The Canterbury region experienced widespread damage due to liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the 4 September 2010 earthquake and the large aftershocks that followed, notably those that occurred on 22 February, 13 June and 23 December 2011. Following the 2010 earthquake, the Earthquake Commission directed a thorough investigation of the ground profile in Christchurch, and to date, more than 7500 cone penetration tests (CPT) have been performed in the region. This paper presents the results of analyses which use a subset of the geotechnical database to evaluate the liquefaction process as well as the re-liquefaction that occurred following some of the major events in Christchurch. First, the applicability of existing CPT-based methods for evaluating liquefaction potential of Christchurch soils was investigated using three methods currently available. Next, the results of liquefaction potential evaluation were compared with the severity of observed damage, categorised in terms of the land damage grade developed from Tonkin & Taylor property inspections as well as from observed severity of liquefaction from aerial photography. For this purpose, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) was used to represent the damage potential at each site. In addition, a comparison of the CPT-based strength profiles obtained before each of the major aftershocks was performed. The results suggest that the analysis of spatial and temporal variations of strength profiles gives a clear indication of the resulting liquefaction and re-liquefaction observed in Christchurch. The comparison of a limited number of CPT strength profiles before and after the earthquakes seems to indicate that no noticeable strengthening has occurred in Christchurch, making the area vulnerable to liquefaction induced land damage in future large-scale earthquakes.
During the recent devastating earthquakes in Christchurch, many residential houses were damaged due to widespread liquefaction of the ground. In-situ testing is widely used as a convenient method for evaluating liquefaction potential of soils. Cone penetration test (CPT) and standard penetration test (SPT) are the two popular in situ tests which are widely used in New Zealand for site characterization. The Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) method is a relatively new operating system developed in Japan consisting of a machine that drills a rod into the ground by applying torque at seven steps of axial loading. This machine can continuously measure the required torque, load, speed of penetration and rod friction during the test, and therefore can give a clear overview of the soil profile along the depth of penetration. In this paper, based on a number of SDS tests conducted in Christchurch, a correlation was developed between tip resistance of CPT test and SDS parameters for layers consisting of different fines contents. Moreover, using the obtained correlation, a chart was proposed which relates the cyclic resistance ratio to the appropriate SDS parameter. Using the proposed chart, liquefaction potential of soil can be estimated directly using SDS data. As SDS method is simpler, faster and more economical test than CPT and SPT, it can be a reliable alternative in-situ test for soil characterization, especially in residential house constructions.
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
