Search

found 100 results

Images for 7.1; more images...

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Demolition of the support structure for NZ Breweries smokestack in Christchurch. CERES NZ's nibbler is at work, the pipe stack having been removed yesterday (Saturday). I retuned three hours later to see what progress had been made and it was GONE! See next photo. Damage to complex was from the 22/02/20011 earthquake.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper provides a summary of the ground motions observed in the recent Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence. The sequence occurred in a region of relatively moderate seismicity, 130km to the east of the Alpine Fault, the major plate-boundary in the region. From an engineering perspective, the sequence has been primarily comprised of the initial 04/09/2010 Darfield earthquake (Mw7.1) followed by the 22/02/2011 Christchurch earthquake (Mw6.3), and two aftershocks on 13/06/ 2011 (Mw5.3 and 6.0, respectively). The dense spacing of strong motions in the region, and their close proximity to the respective causative faults, has resulted in strong ground motions far exceeding the previous catalogue of strong motion observed in New Zealand. The observed ground motions have exhibited clear evidence of: (i) near-source directivity; (ii) sedimentary basin focusing, amplification and basin effect refraction; (iii) non-linear site response; (iv) cyclic mobility postliquefaction; and (v) extreme vertical ground motions exceeding 2g, among others.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In this paper, the characteristics of near-fault ground motions recorded during the Mw7.1 Darfield and Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquakes are examined and compared with existing empirical models. The characteristics of forward-directivity effects are first examined using a wavelet-based pulse-classification algorithm. This is followed by an assessment of the adequacy of empirical models which aim to capture the effect of directivity effects on amplifying the acceleration response spectra; and the period and peak velocity of the forward-directivity pulse. It is illustrated that broadband directivity models developed by Somerville et al. (1997) and Abrahamson (2000) generally under-predict the observed amplification of response spectral ordinates at longer vibration periods. In contrast, a recently developed narrowband model by Shahi and Baker (2011) provides significantly improved predictions by amplifying the response spectra within a small range of periods surrounding the directivity pulse period. Although the empirical predictions of the pulse period are generally favourable for the Christchurch earthquake, the observations from the Darfield earthquake are significantly under-predicted. The elongation in observed pulse periods is inferred as being a result of the soft sedimentary soils of the Canterbury basin. However, empirical predictions of the observed peak velocity associated with the directivity pulse are generally adequate for both events.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The city of Christchurch and its surrounds experienced widespread damage due to soil liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence that began in September 2010 with the Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake. Prior to the start of this sequence, the city had a large network of strong motion stations (SMSs) installed, which were able to record a vast database of strong ground motions. This paper uses this database of strong ground motion recordings, observations of liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface, and data from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation program at each SMS to assess a range of liquefaction evaluation procedures at the four SMSs in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). In general, the characteristics of the accelerograms recorded at each SMS correlated well with the liquefaction evaluation procedures, with low liquefaction factors of safety predicted at sites with clear liquefaction identifiers in the ground motions. However, at sites that likely liquefied at depth (as indicated by evaluation procedures and/or inferred from the characteristics of the recorded surface accelerograms), the presence of a non-liquefiable crust layer at many of the SMS locations prevented the manifestation of any surface effects. Because of this, there was not a good correlation between surface manifestation and two surface manifestation indices, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN).