There is a growing awareness of the need for the earthquake engineering practice to incorporate in addition to empirical approaches in evaluation of liquefaction hazards advanced methods which can more realistically represent soil behaviour during earthquakes. Currently, this implementation is hindered by a number of challenges mainly associated with the amount of data and user-experience required for such advanced methods. In this study, we present key steps of an advanced seismic effective-stress analysis procedure, which on the one hand can be fully automated and, on the other hand, requires no additional input (at least for preliminary applications) compared to simplified cone penetration test (CPT)-based liquefaction procedures. In this way, effective-stress analysis can be routinely applied for quick, yet more robust estimations of liquefaction hazards, in a similar fashion to the simplified procedures. Important insights regarding the dynamic interactions in liquefying soils and the actual system response of a deposit can be gained from such analyses, as illustrated with the application to two sites from Christchurch, New Zealand.
The earthquake engineering community is currently grappling with the need to improve the post-earthquake reparability of buildings. As part of this, proposals exist to change design criteria for the serviceability limit state (SLS). This paper reviews options for change and considers how these could impact the expected repair costs for typical New Zealand buildings. The expected annual loss (EAL) is selected as a relevant measure or repair costs and performance because (i) EAL provides information on the performance of a building considering a range of intensity levels, (ii) the insurance industry refers to EAL when setting premiums, and (iii) monetary losses are likely to be correlated with loss of building functionality. The paper argues that because the expected annual loss is affected by building performance over a range of intensity levels, the definition of SLS criteria alone may be insufficient to effectively limit losses. However, it is also explained that losses could be limited effectively if the loadings standard were to set the SLS design intensity considering the potential implications on EAL. It is shown that in order to achieve similar values of EAL in Wellington and Christchurch, the return period intensity for SLS design would need to be higher in Christchurch owing to differences in local hazard conditions. The observations made herein are based on a simplified procedure for EAL estimation and hence future research should aim to verify the findings using a detailed loss assessment approach applied to a broad range of case study buildings.
