Ground motions observed in the darfield and christchurch earthquakes and the importance of local site response effects

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 279-286

  Bradley, B A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Christchurch earthquake; Darfield earthquake; Design guidelines; Ground motion; Site response

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE EVENT; EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; GROUND MOTION; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

CANTERBURY [SOUTH ISLAND]; CHRISTCHURCH [CANTERBURY]; DARFIELD; NEW ZEALAND; SOUTH ISLAND;

EID: 84867029761     PISSN: 00288306     EISSN: 11758791     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00288306.2012.674049     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. ASCE/SEI 7-05 2006. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Document number:ASCE Standard No. 007-05, American Society of Civil Engineers. 388.
2. Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd 2011a. Investigation into the Collapse of the Pyne Gould Corporation Building on 22nd February 2011. Prepared for Department of Building and Housing (DBH). 51 (http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/).
3. Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd 2011b. Investigation into the Collapse of the Forsyth Barr Building Stairs on 22nd February 2011. Prepared for Department of Building and Housing (DBH). 52 (http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/).
4. Bradley BA, in press. A critical analysis of strong ground motions observed in the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
5. Bradley, BA, and Cubrinovski, M. 2011a. Near-source Strong Ground Motions Observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters, 82:853–865.
6. Bradley, BA, and Cubrinovski, M. 2011b. Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44:181–194.
7. Cubrinovski M, McCahon I, 2011. Foundations on deep alluvial soils. Technical Report Prepared for the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. 40 (http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/).
8. Cubrinovski M, Green RA, Allen J, Ashford SA, Bowman E, Bradley BA, Cox B, Hutchinson TC, Kavazanjian E, Orense RP, and others 2010. Geotechnical reconnaissance of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43:243–320.
9. Cubrinovski, M, Bray, JD, Taylor, M, Giorgini, S, Bradley, B, Wotherspoon, L, and Zupan, J. 2011. Soil Liquefaction Effects in the Central Business District during the February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters, 82:893–904.
10. Green, RA, Wood, C, Cox, B, Cubrinovski, M, Wotherspoon, L, Bradley, B, Algie, T, Allen, J, Bradshaw, A, and Rix, G. 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.
11. NZS 1170.5 2004a. Structural design actions, Part 5:Earthquake actions–New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand, Standards New Zealand. 82.
12. NZS 1170.5 2004b. Structural design actions, Part 5:Earthquake actions–New Zealand–Commentary. Wellington, New Zealand, Standards New Zealand. 86.
13. NZSEE 2010. Special Issue:Preliminary observations of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43:215–439.
14. Rodriguez-Marek, A, Montalva, GA, Cotton, F, and Bonilla, F. 2011. Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101:1242–1258.
15. Seismological Research Letters 2011. Focused Issue on the 22 February 2011 Magnitude 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 82.