Search

found 1696 results

Images for LIQUEFACTION; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph submitted by Ross Williamson to the QuakeStories website. The description reads, "Halberg Street looking south, liquefaction carted out from properties".

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Geospatial liquefaction models aim to predict liquefaction using data that is free and readily-available. This data includes (i) common ground-motion intensity measures; and (ii) geospatial parameters (e.g., among many, distance to rivers, distance to coast, and Vs30 estimated from topography) which are used to infer characteristics of the subsurface without in-situ testing. Since their recent inception, such models have been used to predict geohazard impacts throughout New Zealand (e.g., in conjunction with regional ground-motion simulations). While past studies have demonstrated that geospatial liquefaction-models show great promise, the resolution and accuracy of the geospatial data underlying these models is notably poor. As an example, mapped rivers and coastlines often plot hundreds of meters from their actual locations. This stems from the fact that geospatial models aim to rapidly predict liquefaction anywhere in the world and thus utilize the lowest common denominator of available geospatial data, even though higher quality data is often available (e.g., in New Zealand). Accordingly, this study investigates whether the performance of geospatial models can be improved using higher-quality input data. This analysis is performed using (i) 15,101 liquefaction case studies compiled from the 2010-2016 Canterbury Earthquakes; and (ii) geospatial data readily available in New Zealand. In particular, we utilize alternative, higher-quality data to estimate: locations of rivers and streams; location of coastline; depth to ground water; Vs30; and PGV. Most notably, a region-specific Vs30 model improves performance (Figs. 3-4), while other data variants generally have little-to-no effect, even when the “standard” and “high-quality” values differ significantly (Fig. 2). This finding is consistent with the greater sensitivity of geospatial models to Vs30, relative to any other input (Fig. 5), and has implications for modeling in locales worldwide where high quality geospatial data is available.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Advanced seismic effective-stress analysis is used to scrutinize the liquefaction performance of 55 well-documented case-history sites from Christchurch. The performance of these sites during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence varied significantly, from no liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface (in any of the major events) to severe liquefaction manifestation in multiple events. For the majority of the 55 sites, the simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures, which are conventionally used in engineering practice, could not explain these dramatic differences in the manifestation. Detailed geotechnical characterization and subsequent examination of the soil profile characteristics of the 55 sites identified some similarities but also important differences between sites that manifested liquefaction in the two major events of the sequence (YY-sites) and sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either event (NN-sites). In particular, while the YY-sites and NN-sites are shown to have practically identical critical layer characteristics, they have significant differences with regard to their deposit characteristics including the thickness and vertical continuity of their critical zones and liquefiable materials. A CPT-based effective stress analysis procedure is developed and implemented for the analyses of the 55 case history sites. Key features of this procedure are that, on the one hand, it can be fully automated in a programming environment and, on the other hand, it is directly equivalent (in the definition of cyclic resistance and required input data) to the CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures. These features facilitate significantly the application of effective-stress analysis for simple 1D free-field soil-column problems and also provide a basis for rigorous comparisons of the outcomes of effective-stress analyses and simplified procedures. Input motions for the analyses are derived using selected (reference) recordings from the two major events of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A step-by-step procedure for the selection of representative reference motions for each site and their subsequent treatment (i.e. deconvolution and scaling) is presented. The focus of the proposed procedure is to address key aspects of spatial variability of ground motion in the near-source region of an earthquake including extended-source effects, path effects, and variation in the deeper regional geology.