Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70193109

Ground motion attenuation during M 7.1 Darfield and M 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes and performance of global predictive models

Abstract

The M 7.1 Darfield earthquake occurred 40 km west of Christchurch (New Zealand) on 4 September 2010. Six months after, the city was struck again with an M 6.2 event on 22 February local time (21 February UTC). These events resulted in significant damage to infrastructure in the city and its suburbs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of global predictive models (GMPEs) using the strong motion data obtained from these two events to improve future seismic hazard assessment and building code provisions for the Canterbury region. The Canterbury region is located on the boundary between the Pacific and Australian plates; its surface expression is the active right lateral Alpine fault (Berryman et al. 1993). Beneath the North Island and the north South Island, the Pacific plate subducts obliquely under the Australian plate, while at the southwestern part of the South Island, a reverse process takes place. Although New Zealand has experienced several major earthquakes in the past as a result of its complex seismotectonic environment ( e.g. , M 7.1 1888 North Canterbury, M 7.0 1929 Arthur's Pass, and M 6.2 1995 Cass), there was no evidence of prior seismic activity in Christchurch and its surroundings before the September event. The Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes occurred along the previously unmapped Greendale fault in the Canterbury basin, which is covered by Quaternary alluvial deposits (Forsyth et al. 2008). In Figure 1, site conditions of the Canterbury epicentral area are depicted on a V S 30 map. This map was determined on the basis of topographic slope calculated from a 1-km grid using the method of Allen and Wald (2007). Also shown are the locations of strong motion stations. The Darfield event was generated as a result of a complex rupture mechanism; the recordings and geodetic data reveal that earthquake consists of three sub-events (Barnhart et al. 201 1 , page 815 of this issue). The first event was due to rupturing of a blind reverse fault with M 6.2, followed by a second event (M 6.9), releasing the largest portion of the energy on the right-lateral Greendale fault. The third sub-event (M 5.7) is due to a reverse fault with a right-lateral component (Holden et al. 2011). The Christchurch earthquake occurred on an oblique thrust fault. The comparison of spectral acceleration values at stations near Christchurch reveals that the second event produced much larger amplitudes of shaking than the Darfield event due to its proximity to the epicenter. Both events resulted in noticeably large amplitudes of the vertical motion, often exceeding horizontal motion in the near-fault area. The vertical motions, showing asymmetric acceleration traces and pulses, reached 1.26 g during the Darfield earthquake and 2.2 g during the Christchurch event. These events were recorded by more than 100 strong motion stations operated by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (http://www.geonet.org.nz/). Using the processed data from these stations, peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5%-damped spectral acceleration values at 0.3, 1, and 3 s are used for performance evaluation of the global ground motion predictive equations (GMPEs). The selected GMPEs are the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) models of Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), and Chiou and Youngs (2008). The Graizer and Kalkan (2007, 2009) model, which is based on the NGA project database, is also included. These GMPEs are abbreviated respectively as AS08, BA08, CB08, CY08, and GK07. Because they have been used widely for seismic hazard analysis for crustal earthquakes, their performance assessment becomes a critical issue especially for immediate response and recovery planning after major events. The occurrence of aftershocks similar to the Christchurch event will most probably control seismic hazard in the broader area, as confirmed by the recent M 6.0 event on June 13, 2011.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: -45° to -42° latitude; 170.5° to 173.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Margaret Segou, Erol Kalkan. 2011-11-01. Ground motion attenuation during M 7.1 Darfield and M 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes and performance of global predictive models. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.866

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗