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.
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 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.
Following the devastating 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, buildings in Napier and surrounding areas in the Hawke's Bay region were rebuilt in a comparatively homogenous structural and architectural style comprising the region's famous Art Deco stock. These interwar buildings are most often composed of reinforced concrete two-way space frames, and although they have comparatively ductile detailing for their date of construction, are often expected to be brittle, earthquake-prone buildings in preliminary seismic assessments. Furthermore, the likelihood of global collapse of an RC building during a design-level earthquake became an issue warranting particular attention following the collapse of multiple RC buildings in the February 22, 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Those who value the architectural heritage and future use of these iconic Art Deco buildings - including building owners, tenants, and city officials, among others - must consider how they can be best preserved and utilized functionally given the especially pressing implications of relevant safety, regulatory, and economic factors. This study was intended to provide information on the seismic hazard, geometric weaknesses, collapse hazards, material properties, structural detailing, empirically based vulnerability, and recommended analysis approaches particular to Art Deco buildings in Hawke's Bay as a resource for professional structural engineers tasked with seismic assessments and retrofit designs for these buildings. The observed satisfactory performance of similar low-rise, ostensibly brittle RC buildings in other earthquakes and the examination of the structural redundancy and expected column drift capacities in these buildings, led to the conclusion that the seismic capacity of these buildings is generally underrated in simple, force-based assessments.
Following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a renewed focus has been directed across New Zealand to the hazard posed by the country‘s earthquake-vulnerable buildings, namely unreinforced masonry (URM) and reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with potentially nonductile components that have historically performed poorly in large earthquakes. The research reported herein was pursued with the intention of addressing several recommendations made by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Inquiry which were classified into the following general categories: Identification and provisional vulnerability assessment of URM and RC buildings and building components; Testing, assessment, and retrofitting of URM walls loaded out-of-plane, with a particular focus on highly vulnerable URM cavity walls; Testing and assessment of RC frame components, especially those with presumably non-ductile reinforcement detailing; Portfolio management considering risks, regulations, and potential costs for a portfolio that includes several potentially earthquake-vulnerable buildings; and Ongoing investigations and proposed research needs. While the findings from the reported research have implications for seismic assessments of buildings across New Zealand and elsewhere, an emphasis was placed on Auckland given this research program‘s partnership with the Auckland Council, the Auckland region accounting for about a third each of the country‘s population and economic production, and the number and variety of buildings within the Auckland building stock. An additional evaluation of a historic building stock was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay, and additional experimental testing was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay and Christchurch.
As part of a seismic retrofit scheme, surface bonded glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) fabric was applied to two unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings located in Christchurch, New Zealand. The unreinforced stone masonry of Christchurch Girls’ High School (GHS) and the unreinforced clay brick masonry Shirley Community Centre were retrofitted using surface bonded GFRP in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Much of the knowledge on the seismic performance of GFRP retrofitted URM was previously assimilated from laboratory-based experimental studies with controlled environments and loading schemes. The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence provided a rare opportunity to evaluate the GFRP retrofit applied to two vintage URM buildings and to document its performance when subjected to actual design-level earthquake-induced shaking. Both GFRP retrofits were found to be successful in preserving architectural features within the buildings as well as maintaining the structural integrity of the URM walls. Successful seismic performance was based on comparisons made between the GFRP retrofitted GHS building and the adjacent nonretrofitted Boys’ High School building, as well as on a comparison between the GFRP retrofitted and nonretrofitted walls of the Shirley Community Centre building. Based on detailed postearthquake observations and investigations, the GFRP retrofitted URM walls in the subject buildings exhibited negligible to minor levels of damage without delamination, whereas significant damage was observed in comparable nonretrofitted URM walls. AM - Accepted Manuscript
