Alpine Fault Scenario EQ
QC Project
FP2 Research
Alpine Fault Scenario – FP2 research
Damage
indices
(LSN)
Failure
ALPINE
FAULT
ESA
CHC
SITE EFFECTS
(LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS)
Two Approaches
1. Simplified analysis (conventional engineering tool)
•
•
Input required: PGA contour maps (FP1)
Output: LIQ damage maps (indicators of liquefactioninduced damage to land, buildings and infrastructure,
in generic terms)  in absolute terms and relative to
CES
2. Advanced analysis (top-end research / eng. Tool)
•
•
•
Input required: Acceleration time history (FP1)
Output: Acc. TH, response spectra, detailed soil and
site response, dynamic animations (disp. & PWP) 
an extension to FP1 GM simulations
LSN – damage maps
SIMPLIFIED METHOD: Input – PGA contours
SIMPLIFIED METHOD: over 20,000 CPTs
Area based
SIMPLIFIED METHOD: Output
Damage Index Maps (e.g. LSN map)
Moderate to
Severe
Minor to
Moderate
None to
Minor
Liquefaction land damage (LSN)
The Liquefaction Ground Damage Model
Increasing earthquake shaking (PGA)
A different set of curves for each area
The Liquefaction Ground Damage Model
A different set of
curves for each area
due to:
• Soil composition
• Soil density
• Depth to
groundwater
• Spatial variability
The Liquefaction Ground Damage Model
Shaking
Ground damage
The Building Foundation Differential Settlement Model
Shaking
Ground damage
250
Based on building
differential settlement
survey data obtained
from buildings
affected by the CES
Building Foundation
Differential Settlement
None to Minor
Minor to Moderate
Moderate to Severe
95 %ile
200
150
85 %ile
50 %ile
100
15 %ile
5 %ile
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
Liquefaction land damage (LSN)
50
The Building Foundation Differential Settlement Model
Shaking
Ground damage
Foundation damage
The Building Loss Ratio Model
Foundation damage
Shaking
Ground damage
Based on building
damage repair costs
obtained from
buildings affected by
the CES
Type B
Building Loss
Ratio
Type C
TC3
Building Foundation Differential Settlement
The Building Loss Model
Foundation damage
A different set of
curves for each area
due to:
• Soil composition
• Soil density
• Depth to
groundwater
• Spatial variability
Based on building
differential settlement
survey data obtained
from buildings
affected by the CES
Financial loss
Shaking
Ground damage
Based on building
damage repair costs
obtained from
buildings affected by
the CES
Model outputs for a given MW
and PGA
M7; 0.7g
M7; 0.3g
15th percentile
50th percentile
85th percentile
The Liquefaction Module Framework
Foundation damage
Financial loss
Shaking
Ground damage
Pipe damage
?
ADVANCED ANALYSIS: 55 Christchurch Sites
Representative Soil Profiles
YY1 profile
NN2 profile
Numerical Models
Effective Stress Analyses (1/2)
Acceleration TH
EPWP TH
Effective Stress Analyses (2/2)
OUTPUT
1. Simplified analysis (conventional engineering tool)
•LIQ damage maps (LSN, LPI, etc.) - indicators of
liquefaction-induced damage to land
•LIQ-induced damage to buildings and infrastructure, in
generic terms)  through ‘vulnerability/fragility
relationships
•AF-induced damage relative to CES
2. Advanced analysis (top-end research / eng. Tool)
•Acc. TH, response spectra,
•Detailed soil and site response (in absolute terms and
relative to CES)
•Dynamic animations (disp. & PWP)  an extension to
FP1 GM simulations
•LSN – damage maps