Search

found 421 results

Images for liquefaction; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A digitally manipulated image of broken objects. The photographer comments, "Digital painting of breakages and liquefaction after the February 22 earthquake in Christchurch".

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

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.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This study determined areas of different liquefaction susceptibility in Hurunui District based mainly on geological data, with some limited borehole strata interpretation. Geotechnical data was not analysed. This was the same method used in the earthquake hazard assessments for engineering lifelines in other districts in Canterbury. Hurunui District was the first district that a hazard assessment for engineering lifelines was undertaken for (in 2000) and it did not include a liquefaction susceptibility map like the other district earthquake hazard assessments did. There are no recommendations associated with this report. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010-2011 caused widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch. Observations from the CES highlight some sites were liquefaction was predicted by the simplified method but did not manifest. There are a number of reasons why the simplified method may over-predict liquefaction, one of these is the dynamic interaction between soil layers within a stratified deposit. Soil layer interaction occurs through two key mechanisms; modification of the ground motion due to seismic waves passing through deep liquefied layers, and the effect of pore water seepage from an area of high excess pore water pressure to the surrounding soil. In this way, soil layer interaction can significantly alter the liquefaction behaviour and surface manifestation of soils subject to seismic loading. This research aimed to develop an understanding of how soil layer interaction, in particular ground motion modification, affects the development of excess pore water pressures and liquefaction manifestation in a soil deposit subject to seismic loading. A 1-D soil column time history Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) was conducted to give an in depth assessment of the development of pore pressures in a number of soil deposits. For this analysis, ground motions, soil profiles and model parameters were required for the ESA. Deconvolution of ground motions recorded at the surface during the CES was used to develop some acceleration time histories to input at the base of the soil-column model. An analysis of 55 sites around Christchurch, where detailed site investigations have been carried out, was then conducted to identify some simplified soil profiles and soil characteristics. From this analysis, four soil profiles representative of different levels of liquefaction manifestation were developed. These were; two thick uniform and vertically continuous sandy deposits that were representative of sites were liquefaction manifested in both the Mw 7.1 September 2010 and the Mw 6.3 February 2011 earthquakes, and two vertically discontinuous profiles with interlayered liquefiable and non-liquefiable layers representative of sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either the September 2010 or the February 2011 events. Model parameters were then developed for these four representative soil profiles through calibration of the constitutive model in element test simulations. Simulations were run for each of the four profiles subject to three levels of loading intensity. The results were analysed for the effect of soil layer interaction. These were then compared to a simplified triggering analysis for the same four profiles to determine where the simplified method was accurate in predicting soil liquefaction (for the continuous sandy deposits) and were it was less accurate (the vertically discontinuous deposits where soil layer interaction was a factor).

Videos, UC QuakeStudies

Aerial footage of a site in Avondale where several liquefaction remediation options are being tested. Gelignite explosives have been buried throughout the site. These will be set off to simulate liquefaction caused by an earthquake. The result, if successful, will help EQC protect people's houses from future earthquakes, and settle land claims. The video was recorded using a drone aircraft.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Results from cyclic undrained direct simple shear tests on reconstituted specimens of two sands from Christchurch are compared against the liquefaction resistance inferred from CPT-based empirical liquefaction triggering methods. Limitations in existing empirical triggering relationships to capture important effects related to processes which originated test soils are highlighted and discussed.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A digitally manipulated image of printer's type, spelling out "Safe Dust". The photographer comments, "After the September 2010 Christchurch earthquake liquefaction poured out of the ground mostly in the East of Christchurch. This silt, which was a form of sand was declared safe and would not harm gardens if it was spread around in moderation. After the February 2011 quake as a result of even more liquefaction and the sewers being ruptured, the liquefaction was declared as toxic. People clearing it up should wear a mask, boots and gloves especially when it had dried up and become dusty. This just so happens to be the words found on an old printing press".

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

The cartoon shows two images of cars nose-down in ditches, the first is caused by 'liquifaction' and the second by 'stupifaction'. Context: there was another large aftershock on Boxing Day in Christchurch which resulted in quite a lot of liquefaction. There is always concern over the Christmas holidays about drinking while driving. Other Titles - Liquefaction Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Liquefaction features and the geologic environment in which they formed were carefully studied at two sites near Lincoln in southwest Christchurch. We undertook geomorphic mapping, excavated trenches, and obtained hand cores in areas with surficial evidence for liquefaction and areas where no surficial evidence for liquefaction was present at two sites (Hardwick and Marchand). The liquefaction features identified include (1) sand blows (singular and aligned along linear fissures), (2) blisters or injections of subhorizontal dikes into the topsoil, (3) dikes related to the blows and blisters, and (4) a collapse structure. The spatial distribution of these surface liquefaction features correlates strongly with the ridges of scroll bars in meander settings. In addition, we discovered paleoliquefaction features, including several dikes and a sand blow, in excavations at the sites of modern liquefaction. The paleoliquefaction event at the Hardwick site is dated at A.D. 908-1336, and the one at the Marchand site is dated at A.D. 1017-1840 (95% confidence intervals of probability density functions obtained by Bayesian analysis). If both events are the same, given proximity of the sites, the time of the event is A.D. 1019-1337. If they are not, the one at the Marchand site could have been much younger. Taking into account a preliminary liquefaction-triggering threshold of equivalent peak ground acceleration for an Mw 7.5 event (PGA7:5) of 0:07g, existing magnitude-bounded relations for paleoliquefaction, and the timing of the paleoearthquakes and the potential PGA7:5 estimated for regional faults, we propose that the Porters Pass fault, Alpine fault, or the subduction zone faults are the most likely sources that could have triggered liquefaction at the study sites. There are other nearby regional faults that may have been the source, but there is no paleoseismic data with which to make the temporal link.