The focus of the study presented herein is an assessment of the relative efficacy of recent Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and small strain shear wave velocity (Vs) based variants of the simplified procedure. Towards this end Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed on the CPT- and Vs-based procedures using the field case history databases from which the respective procedures were developed. The ROC analyses show that Factors of Safety (FS) against liquefaction computed using the most recent Vs-based simplified procedure is better able to separate the “liquefaction” from the “no liquefaction” case histories in the Vs liquefaction database than the CPT-based procedure is able to separate the “liquefaction” from the “no liquefaction” case histories in the CPT liquefaction database. However, this finding somewhat contradicts the assessed predictive capabilities of the CPT- and Vs-based procedures as quantified using select, high quality liquefaction case histories from the 20102011 Canterbury, New Zealand, Earthquake Sequence (CES), wherein the CPT-based procedure was found to yield more accurate predictions. The dichotomy of these findings may result from the fact that different liquefaction field case history databases were used in the respective ROC analyses for Vs and CPT, while the same case histories were used to evaluate both the CPT- and Vs-based procedures.
This study uses 44 high quality liquefaction case histories taken from 22 locations affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence to evaluate four commonly used CPT-VS correlations (i.e., Robertson, 2009; Hegazy and Mayne, 2006; Andrus et al., 2007; McGann et al., 2015b). Co-located CPT soundings and VS profiles, developed from surface wave testing, were obtained at 22 locations and case histories were developed for the Mw 7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield and Mw 6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. The CPT soundings are used to generate VS profiles using each of four CPT-VS correlations. These correlated VS profiles are used to estimate the factor of safety against liquefaction using the Kayen et al. (2013) VS-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure. An error index is used to quantify the predictive capabilities of these correlations in relation to the observations of liquefaction (or the lack thereof). Additionally, the error indices from the CPT-correlated VS profiles are compared to those obtained using: (1) the Kayen et al. (2013) procedure with surface wave-derived VS profiles, and (2) the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedure. Based on the error indices, the evaluation procedures based on direct measurements of either CPT or VS provided more accurate liquefaction triggering estimates than those obtained from any of the CPT-VS correlations. However, the performance of the CPT-VS correlations varied, with the Robertson (2009) and Hegazy and Mayne (2006) correlations performing relatively poorly for the Christchurch soils and the Andrus et al. (2007) and McGann et al. (2015b) correlations performing better. The McGann et al. (2015b) correlation had the lowest error indices of the CPT-VS correlations tested, however, none of the CPT-VS correlations provided accurate enough VS predictions to be used for the evaluation of liquefaction triggering using the VS-based liquefaction evaluation procedures.
Semi-empirical models based on in-situ geotechnical tests have become the standard of practice for predicting soil liquefaction. Since the inception of the “simplified” cyclic-stress model in 1971, variants based on various in-situ tests have been developed, including the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). More recently, prediction models based soley on remotely-sensed data were developed. Similar to systems that provide automated content on earthquake impacts, these “geospatial” models aim to predict liquefaction for rapid response and loss estimation using readily-available data. This data includes (i) common ground-motion intensity measures (e.g., PGA), which can either be provided in near-real-time following an earthquake, or predicted for a future event; and (ii) geospatial parameters derived from digital elevation models, which are used to infer characteristics of the subsurface relevent to liquefaction. However, the predictive capabilities of geospatial and geotechnical models have not been directly compared, which could elucidate techniques for improving the geospatial models, and which would provide a baseline for measuring improvements. Accordingly, this study assesses the realtive efficacy of liquefaction models based on geospatial vs. CPT data using 9,908 case-studies from the 2010-2016 Canterbury earthquakes. While the top-performing models are CPT-based, the geospatial models perform relatively well given their simplicity and low cost. Although further research is needed (e.g., to improve upon the performance of current models), the findings of this study suggest that geospatial models have the potential to provide valuable first-order predictions of liquefaction occurence and consequence. Towards this end, performance assessments of geospatial vs. geotechnical models are ongoing for more than 20 additional global earthquakes.
Nel presente articolo si illustra una procedura per il processamento automatizzato di prove CPT, il calcolo di vari indici di liquefazione e la rappresentazione dei dati su mappa. La procedura è applicata al caso studio del terremoto di Christchurch, Nuova Zelanda, del 22 febbraio 2011 (magnitudo momento, Mw = 6.2). Dall’analisi spaziale dei risultati emerge una buona correlazione tra le mappe ottenute per l’indicatore degli effetti al suolo e i danni osservati (su terreni e strutture). Tuttavia, per confermare la validità di tale procedura, sarà necessario esaminare ulteriori casi studio nel mondo.
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010-2011 (CES) induced widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch city. Liquefaction was more commonly observed in the eastern suburbs and along the Avon River where the soils were characterised by thick sandy deposits with a shallow water table. On the other hand, suburbs to the north, west and south of the CBD (e.g. Riccarton, Papanui) exhibited less severe to no liquefaction. These soils were more commonly characterised by inter-layered liquefiable and non-liquefiable deposits. As part of a related large-scale study of the performance of Christchurch soils during the CES, detailed borehole data including CPT, Vs and Vp have been collected for 55 sites in Christchurch. For this subset of Christchurch sites, predictions of liquefaction triggering using the simplified method (Boulanger & Idriss, 2014) indicated that liquefaction was over-predicted for 94% of sites that did not manifest liquefaction during the CES, and under-predicted for 50% of sites that did manifest liquefaction. The focus of this study was to investigate these discrepancies between prediction and observation. To assess if these discrepancies were due to soil-layer interaction and to determine the effect that soil stratification has on the develop-ment of liquefaction and the system response of soil deposits.
