Strong Ground Motions and Damage Conditions Associated with Seismic Stations in the February 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, Earthquake

InSAR and Optical Constraints on Fault Slip during the 2010-2011 New Zealand Earthquake Sequence

“…The 22-Feb Christchurch event was dominantly reverse slip and occurred near the contact between the volcanic Banks Peninsula and poorly consolidated sediments underlying Christchurch. Unlike the Darfield earthquake, the 22-Feb Christchurch earthquake led to significant urban damage and casualties due both to its shallow source, its exceptionally strong ground motion (e.g., Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011;Fry et al 2011;Iizuka et al 2011, page 875 of this issue), and proximity to the cities of Christchurch and Lyttelton (Figures 1 and 2). Another significant event (Mw 6.0) occurred 13 June 2011 (hereafter 13-June) near the Christchurch earthquake epicenter, causing further damage in the city of Christchurch.…”

Strong-Motion Characteristics and Visual Damage Assessment Around Seismic Stations in Kathmandu after the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake

“…The comparison of damage status and strong-motion waves gives the relationship between site response and the situation of damage around the stations. Though this was the first damage assessment of buildings around earthquake stations in Nepal, similar studies were carried out after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, USA (Applied Technology Council 2000), 2011 Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand (Iizuka et al 2011), and the 2014 South Napa earthquake, USA (Applied Technology Council 2015).…”

The 2010–2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, seismic sequence: Multiple source analysis from InSAR data and modeling

“…The M w 6.2, 22nd February 2011 event was a major Darfield aftershock, which released a seismic moment ranging from 1.9 · 10 18 N·m (USGS‐CMT) to 6.2 · 10 18 N·m (GeoNet MT). Due to the strong ground motion [ Iizuka et al , 2011] and its shallow depth (∼5 km, from Bannister et al [2011]), 185 people lost their life, 2000 were injured and about 10 5 buildings were affected. Moreover, strong liquefaction phenomena affected large areas of the city [ Cubrinovski et al , 2011; Orense et al , 2011; Mucciarelli , 2011; Green et al , 2011].…”