level of damageand human casualties unparalleled in the country’s history.Compared to the preceding 4 September 2010 M w 7.1 Darfieldearthquake, which occurred approximately 30 km to the westof Christchurch, the close proximity of the 22 February eventled to ground motions of significantly higher amplitude in thedensely populated regions of Christchurch. As a result of thesesignificantly larger ground motions, structures in general, andcommercial structures in the central business district in particular,were subjected to severe seismic demands and, combinedwith the event timing , structural collapses accounted for themajority of the 181 casualties (New Zealand Police 2011).This manuscript provides a preliminary assessment of thenear-source ground motions recorded in the Christchurchregion. Particular attention is given to the observed spatialdistribution of ground motions, which is interpreted based onsource, path, and site effects. Comparison is also made of theobserved ground motion response spectra with those of the 4September 2010 Darfield earthquake and those used in seismicdesign in order to emphasize the amplitude of the ground shakingand also elucidate the importance of local geotechnical anddeep geologic structure on surface ground motions.There are numerous identified faults in the Southern Alpsand eastern foothills (Stirling et al. 2007) and several significantearthquakes (i.e., M w > 6) have occurred in this regionin the past 150 years, most notably the M w 7.1 Darfield earthquakeon 04/09/2010 (New Zealand Society for EarthquakeEngineeering 2010). The M w 6.3 Christchurch earthquakeoccurred at 12:51 p.m. on Tuesday 22 February 2011 beneathChristchurch, New Zealand’s second-largest city, and representsthe most significant earthquake in the unfolding seismicsequence in the Canterbury region since the 4 September2010 Darfield earthquake. The 6.3 event occurred on a previouslyunrecognized steeply dipping blind fault, which trendsnortheast to southwest (the location relative to Christchurchis presented in the context of subsequently observed groundmotions). Figure 2 illustrates the inferred slip distribution onthe fault obtained by Beavan et al. (2011, page 789 of thisTECTONIC AND GEOLOGIC SETTINGNew Zealand resides on the boundary of the Pacific andAustralian plates (Figure 1) and its active tectonics are dominatedby: 1) oblique subduction of the Pacific plate beneaththe Australian plate along the Hikurangi trough in the NorthIsland; 2) oblique subduction of the Australian plate beneaththe Pacific plate along the Puysegur trench in the southwestof the South Island; and 3) oblique, right-lateral slip alongnumerous crustal faults in the axial tectonic belt, of which the650-km-long Alpine fault is inferred to accommodate approximately70–75% of the approximately 40 mm/yr plate motion(DeMets et al. 1994; Sutherland et al. 2006).▲ ▲ Figure 1. Tectonic setting of New Zealand (courtesy of J.Pettinga).doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.853Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 853
- 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: 0.8PRPC Z0.40Normalized (Max PGA +
- 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