Development of Deep Shear Wave Velocity Profiles with Estimates of Uncertainty in the Complex Interbedded Geology of Christchurch,New Zealand

Abstract

Deep (+500-m) shear wave velocity (V_S) profiles were developed at 14 sites throughout Christchurch, New Zealand, using a combination of active-and passive-source surface wave testing. The geology of Christchurch is complex and presents several challenges for surface wave testing. Specifically, the complex interlayering of relatively stiff gravels with soft sands, silts, and clays makes (1) the interpretation of experimental dispersion data ambiguous and (2) complicates the determination of appropriate inversion-layering parameterizations. In order to address the first issue, dispersion data uncertainty was quantified and several mode interpretations were considered during inversion. To address the second issue, 155 geotechnical boreholes and 199 geologic well logs in the vicinity of the test sites were used to guide the choice of layering parameterizations such that geologically realistic V_S profiles were obtained via surface wave inversion. At each site, a suite of 1,000 V_S profiles representing the combined effects of epistemic uncertainty and apparent aleatory variability in V_S was obtained. These V_S profiles are available on the DesignSafe-CI web site (https://doi.org/10.17603/DS21D4D) and are intended to aid in future seismic site response analyses.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ari

and Tokimatsu

2005. S-wave velocity profiling by joint inversion of microtremor dispersion curve and horizontal-to-vertical (H/V) spectrum, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95(5), 1766–1778. doi:10.1785/0120040243.

Asten

M. W.

and Boore

D. M.

2005. Blind Comparisons of Shear-Wave Velocities at Closely-Spaced Sites in San Jose, California. USGS Open-File Rep. 2005-1169, USGS Menlo Park, CA, 14.

Barani

Ferrari

R. D.

and Ferretti

2013. Influence of soil modeling uncertainties on site response, Earthquake Spectra 29(3), 705–732.

Barnes

P. M.

Castellazzi

Gorman

and Wilcox

2011. Submarine Faulting beneath Pegasus Bay, Offshore Christchurch, rep. prepared for the New Zealand Natural Hazards Research Platform, Contract Ref. 2011-NIW-01-NHRP, 46.

Bazzuro

and Cornell

2004. Ground motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94(6), 2090–2109.

Bettig

Bard

P.-Y.

Scherbaum

Riepl

Cotton

Cornou

and Hatzfield

2001. Analysis of dense array noise measurements using the modified spatial auto correlation method (SPAC): application to the Grenoble area, Bollettino de Geofisica Teoria e Applicata 4(3–4), 281–304.

Boaga

Cassiani

Strobbia

C. L.

and Vignoli

2013. Mode misidentification in Rayleigh waves: Ellipticity as a cause and a cure, Geophysics 78(4), EN17–EN28.

Boaga

Vignoli

Deiana

and Cassiani

2014. The influence of subsoil structure and acquisition parameters in MASW mode mis-identification, Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 19(2), 87–99.

Bradley

B. A.

and Cubrinovski

2011. Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, Seismological Research Letters 82(6), 853–865.

10.

Brown

L. J.

Wilson

D. D.

Moar

N. T.

and Mildenhall

D. C.

1988. Stratigraphy of the late Quaternary deposits of the northern Canterbury Plains, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 31, 305–335.

11.

Canterbury Geotechnical Database, https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com (last accessed September 10, 2017).

12.

Capon

1969. High resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis, Proceedings of IEEE 57(8), 1408–1418.

13.

Constable

S. C.

Paker

R. L.

and Constable

C. G.

1987. Occam's inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data, Geophysics 52(3), 289–300.

14.

Cornou

Ohrnberger

Boore

D. M.

Kudo

and Bard

P.-Y.

2006. Derivation of structural models from ambient vibration array recordings: Results from an international blind test. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion Vol. 2., Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (Central Laboratory of Roads and Bridges), 1127–1219.

15.

Cox

and Wood

2011. Surface wave benchmarking exercise: Methodologies. Results and Uncertainties, in GeoRisk 2011: Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Management, American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA, 845–852.

16.

Cox

B. R.

and Teague

2016. Layering ratios: A systematic approach to the inversion of surface wave data in the absence of a-priori information, Geophysical Journal International 207, 422–438. doi:10.1093/gji/ggw282.

17.

Cox

B. R.

Wood

C. M.

and Teague

D. P.

2014. Synthesis of the UTexas1 Surface Wave Dataset Blind-Analysis Study: Inter-analyst dispersion and shear wave velocity uncertainty. Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014

American Society of Civil Engineers

Reston, VA, 850–859.

18.

DiGiulio

Cornou

Ohrnberger

Wathelet

and Rovelli

2006. Deriving wave-field characteristics and shear-wave velocity profiles from two-dimensional small-aperture arrays analysis of ambient vibrations in a small-size alluvial basin, Colfiorito, Italy, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96(5), 1915–1933. doi:10.1785/0120060119.

19.

DiGiulio

Savvaidis

Ohrnberger

Wathelet

Cornou

Knapmeyer-Endrun

Renalier

Theodoulidis

and Bard

P.-Y.

2012. Exploring the model space and ranking a best class of models in surface-wave dispersion inversion: Application at European strong-motion sites, Geophysics 77(3), B147–B166.

20.

Dunkin

J. W.

1965. Computation of modal solutions in layered, elastic media at high frequencies, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 55, 335–358.

21.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2012. Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, EPRI Rep. 1025287, Palo Alto, CA, 206.

22.

Forsyth

P. J.

Barrell

and Jongens

2008. Geology of the Christchurch Area, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 Geological Map 16, GNS Science Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

23.

Foti

Comina

and Boiero

2007. Reliability of combined active and passive surface wave methods, RIG (Italian Geotechnical Journal) 41(2), 39–47.

24.

Foti

Comina

Boiero

and Socco

L. V.

2009. Non-uniqueness in surface-wave inversion and consequences on seismic site response analyses, Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering 29, 982–993.

25.

Foti

Lai

Rix

and Strobbia

2014. Surface Wave Methods for Near-Surface Characterization, CRC Press Boca Raton, FL.

26.

Foti

Parolai

Albarello

and Picozzi

2011. Application of surface-wave methods for seismic site characterization, Surveys in Geophysics 32, 777–825. doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9134-2

27.

Garofalo

Foti

Hollender

Bard

P. Y.

Cornou

Cox

B. R.

Dechamp

Ohrnberger

Perron

Sicilia

and Teague

2016. InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 82, 241–254.

28.

Garofalo

Foti

Hollender

Bard

P.-Y.

Cornou

Cox

B. R.

Ohrnberger

Sicilia

Asten

Di Giulio

and Forbriger

2016. InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra-comparison of surface wave methods, Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering 82, 222–240.

29.

Garofalo

Foti

Hollender

Bard

P. Y.

Cornou

Cox

B. R.

Dechamp

Ohrnberger

Perron

Sicilia

and Teague

2016 InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 82, 241–254.

30.

Geopsy 2.9.0, 2016. software, Available from: http://www.geopsy.org.

31.

Griffiths

S. C.

Cox

B. R.

Rathje

E. M.

and Teague

D. P.

2016a. A surface wave dispersion approach for evaluating statistical models that account for shear wave velocity uncertainty, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142(11). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001552.

32.

Griffiths

S. C.

Cox

B. R.

Rathje

E. M.

and Teague

D. P.

2016b. Mapping dispersion misfit and uncertainty in V_S profiles to variability in site response estimates, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142(11). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001553.

33.

Haskell

N. A.

1953. The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered media, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 43, 17–34.

34.

International Code Council (ICC), 2011. 2012 International Building Code. Country Club Hills, Ill: ICC.

35.

Knopoff

1964. A matrix method for elastic wave problems, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 54, 431–438.

36.

Konno

and Ohmachi

1998. Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 88, 228–241.

37.

Kramer

1996. Dynamic soil properties, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 70.

38.

Lachet

and Bard

P.-Y.

1994. Numerical and theoretical investigations on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamura's technique, Journal of Physics of the Earth 42, 377–397.

39.

Lai

Foti

and Rix

2005. Propagation of data uncertainty in surface wave inversion, Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 10(2), 219–228.

40.

Lee

Bradley

and McGann

2017a. 3D models of Quaternary-aged sedimentary successions within the Canterbury, New Zealand region, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2017.1334671.

41.

Lee

R. L.

2017. Development of a 3D Canterbury seismic velocity model and investigation of systematic effects through hybrid broadband ground motion simulation of small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.

42.

Lee

R. L.

Bradley

B. A.

Ghisetti

F. C.

Pettinga

J. R.

Hughes

M. W.

and Thomson

E. M.

2015. A geology-based 3D seismic velocity model of Canterbury, New Zealand. Proceedings of the 2015 NZSEE Conference 10–12 April, Rotorua, New Zealand, 570–577.

43.

Lee

R. L.

Bradley

B. A.

Ghisetti

and Thomson

E. M.

2017b. Development of a 3D velocity model for the Canterbury, New Zealand region for broadband ground motion simulation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (forthcoming).

44.

Lermo

and Chavez-Garcia

F. J.

1993. Site effects evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 83, 1574–1594.

45.

and Assimaki

2010. Site- and motion-dependent parametric uncertainty of site-response analyses in earthquake simulations, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100(3), 954–968.

46.

Lin

Joh

and Stokoe

2014. Analyst J: Analysis of the UTexas 1 surface wave dataset using the SASW methodology. Proceedings of Geo Congress 2014

American Society of Civil Engineers

Reston, VA, 830–839.

47.

Malischewsky

P. G.

and Scherbaum

2004. Love's formula and H/V-ratio (ellipticity) of Rayleigh waves, Wave Motion 40, 57–67.

48.

Markham

C. S.

Macedo

Bray

J. D.

and Luque

2016. Evaluating nonlinear effective stress site response analyses using records from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 82, 84–98.

49.

Martin

A. J.

Shawver

J. B.

and Diehl

J. G.

2006. Combined use of active and passive surface wave techniques for cost effective UBC/IBC site classification. Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering San Francisco, CA.

50.

New Zealand Police, 2011. Christchurch earthquake: List of deceased, Available from: http://www.police.govt.nz/major-events/previous-major-events/christchurch-earthquake/list-deceased.

51.

Parolai

Picozzi

Richwalski

S. M.

and Milkereit

2005., Joint inversion of phase velocity dispersion and H/V ratio curves from seismic noise recordings using a genetic algorithm, considering higher modes, Geophysical Research Letters 32(1), L01303. doi:10.1029/2004GL021115.

52.

Picozzi

Parolai

and Richwalski

2005. Joint inversion H/V ratios and dispersion curves from seismic noise: Estimating the S-wave velocity of bedrock. Geophysical Research Letters 32(11), L11308. doi:10.1029/2005GL022878.

53.

Poggi

and Donat

2010. Estimating Rayleigh wave particle motion from three-component array analysis of ambient vibrations, Geophysics Journal International 180, 251–267.

54.

Rathje

E. M.

Kottke

A. R.

and Trent

W. L.

2010. Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(4), 607–619.

55.

Richart

F. E.

Jr. Woods

R. D.

and Hall

J. R.

1970. Wave propagation in an elastic, homogeneous, isotropic medium. Vibrations of Soils and Foundations. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

56.

Rosenblad

B. L.

and Li

2009. Performance of active and passive methods for measuring low-frequency surface wave dispersion curves, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(10), 1419–1428.

57.

Scherbaum

Hinzen

K. G.

and Ohrnberger

2003. Determination of shallow shear wave velocity profiles in the Cologne, Germany area using ambient vibrations. Geophysical Journal International 152, 597–612. doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01856.x.

58.

SESAME European Project, 2004. Guidelines for the Implementation of the H/V Spectral Ratio Technique on Ambient Vibrations: Measurements, Processing and Interpretation, Rep. D23.12, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome.

59.

Teague

Cox

Bradley

and Wotherspoon

L. M.

2015. Development of realistic V_S profiles in Christchurch, New Zealand via active and ambient surface wave data: methodologies for inversion in complex interbedded geology. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Christchurch, New Zealand, 1–4 November 2015.

60.

Teague

Cox

and El-Afifi

2017. Site response implications of using V_S profiles derived from “Blind” and geologically-guided surface wave inversions. Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January 2017.

61.

Teague

and Cox

B. R.

2016. Site response implications associated with using non-unique V_S profiles from surface wave inversion in comparison with other commonly used methods of accounting for V_S uncertainty, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 91, 87–103. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.028.

62.

Teague

Cox

and Rathje

2018. Measured vs. predicted site response at the Garner Valley Downhole Array considering shear wave velocity uncertainty from borehole and surface wave methods, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, (in press).

63.

Thomson

W. T.

1950. Transmission of elastic waves through a stratified solid medium, Journal of Applied Physics 21, 89–93.

64.

Tokimatsu

1995. Geotechnical site characterisation using surface waves. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Earth. Geotechnical Engineering, IS-Tokyo 1995

A. A. Balkema

Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1333–1368.

65.

Toro

1995. Probabilistic Models of the Site Velocity Profiles for Generic and Site Specific Ground Motion Amplification Studies. Technical Rep. 779574, Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY, 147.

66.

Wathelet

2005. Array recordings of ambient vibrations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Liège, Liège, Wallonia, Belgium.

67.

Wathelet

2008. An improved neighborhood algorithm: Parameter conditions and dynamic scaling, Geophysical Research Letters 35(9), L09301.

68.

Wathelet

Jongmans

and Ohrnberger

2004. Surface-wave inversion using a direct search algorithm and its application to ambient vibration measurements, Near Surface Geophysics 2(4), 211–221.

69.

Wathelet

Jongmans

and Ohrnberger

2005. Direct inversion of spatial autocorrelation curves with the neighborhood algorithm, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95(5), 1787–1800.

70.

Wood

C. M.

Ellis

T. B.

Teague

D. P.

and Cox

B. R.

2014. Analyst I: Comprehensive analysis of the UTexas1 surface wave dataset. Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014

American Society of Civil Engineers

Reston, VA, 820–829.

71.

Yong

Martin

Stokoe

and Diehl

2013. ARRA-Funded Vs30 Measurements Using Multi-Technique Approach at Strong-Motion Stations in California and Central-Eastern United States , USGS Open-File Rep. 2013-1102. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1102.

72.

Zywicki

D. J.

1999. Advanced signal processing methods applied to engineering analysis of seismic surface waves, Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.