A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction on Evans Avenue in New Brighton.
A photograph of liquefaction at Harris District Substation in Papanui.
A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction at Harris District Substation in Papanui.
A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction surrounding a lamp post.
Liquefaction covering a car park in north-east Christchurch.
A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction at a residential property in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction in Ferry Road.
Burst pipes and liquefaction in Bexley.
A photograph of liquefaction at Harris District Substation in Papanui.
A photograph of liquefaction at Harris District Substation in Papanui.
Liquefaction and damaged footpath on Manchester Street.
Liquefaction and damaged footpath on Manchester Street.
Plastic and wood model of three liquefaction volcanoes. The working model pumps water over the grey surface which is decorated with a basket of laundry, a bucket of pegs and a football. The model is surrounded by artificial green grass and rests atop a black wooden base.
None
None
Riverside reserve near Parenga Place.
Morganwood Street
The focus of the study presented herein is an assessment of the relative efficacy of recent Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and small strain shear wave velocity (Vs) based variants of the simplified procedure. Towards this end Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed on the CPT- and Vs-based procedures using the field case history databases from which the respective procedures were developed. The ROC analyses show that Factors of Safety (FS) against liquefaction computed using the most recent Vs-based simplified procedure is better able to separate the “liquefaction” from the “no liquefaction” case histories in the Vs liquefaction database than the CPT-based procedure is able to separate the “liquefaction” from the “no liquefaction” case histories in the CPT liquefaction database. However, this finding somewhat contradicts the assessed predictive capabilities of the CPT- and Vs-based procedures as quantified using select, high quality liquefaction case histories from the 20102011 Canterbury, New Zealand, Earthquake Sequence (CES), wherein the CPT-based procedure was found to yield more accurate predictions. The dichotomy of these findings may result from the fact that different liquefaction field case history databases were used in the respective ROC analyses for Vs and CPT, while the same case histories were used to evaluate both the CPT- and Vs-based procedures.
A photograph of liquefaction in a paddock.
Piles of liquefaction in a park in Avonside.
A photograph of liquefaction mounds in the Heathcote Avon Estuary.
Liquefaction inside McDonald Hartshorne on Manchester Street.
A photograph of liquefaction in a residential area.
A photograph of liquefaction mounds in the Heathcote Avon Estuary.