Using case studies from the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence, this study assesses the accuracies of paleoliquefaction back-analysis methods and explores the challenges, techniques, and uncertainties associated with their application. While liquefaction-based back-analyses have been widely used to estimate the magnitudes of paleoearthquakes, their uncertain efficacies continue to significantly affect the computed seismic hazard in regions where they are relied upon. Accordingly, their performance is evaluated herein using liquefaction data from modern earthquakes with known magnitudes. It is shown that when the earthquake source location and mechanism are known, back-analysis methods are capable of accurately deriving seismic parameters from liquefaction evidence. However, because the source location and mechanism are often unknown in paleoseismic studies, and because accurate interpretation is shown to be more difficult in such cases, new analysis techniques are proposed herein. An objective parameter is proposed to geospatially assess the likelihood of any provisional source location, enabling an analyst to more accurately estimate the magnitude of a liquefaction-inducing paleoearthquake. This study demonstrates the application of back-analysis methods, provides insight into their potential accuracies, and provides a framework for performing paleoliquefaction analyses worldwide.
Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence created a wealth of shallow subsurface intrusions with geometries and orientations governed by (1) strong ground motion severity and duration, and (2) intrinsic site characteristics including liquefaction susceptibility, lateral spreading severity, geomorphic setting, host sediment heterogeneity, and anthropogenic soil modifications. We present a suite of case studies that demonstrate how each of these characteristics influenced the geologic expressions of contemporary liquefaction in the shallow subsurface. We compare contemporary features with paleo-features to show how geologic investigations of recurrent liquefaction can provide novel insights into the shaking characteristics of modern and paleo-earthquakes, the influence of geomorphology on liquefaction vulnerability, and the possible controls of anthropogenic activity on the geologic record. We conclude that (a) sites of paleo-liquefaction in the last 1000-2000 years corresponded with most severe liquefaction during the Canterbury earthquake sequence, (b) less vulnerable sites that only liquefied in the strongest and most proximal contemporary earthquakes are unlikely to have liquefied in the last 1000-2000 years or more, (c) proximal strong earthquakes with large vertical accelerations favoured sill formation at some locations, (d) contemporary liquefaction was more severe than paleoliquefaction at all study sites, and (e) stratigraphic records of successive dike formation were more complete at sites with severe lateral spreading, (f) anthropogenic fill suppressed surface liquefaction features and altered subsurface liquefaction architecture.
On February 22, 2011, a magnitude Mw 6.2 earthquake affected the Canterbury region, New Zealand, resulting in many fatalities. Liquefaction occurred across many areas, visible on the surface as ‘‘sand volcanoes’’, blisters and subsidence, causing significant damage to buildings, land and infrastructure. Liquefaction occurred at a number of sites across the Christchurch Boys High School sports grounds; one area in particular contained a piston ground failure and an adjacent silt volcano. Here, as part of a class project, we apply near-surface geophysics to image these two liquefaction features and determine whether they share a subsurface connection. Hand auger results enable correlation of the geophysical responses with the subsurface stratigraphy. The survey results suggest that there is a subsurface link, likely via a paleo-stream channel. The anomalous responses of the horizontal loop electromagnetic survey and electrical resistivity imaging highlight the disruption of the subsurface electrical properties beneath and between the two liquefaction features. The vertical magnetic gradient may also show a subtle anomalous response in this area, however the results are inconclusive. The ground penetrating radar survey shows disruption of the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the liquefaction features, in particular sediment mounding beneath the silt ejection (‘‘silt volcano’’) and stratigraphic disruption beneath the piston failure. The results indicate how near-surface geophysics allow the characteristics of liquefaction in the subsurface to be better understood, which could aid remediation work following liquefaction-induced land damage and guide interpretation of geophysical surveys of paleoliquefaction features.
