A PDF copy of pages 286-287 of the book Christchurch: The Transitional City Pt IV. The pages document the transitional project 'Jelly in Sumner'. Photo: Reuben Woods
The objective of this study is to examine the influence of near-fault motions on liquefaction triggering in Christchurch and neighboring towns during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). The CES began with the 4 September 2010, Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake and included up to ten events that triggered liquefaction. However, most notably, widespread liquefaction was induced by the Darfield earthquake and the Mw6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Of particular relevance to this study is the forward directivity effects that were prevalent in the motions recorded during the Darfield earthquake, and to a much lesser extent, during the Christchurch earthquake. A 2D variant of the Richart-Newmark fatigue theory was used to compute the equivalent number of cycles (neq) for the ground motions, where volumetric strain was used as the damage metric. This study is unique because it considers the contribution and phasing of both the fault-normal and fault-parallel components of motion on neq and the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). It was found that when the fault-normal and fault-parallel motions were treated individually, the former yielded a lower neq than the latter. Additionally, when the combined effects of fault-normal and fault-parallel components were considered, it was found that the MSF were higher than those commonly used. This implies that motions containing near-fault effects are less demanding on the soil than motions that do not. This may be one of several factors that resulted in less severe liquefaction occurring during the Darfield earthquake than the Christchurch earthquake.
Earthquakes rupture not only the objective realm of the physical landscape, but also the subjective landscape of emotions. Using the concepts of topophilia and topophobia developed by Yi-Fu Tuan as theories of love and fear of place, this paper investigates the impact of Christchurch’s earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 on relationships with the city’s landscape. Published accounts of the earthquakes in newspapers from around New Zealand are examined for evidence of how people responded to the situation, in particular their shifting relationship with familiar landscapes. The reports illustrate how residents and visitors reacted to the actual and perceived changes to their surroundings, grappling with how a familiar place had become alien and often startling. The extreme nature of the event and the death toll of 185 heightened perceptions of the landscape, and even the most taken-for-granted elements of the landscape became amplified in significance. Enhanced understanding of the landscape of emotions is a vital component of wellbeing. Through recognising that the impact of disasters and perceived threats to familiar places has a profound emotional effect, the significance of sense of place to wellbeing can be appreciated.
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.