While the chance of a serious earthquake hitting Dunedin
is one in 1000, the odds are better than winning Lotto and
citizens "should not be complacent", geologist Prof Richard
Norris says.
Should such a quake occur, parts of South Dunedin, Mosgiel
and the Taieri would "inevitably" be engulfed in
liquefaction, the hill suburbs would suffer landslips and
rockfalls and many heritage buildings would be reduced to
rubble.
Prof Norris, of the University of Otago geology department,
put such images to the Mornington Probus group at a meeting
yesterday.
The city's most active fault-line, Akatore, which runs from
Taieri Mouth to Dunedin, last broke about 1000 years ago, and
the chance of it happening again is less than one in 1000, he
said.
Researchers knew a lot about the fault-lines around Dunedin,
most of which were not highly active - the Titri Fault has
not moved for 90,000 years.
"But given Christchurch's experience, we should not be too
complacent," he said.
The September 4 quake which shook Christchurch and its
subsequent devastating aftershock on February 22 both
occurred on an old fault-line.
"It's likely the fault had not moved for 15,000 years," Prof
Norris said.
Even if extensive, and expensive, seismic research had been
carried out on the fault, it probably would not have been
given a high degree of significance.
The quake was "typical" of most in the South Island as it
occurred on a fault which was not recognised.
Once a fault like that broke, strain was released in its
vicinity, but pressure built at either end of it, evident
from the pattern of aftershocks Christchurch experienced
after September 4.
Between January and February 22, those aftershocks were
increasingly closer to Christchurch city and seismologists
knew a large quake could not be discounted.
Prof Norris believed the area around the fault was "being
shortened", culminating in the deadly 6.3-magnitude quake.
"The Port Hills have been thrust over the lower-lying areas
of the city," he said.
Christchurch's "seismic hazard" was "about double" Dunedin's,
but should one occur, the impact would be similar, but of a
different nature.
Soil liquefaction was likely at St Kilda, parts of St Clair,
Mosgiel, and the Taieri, including the airport.
The hill suburbs, along with the Peninsula roads and parts of
Kaikorai Valley, would likely suffer rockfalls and landslips,
the severity of which would depend on ground moisture.
There "is virtually no chance" of liquefaction on the hill
suburbs and the bulk of the city centre and North Dunedin
"because there is nothing to liquefy".
The city largely sits on solid rock, which would result in
less violent shaking than experienced in Christchurch.
However, Dunedin's higher proportion of historic brick
buildings meant damage would potentially be worse.
"A lot of the images we've had [of the Christchurch quakes]
have been masses of piles of brick and that's because brick
is not a very good material in an earthquake.
"I shudder every time I look around Dunedin."
Older wooden houses fared better as they are "incredibly
resilient" and "flex" in quakes.
"We should not be building with brick, in my view, in New
Zealand."
Prof Norris believed New Zealanders needed to be aware of the
nation's quake susceptibility - it sits on two tectonic
plates, the Pacific and Australian - and while the
Christchurch earthquake decreased the probability of
earthquakes in that area, the rest of the country was still
at risk.
"We live with earthquakes."
Otago Daily Times - Wed, 9 Mar 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment