Search

found 316 results

Images for liquefaction damage; more images...

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

Stage IV of the Christchurch liquefaction study updated the Stage II liquefaction hazard and ground damage maps with further data collected from other organisations, and included two additional maps indicating liquefaction sensitivity to groundwater levels. Stage IVa of the Christchurch liquefaction study used revised groundwater levels and adjustments to the liquefaction prediction algorithm. The outputs of the report were liquefaction hazard and ground damage maps for both average summer (low) and average winter (high) groundwater levels. The maps produced as part of Stage IVa of the report were subsequently included in an Environment Canterbury public education poster The Solid Facts on Christchurch Liquefaction which also contained information on how liquefaction occurs and what can be done to mitigate the liquefaction hazard. Stage IV of the Christchurch liquefaction study contained a number of recommendations to improve the liquefaction potential and ground damage maps for Christchurch. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

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.