DOCSLIB.ORG

3780-Detailed-Analysis-Greendale

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3780-Detailed-Analysis-Greendale BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Litchfield, N. J.; Van Dissen, R. J.; Hornblow, S.; Quigley, M.; Archibald, G. 2014. Detailed analysis of Greendale Fault ground surface rupture displacements and geometries, GNS Science Report 2013/18. 166 p. N. J. Litchfield, GNS Science, PO Box 30 368, Lower Hutt R. J. Van Dissen, GNS Science, PO Box 30 368, Lower Hutt S. Hornblow, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch M. Quigley, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch G. Archibald, GNS Science, PO Box 30 368, Lower Hutt © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2014 ISSN 1177-2425 ISBN 978-1-972192-53-5 CONTENTS LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................VII TECHNICAL ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................VIII KEYWORDS ............................................................................................................................ X 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DATASETS COLLECTED IN SEPTEMBER 2010 ...................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Tape and Compass ....................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning System (RTK GNSS) .................................... 5 2.4 Terrestrial laser scans ................................................................................................... 7 2.4.1 Scan sites and data capture .............................................................................. 7 2.4.2 Processing ......................................................................................................... 9 2.4.3 Digital Elevation Models and data selected for displacement measurements 11 2.5 Orthophotos ................................................................................................................. 12 2.6 Light detecting and ranging (Lidar) .............................................................................. 15 3.0 PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED DISPLACEMENT MEASUREMENTS .......................... 18 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 18 3.2 Methods of measurement ............................................................................................ 19 3.2.1 Dextral displacements ..................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Vertical displacements .................................................................................... 21 3.3 Construction of displacement distributions (Figure 3.1) .............................................. 23 3.3.1 Dextral displacement distribution (Figure 3.1A) .............................................. 23 3.3.2 Vertical displacement distribution (Figure 3.1B) .............................................. 23 3.3.3 Net displacement distribution and calculation of average displacement (Figure 3.1C) ............................................................................................................... 24 3.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 25 3.4.1 Average net displacement ............................................................................... 25 3.4.2 Ratio of average to maximum displacement ................................................... 26 3.4.3 Shape of the net displacement plot ................................................................. 27 3.4.4 Comparison with the displacement measurements of Elliott et al. (2012) ...... 28 4.0 NEW DEXTRAL DISPLACEMENTS USING MULTIPLE DATASETS ...................... 31 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 Methods of measurement ............................................................................................ 31 4.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.1 Range of measurements at individual sites .................................................... 36 4.3.2 Comparison of measurements between datasets ........................................... 37 4.3.3 Assigned uncertainties .................................................................................... 44 4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.1 Comparison of measurements between datasets ........................................... 47 4.4.2 Assigned uncertainties .................................................................................... 48 GNS Science Report 2013/18 i 4.4.3 Comparison with the displacement measurements of Elliott et al. (2012) ...... 49 4.4.4 Implications for measuring future fault rupture displacements ........................ 51 4.4.5 Implications for characterising single event displacement .............................. 52 5.0 NEW DEXTRAL MEASUREMENTS BY MULTIPLE GEOLOGISTS ........................ 54 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 54 5.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 54 5.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 55 5.3.1 Ranges from all datasets ................................................................................. 55 5.3.2 Ranges for different datasets .......................................................................... 56 5.3.3 Ranges compared with distance along-strike and median displacement ....... 59 5.3.4 Ranges compared with fault zone width ......................................................... 62 5.3.5 Ranges compared with marker obliquity ......................................................... 63 5.3.6 Individual’s measurements .............................................................................. 65 5.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 67 6.0 DISTRIBUTION OF DISPLACEMENT ACROSS THE FAULT ................................. 69 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 69 6.2 Width of surface rupture deformation zone ................................................................. 77 6.3 Distribution of dextral displacement ............................................................................ 79 6.4 Improving the characterisation, and mitigation, of surface fault rupture hazard through the use of displacement distribution and cumulative displacement curves .............................. 80 6.5 Distributed surface fault rupture and application of the Ministry for the Environment’s Active Fault Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 82 7.0 2013 RTK SURVEY TO TEST FOR POST-SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT ................... 83 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 83 7.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 83 7.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 85 7.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 91 7.4.1 Near-fault total station surveys ........................................................................ 91 7.4.2 Far-field GPS surveys ..................................................................................... 92 7.4.3 Far-field InSAR surveys .................................................................................. 92 8.0 KEY CONCULSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 93 9.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 94 10.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 94 FIGURES Figure 1.1 Location of the Greendale Fault with respect to Christchurch and major geological features. ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1.2 Schematic map showing the definitions and components of the Greendale Fault ground surface rupture trace, typically referred to in this report as a fault zone (red shading), in relation to a fence deformed by the rupture (green). .................................................................... 3 ii GNS Science Report 2013/18 Figure 2.1 Sites where Tape and Compass displacement measurements
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geophysical Structure of the Southern Alps Orogen, South Island, New Zealand
    Regional Geophysics chapter 15/04/2007 1 GEOPHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SOUTHERN ALPS OROGEN, SOUTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND. F J Davey1, D Eberhart-Phillips2, M D Kohler3, S Bannister1, G Caldwell1, S Henrys1, M Scherwath4, T Stern5, and H van Avendonk6 1GNS Science, Gracefield, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, [email protected] 2GNS Science, Dunedin, New Zealand 3Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA 4Leibniz-Institute of Marine Sciences, IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel, Germany 5School of Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand 6Institute of Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA ABSTRACT The central part of the South Island of New Zealand is a product of the transpressive continental collision of the Pacific and Australian plates during the past 5 million years, prior to which the plate boundary was largely transcurrent for over 10 My. Subduction occurs at the north (west dipping) and south (east dipping) of South Island. The deformation is largely accommodated by the ramping up of the Pacific plate over the Australian plate and near-symmetric mantle shortening. The initial asymmetric crustal deformation may be the result of an initial difference in lithospheric strength or an inherited suture resulting from earlier plate motions. Delamination of the Pacific plate occurs resulting in the uplift and exposure of mid- crustal rocks at the plate boundary fault (Alpine fault) to form a foreland mountain chain. In addition, an asymmetric crustal root (additional 8 - 17 km) is formed, with an underlying mantle downwarp. The crustal root, which thickens southwards, comprises the delaminated lower crust and a thickened overlying middle crust.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Quaternary Faulting in the Kaikoura Region, Southeastern Marlborough, New Zealand
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Russell J. Van Dissen for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on February 15, 1989. Title: Late Quaternary Faulting in the Kaikoura Region, Southeastern Marlborough, New Zealand Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: Dr. Robert 8.0eats Active faults in the Kaikoura region include the Hope, Kekerengu, and Fidget Faults, and the newly discovered Jordan Thrust, Fyffe, and Kowhai Faults. Ages of faulted alluvial terraces along the Hope Fault and the Jordan Thrust were estimated using radiocarbon-calibrated weathering-rind measurements on graywacke clasts. Within the study area, the Hope Fault is divided, from west to east, into the Kahutara, Mt. Fyffe, and Seaward segments. The Kahutara segment has a relatively constant Holocene right-lateral slip rate of 20-32 mm/yr, and an earthquake recurrence interval of 86 to 600 yrs: based on single-event displacements of 3 to 12 m. The western portion of the Mt. Fyffe segment has a minimum Holocene lateral slip rate of 16 + 5 mm/yr .(southeast side up); the eastern portion has horizontal and vertical slip rates of 4.8+ 2.7 mm/yr and 1.7 + 0.2 mm/yr, respectively (northwest side up). There is no dated evidence for late Quaternary movementon the Seaward segment, and its topographic expression is much more subdued than that of the two western segments. The Jordan Thrust extends northeast from the Hope Fault, west of the Seaward segment. The thrust has horizontal and vertical slip rates of 2.2 + 1.3 mm/yr and 2.1 + 0.5 mm/yr, respectively (northwest side up), and a maximum recurrence interval of 1200 yrs: based on 3 events within the last 3.5 ka.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE of the 2011 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE Version 1: 15 August 2011
    GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF THE 2011 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE Version 1: 15 August 2011 (photograph by Gillian Needham) EDITORS Misko Cubrinovski – NZ Lead (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Russell A. Green – US Lead (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA) Liam Wotherspoon (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS (alphabetical order) John Allen – (TRI/Environmental, Inc., Austin, TX, USA) Brendon Bradley – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Aaron Bradshaw – (University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA) Jonathan Bray – (UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA) Misko Cubrinovski – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Greg DePascale – (Fugro/WLA, Christchurch, New Zealand) Russell A. Green – (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA) Rolando Orense – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) Thomas O’Rourke – (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) Michael Pender – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) Glenn Rix – (Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA) Donald Wells – (AMEC Geomatrix, Oakland, CA, USA) Clint Wood – (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA) Liam Wotherspoon – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) OTHER CONTRIBUTORS (alphabetical order) Brady Cox – (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA) Duncan Henderson – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Lucas Hogan – (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand) Patrick Kailey – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Sam Lasley – (Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA) Kelly Robinson – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Merrick Taylor – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Anna Winkley – (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) Josh Zupan – (University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SEISMOLOGICAL ASPECTS 3.0 GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS 4.0 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING 5.0 IMPROVED GROUND 6.0 STOPBANKS 7.0 BRIDGES 8.0 LIFELINES 9.0 LANDSLIDES AND ROCKFALLS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Incompleteness of New Zealand's Prehistoric
    Quantifying the incompleteness of New Zealand’s prehistoric earthquake record A. Nicol, R.J. Van Dissen, M.W. Stirling, M.C. Gerstenberger BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Nicol, A.; Van Dissen, R.J.; Stirling, M.W., Gerstenberger, M.C. 2017. Quantifying the incompleteness of New Zealand’s prehistoric earthquake record. EQC project 14/668 Final Report, 25 p. A. Nicol, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand R.J. Van Dissen, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand M.W. Stirling, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand M.C. Gerstenberger, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand EQC Project 14/668 Final Report 2 CONTENTS LAYMANS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... IV TECHNICAL ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... V KEYWORDS ......................................................................................................................... V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6 2.0 DATA SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Historical Earthquakes .................................................................................................. 8 2.2 active fault earthquake source identification ............................................................... 10 3.0 PROBABILITY OF
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation of September 4, 2010 Canterbury Earthquake
    Presentation of September 4, 2010 Canterbury Earthquake William Godwin, PG, CEG AEG Vice President, 2019-20 Webinar – May 6, 2020 Introduction ► This presentation is on the 2010 Mw 7.1 Canterbury Earthquake. The earthquake occurred as I was traveling from San Francisco to Auckland, New Zealand to attend the IAEG Congress. Upon arrival I was asked to join the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) team to document damage from the event in the Christchurch area of the South Island. Little did I know that another smaller (Mw 6.2), yet deadlier earthquake would strike 5 months later in close to the same area. Introduction ► The purpose of the GEER is to observe and record earthquake induced phenomena and impacts to infrastructure before evidence is removed or altered as part of cleanup efforts. ► The reconnaissance was conducted by a joint USA-NZ-Japan team with the main funding for the USA contingent coming from GEER and partial support from PEER and EERI. ► This presentation includes my photographs from Sept. 8-10 supplemented with a few photos and observations noted in the GEER report, Nov. 2010. I also describe other seismic events from 2011-16. Sept 4th Darfield Earthquake ► At 4:35 am on September 4th NZ Standard Time (16:35 Sept 3rd UTC) the rupture of a previously unrecognized strike-slip fault (Greendale Fault) beneath the Canterbury Plains of New Zealand’s South Island produced a Mw 7.1 earthquake that caused widespread damage throughout the region. Surprisingly only two people were seriously injured, with approximately 100 total injuries. This compares with 185 deaths in the 2011 event Canterbury Earthquake Sequence Greendale Fault Rupture Characteristics Epicenter (focal) depth: 10.8km Tectonic Setting Ground Motion (pga) Geographical Setting Preliminary Observations ► Rock Avalanche, Castle Rock Reserve, Littleton, Christchurch ► Fault Offset, Telegraph Rd at Grange Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • GPH 333 Canterbury Eartquakes Research Paper
    The Canterbury Tales: How Neogene Shortening and Brittle Shear Failure Cause the Reactivation of Inherited and New Fault Systems underneath the Canterbury Plains, New Zealand Andrew J Pugh Abstract Two notable earthquakes occurred in Canterbury, New Zealand between September 2010 and February 2011. The first in Darfield Mw 7.1 and Christchurch Mw 6.2 devastated the region along a previously unknown right-lateral strike-slip fault. The fault lies southeast of the Alpine Transform with an enigmatic motion that does not comply with the expected sense of slip in other parts of the region. To date no conclusive answers has been brought forth to explain the reasons behind a near east-west strike-slip fault in this area. Many hypotheses exist with the most likely being that an evolving stress field is reactivating inherited high angles faults and, through brittle deformation, new fault systems are being created. The Greendale Fault is important to study because of the potential catastrophic impact of a large earthquake given that 12.5% of New Zealand’s total population calls the Canterbury region home. By examining the kinematic mechanisms responsible for the Greendale Fault using InSAR, LiDAR, and Stress modeling, this paper seeks to gain a better understanding on what caused this fault to suddenly rupture in an area of relatively “quiet” activity. Introduction Between September 2010 and February 2011 two large earthquakes occurred along a previously unknown strike-slip fault east of Christchurch, New Zealand. It is not so much a surprise that these earthquakes happened but the nature of them. In other words, the two events that will be discussed, Darfield and Christchurch, occurred on a right-lateral strike-slip fault.
    [Show full text]
  • Variability in Single Event Slip and Recurrence Intervals for Large
    Variability of single event slip and recurrence intervals for large magnitude paleoearthquakes on New Zealand’s active faults A. Nicol R. Robinson R. J. Van Dissen A. Harvison GNS Science Report 2012/41 December 2012 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Nicol, A.; Robinson, R.; Van Dissen, R. J.; Harvison, A. 2012. Variability of single event slip and recurrence intervals for large magnitude paleoearthquakes on New Zealand’s active faults, GNS Science Report 2012/41. 57 p. A. Nicol, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand R. Robinson, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand R. J. Van Dissen, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand A. Harvison, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2012 ISSN 1177-2425 ISBN 978-1-972192-29-0 CONTENTS LAYMANS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... IV TECHNICAL ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... V KEYWORDS ......................................................................................................................... V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 GEOLOGICAL EARTHQUAKES ................................................................................ 2 2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoseismology of the 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) Earthquake Source, Greendale Fault, New Zealand
    BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Hornblow, S.; Nicol, A.; Quigley, M.; Van Dissen, R. J. 2014. Paleoseismology of the 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake source, Greendale Fault, New Zealand, GNS Science Report 2014/26. 27 p. S. Hornblow, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand A. Nicol, GNS Science, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand M. Quigley, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand R. J. Van Dissen, GNS Science, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2014 ISSN 1177-2425 (Print) ISSN 2350-3424 (Online) ISBN 978-1-927278-50-5 CONTENTS LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... III TECHNICAL ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... IV KEYWORDS ........................................................................................................................ IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 TECTONIC, GEOLOGIC AND GEOMORPHIC SETTING .......................................... 4 3.0 GEOMETRY AND SLIP OF THE DARFIELD EARTHQUAKE RUPTURE ................. 6 4.0 FAULT TRENCHING .................................................................................................. 7 4.1 HIGHFIELD ROAD ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) Earthquake on the Geodetic Infrastructure in New Zealand 1
    The Impact of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) Earthquake on the Geodetic Infrastructure in New Zealand 1 Graeme BLICK, John BEAVAN, Chris CROOK, Nic DONNELLY Keywords : Darfield Earthquake, control, survey, geodetic infrastructure SUMMARY On 4 September 2010 a magnitude ~7.1 earthquake struck 30 km west of Christchurch near Darfield in the South Island of New Zealand. This was the most damaging earthquake to affect New Zealand in almost 80 years. The earthquake produced a ~30 km long surface rupture with up to 5 m of horizontal displacement and 1 m of vertical movement. The shallow depth of the earthquake produced some of the strongest ground shaking ever recorded in New Zealand and resulted in areas of liquefaction and severe ground damage locally. The area affected by the earthquake consists of the flat alluvial plans of Canterbury and includes the city of Christchurch and several smaller surrounding towns. The rural area is highly developed with peri-urban lifestyle blocks and intensive rural farming. The ground deformation associated with the earthquake caused damage to utilities such as water and sewerage, particularly in areas of liquefaction, and has had a major impact on the cadastre, especially near the fault rupture. Changes in levels have also raised concerns about the potential hazard of increased flooding due to the low lying nature of the topography. The earthquake has also had a major impact on the geodetic infrastructure used to fix the positions of cadastral boundaries, utilities and flood management projects. Geodetic surveys were undertaken immediately following the earthquake and in the subsequent months to quantify the ground deformation caused by the earthquake, and its impact on the geodetic and cadastral infrastructure in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoseismology and Slip Rate of the Conway Segment of the Hope Fault at Greenburn Stream, South Island, New Zealand
    ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 46, N. 5, October 2003 Paleoseismology and slip rate of the Conway Segment of the Hope Fault at Greenburn Stream, South Island, New Zealand Robert Langridge (1), Jocelyn Campbell (2), Nigel Hill (1), Verne Pere (2), James Pope (2), Jarg Pettinga (2), Beatriz Estrada (2) and Kelvin Berryman (1) (1) Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand (2) Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Abstract The Conway Segment of the dextral-slip Hope Fault is one of the fastest slipping fault segments along New Zealand’s plate boundary, but has not ruptured co-seismically in the historic period and little paleoseismic data exist to constrain its large earthquake record. Two paleoseismic trenches were opened adjacent to Greenburn Stream near Kaikoura for the 2001 ILP Paleoseismology Conference. Both trenches were excavated into deposits ponded against an uphill-facing shut- ter scarp. Trench 1, dug through a cobbly soil and surface deposit was dominated by a thick fan/fluvial sequence that was radiocarbon dated at 4409 ± 60 C14 years BP (4844-5288 cal years BP) at the base of the trench. This trench exhibited evidence of complex deformation from many paleoseismic events. The most recent earthquakes are difficult to constrain due to a lack of cover stratigraphy on the fan deposits. However, the modern soil appears to be faulted and is covered by cobbles with a weathering rind-derived age of 220 ± 60 years. Trench 2, dug ¾ 50 m to the west has an expanded sequence of the younger cover deposits.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Fault Hazards in the Taupō District
    Active fault hazards in the Taupō District NJ Litchfield R Morgenstern P Villamor RJ Van Dissen DB Townsend SD Kelly GNS Science Consultancy Report 2020/31 August 2020 DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science) exclusively for and under contract to Taupō District Council. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by GNS Science, GNS Science accepts no responsibility for any use of or reliance on any contents of this report by any person other than Taupō District Council and shall not be liable to any person other than Taupō District Council, on any ground, for any loss, damage or expense arising from such use or reliance. Use of Data: Date that GNS Science can use associated data: May 2020 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Litchfield NJ, Morgenstern R, Villamor P, Van Dissen RJ, Townsend DB, Kelly SD. 2020. Active faults in the Taupō District. Lower Hutt (NZ): GNS Science. 114 p. Consultancy Report 2020/31. Project Number 900W2041-00 Confidential 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background and Context (from the Project Brief) ............................................. 1 1.2 Scope, Objectives and Deliverables ................................................................ 1 1.3 Fault Avoidance Zones and Fault Awareness Areas for District Plan Purposes
    [Show full text]
  • IOG-Symposium-2013-Booklet.Pdf
    PROGRAMME This provides an outline for the day, but times are approximate. Note: the venue is Cotton 217 1.10 pm - 1.30 pm Introduction 1.30 pm - 2.00 pm Seismology (Martha Savage) 2.00 pm - 2.30 pm Geodesy and Neotectonics (Simon Lamb and Tim Little) 2.30 pm - 3.00 pm Exploring the Deep Earth (Tim Stern) 3.00 pm - 3.30 pm Aerogravity and Groundwater Studies (Euan Smith) 3.30 pm - 4.00 pm Afternoon tea 4.00 pm - 4.30 pm Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism (Gillian Turner) 4.30 pm - 5.00 pm Ice Physics (Huw Horgan) 5.00 pm - 5.30 pm Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics (Jim Mcgregor and Jim Renwick) 5.30 pm - 6.00 pm Break and drinks 6.00 pm - 6.30 pm Overview of geophysical research at the Institute of Geophysics (Tim Stern) 6.30 pm - 7.30 pm Discussion, posters, and drinks/food. Institute of Geophysics Symposium 2013 TALKS Seismology Martha Savage We are lucky to be able to use the GeoNet network, specialised field studies and also to collaborate with other groups throughout the world to use earthquakes to study volcanoes and other structures in the crust and mantle. Specialised studies on the Alpine Fault, the Wellington region and Ruapehu have been supplemented with portable seismometer deployments. The Geonet network has been used to determine the anisotropic structure of the South Island and to determine the stress state throughout New Zealand. A broadband seismic deployment after the Darfield earthquake allowed us to: 1) delineate fault structures within the aftershock sequence before the Christchurch rupture, 2) determine a rotation of stress directions along the Greendale fault; and 3) use cross-correlation of seismic noise to find the origin of previous enigmatic strong amplification in basins as caused by higher mode Rayleigh waves.
    [Show full text]