Search

found 1696 results

Images for liquefaction; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

There is a growing awareness of the need for the earthquake engineering practice to incorporate in addition to empirical approaches in evaluation of liquefaction hazards advanced methods which can more realistically represent soil behaviour during earthquakes. Currently, this implementation is hindered by a number of challenges mainly associated with the amount of data and user-experience required for such advanced methods. In this study, we present key steps of an advanced seismic effective-stress analysis procedure, which on the one hand can be fully automated and, on the other hand, requires no additional input (at least for preliminary applications) compared to simplified cone penetration test (CPT)-based liquefaction procedures. In this way, effective-stress analysis can be routinely applied for quick, yet more robust estimations of liquefaction hazards, in a similar fashion to the simplified procedures. Important insights regarding the dynamic interactions in liquefying soils and the actual system response of a deposit can be gained from such analyses, as illustrated with the application to two sites from Christchurch, New Zealand.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

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.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Liquefaction is a phenomenon that results in a loss of strength and stability of a saturated soil mass due to dynamic excitation such as that imposed by an earthquake. The granular nature of New Zealand soils and the location of many of our cities and towns on fluvial foundations are such that the effects of liquefaction can be very important. Research was undertaken to build on the past work undertaken at the University of Canterbury studying the effects of the 1929 Murchison earthquake, the 1968 Inangahua earthquake and the 1991 Hawks Crag earthquakes on the West Coast. Additional archival information has been gathered from newspapers and reports and from discussions with people who experienced one or all of these large earthquakes that occurred on the West Coast during the 20th Century. Further, some twenty Cone Penetrometer Tests were carried out, with varying success, in Greymouth and Karamea using the Department of Civil Engineering's Drilling Rig. These, combined with the basic site investigation information, consolidate and add to the liquefaction case history data bank at the University of Canterbury. Many of the sites have liquefied in some but not all of the three earthquakes and thus provide both upper and lower bounds for the calibration of empirical models. While a lack of knowledge of the 1929 source location reduces the value of information from that event, the data form a useful set of liquefaction case histories and will become more so as further earthquakes occur. A list of critical sites for checking of the future earthquakes is provided and recommendations are made for the installation of downhole arrays of accelerometers and pore water pressure transducers at a number of sites.