Search

found 29 results

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

The majority of current procedures used to deduce liquefaction potential of soils rely on empirical methods. These methods have been proven to work in the past, but these methods are known to overestimate the liquefaction potential in certain regions of Christchurch due to a whole range of factors, and the theoretical basis behind these methods cannot be explained scientifically. Critical state soil mechanics theory was chosen to provide an explanation for the soil's behaviour during the undrained shearing. Soils from two sites in Christchurch were characterised at regular intervals for the critical layers and tested for the critical state lines (CSL). Various models and relationships were then used to predict the CSL and compared with the actual CSL. However none of the methods used managed to predict the CSL accurately, and a separate Christchurch exclusive relationship was proposed. The resultant state parameter values could be obtained from shear-wave velocity plots and were then developed into cyclic resistance ratios (CRR). These were subsequently compared with cyclic stress ratios (CSR) from recent Christchurch earthquakes to obtain the factor of safety. This CSL-based approach was compared with other empirical methods and was shown to yield a favourable relationship with visual observations at the sites' locations following the earthquake.

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.