Search

found 421 results

Images for liquefaction; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A 'sand volcano' of liquefaction silt. The photograph has been rotated 180 degrees. The photographer comments, "This could be just a horrible hole caused by liquefaction pouring out of a hole after the Christchurch earthquake in January, but turn it upside down and it becomes an outcrop on the floor of an unseen tidal estuary".

Research papers, Lincoln University

Liquefaction affects late Holocene, loose packed and water saturated sediment subjected to cyclical shear stress. Liquefaction features in the geological record are important off-fault markers that inform about the occurrence of moderate to large earthquakes (> 5 Mw). The study of contemporary liquefaction features provides a better understanding of where to find past (paleo) liquefaction features, which, if identified and dated, can provide information on the occurrence, magnitude and timing of past earthquakes. This is particularly important in areas with blind active faults. The extensive liquefaction caused by the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) gave the geoscience community the opportunity to study the liquefaction process in different settings (alluvial, coastal and estuarine), investigating different aspects (e.g. geospatial correlation with landforms, thresholds for peak ground acceleration, resilience of infrastructures), and to collect a wealth geospatial dataset in the broad region of the Canterbury Plains. The research presented in this dissertation examines the sedimentary architecture of two environments, the alluvial and coastal settings, affected by liquefaction during the CES. The novel aim of this study is to investigate how landform and subsurface sedimentary architecture influence liquefaction and its surface manifestation, to provide knowledge for locating studies of paleoliquefaction in future. Two study cases documented in the alluvial setting showed that liquefaction features affected a crevasse splay and point bar ridges. However, the liquefaction source layer was linked to paleochannel floor deposits below the crevasse splay in the first case, and to the point bar deposits themselves in the second case. This research documents liquefaction features in the coastal dune system of the Canterbury Plains in detail for the first time. In the coastal dune setting the liquefiable layer is near the surface. The pore water pressure is vented easily because the coastal dune soil profile is entirely composed of non-cohesive, very well sorted sandy sediment that weakly resists disturbance from fluidised sediment under pressure. As a consequence, the liquefied flow does not need to find a specific crack through which the sediment is vented at the surface; instead, the liquefied sand finds many closely spaced conduits to vent its excess of pore water pressure. Therefore, in the coastal dune setting it is rare to observe discrete dikes (as they are defined in the alluvial setting), instead A horizon delamination (splitting) and blistering (near surface sills) are more common. The differences in styles of surface venting lead to contrasts in patterns of ejecta in the two environments. Whereas the alluvial environment is characterised by coalesced sand blows forming lineations, the coastal dune environment hosts apparently randomly distributed isolated sand blows often associated with collapse features. Amongst the techniques tested for the first time to investigate liquefaction features are: 3D GPR, which improved the accuracy of the trenching even six years after the liquefaction events; thin section analysis to investigate sediment fabric, which helped to discriminate liquefied sediment from its host sediment, and modern from paleoliquefaction features; a Random Forest classification based on the CES liquefaction map, which was used to test relationships between surface manifestation of liquefaction and topographic parameters. The results from this research will be used to target new study sites for future paleoliquefaction research and thus will improve the earthquake hazard assessment across New Zealand.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A digitally manipulated image of broken objects. The photographer comments, "Digital painting of breakages and liquefaction after the February 22 earthquake in Christchurch".

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

This study determined areas of different liquefaction susceptibility in Hurunui District based mainly on geological data, with some limited borehole strata interpretation. Geotechnical data was not analysed. This was the same method used in the earthquake hazard assessments for engineering lifelines in other districts in Canterbury. Hurunui District was the first district that a hazard assessment for engineering lifelines was undertaken for (in 2000) and it did not include a liquefaction susceptibility map like the other district earthquake hazard assessments did. There are no recommendations associated with this report. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010-2011 caused widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch. Observations from the CES highlight some sites were liquefaction was predicted by the simplified method but did not manifest. There are a number of reasons why the simplified method may over-predict liquefaction, one of these is the dynamic interaction between soil layers within a stratified deposit. Soil layer interaction occurs through two key mechanisms; modification of the ground motion due to seismic waves passing through deep liquefied layers, and the effect of pore water seepage from an area of high excess pore water pressure to the surrounding soil. In this way, soil layer interaction can significantly alter the liquefaction behaviour and surface manifestation of soils subject to seismic loading. This research aimed to develop an understanding of how soil layer interaction, in particular ground motion modification, affects the development of excess pore water pressures and liquefaction manifestation in a soil deposit subject to seismic loading. A 1-D soil column time history Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) was conducted to give an in depth assessment of the development of pore pressures in a number of soil deposits. For this analysis, ground motions, soil profiles and model parameters were required for the ESA. Deconvolution of ground motions recorded at the surface during the CES was used to develop some acceleration time histories to input at the base of the soil-column model. An analysis of 55 sites around Christchurch, where detailed site investigations have been carried out, was then conducted to identify some simplified soil profiles and soil characteristics. From this analysis, four soil profiles representative of different levels of liquefaction manifestation were developed. These were; two thick uniform and vertically continuous sandy deposits that were representative of sites were liquefaction manifested in both the Mw 7.1 September 2010 and the Mw 6.3 February 2011 earthquakes, and two vertically discontinuous profiles with interlayered liquefiable and non-liquefiable layers representative of sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either the September 2010 or the February 2011 events. Model parameters were then developed for these four representative soil profiles through calibration of the constitutive model in element test simulations. Simulations were run for each of the four profiles subject to three levels of loading intensity. The results were analysed for the effect of soil layer interaction. These were then compared to a simplified triggering analysis for the same four profiles to determine where the simplified method was accurate in predicting soil liquefaction (for the continuous sandy deposits) and were it was less accurate (the vertically discontinuous deposits where soil layer interaction was a factor).

Videos, UC QuakeStudies

Aerial footage of a site in Avondale where several liquefaction remediation options are being tested. Gelignite explosives have been buried throughout the site. These will be set off to simulate liquefaction caused by an earthquake. The result, if successful, will help EQC protect people's houses from future earthquakes, and settle land claims. The video was recorded using a drone aircraft.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Gravelly soils’ liquefaction has been documented since early 19th century with however the focus being sand-silts mixture – coarse documentation of this topic, that gravels do in fact liquefy was only acknowledged as an observation. With time, we have been impacted by earthquakes, EQ causing more damage to our property: life and environment-natural and built. In this realm of EQ related-damage the ground or soils in general act as buffer between the epicentre and the structures at a concerned site. Further, in this area, upon the eventual acknowledgement of liquefaction of soils as a problem, massive efforts were undertaken to understand its mechanics, what causes and thereby how to mitigate its ill-effects. Down that lane, gravelly soils’ liquefaction was another milestone covered in early 20th century, and thus regarded as a problematic subject. This being a fairly recent acknowledgement, efforts have initiated in this direction (or area of particle size under consideration-gravels>2mm), with this research outputs intended to complement that research for the betterment of our understanding of what’s happening and how shall we best address it, given the circumstances: socio (life) - environment (structures) - economic (cost or cost-“effectiveness’) and of course political (our “willingness” to want to address the problem). Case histories from at least 29 earthquakes worldwide have indicated that liquefaction can occur in gravelly soils (both in natural deposits and manmade reclamations) inducing large ground deformation and causing severe damage to civil infrastructures. However, the evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils remains to be a major challenge in geotechnical earthquake engineering. To date, laboratory tests aimed at evaluating the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils are still very limited, as compared to the large body of investigations carried out on assessing the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. While there is a general agreement that the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils can be as low as that of clean sands, previous studies suggested that the liquefaction behaviour of gravelly soils is significantly affected by two key factors, namely relative density (Dr) and gravel content (Gc). While it is clear that the liquefaction resistance of gravels increases with the increasing Dr, there are inconclusive and/or contradictory results regarding the effect of Gc on the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. Aimed at addressing this important topic, an investigation is being currently carried out by researchers at the University of Canterbury, UC. As a first step, a series of undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on selected sand-gravel mixtures (SGMs), and inter-grain state framework concepts such as the equivalent and skeleton void ratios were used to describe the joint effects of Gc and Dr on the liquefaction resistance of SGMs. Following such experimental effort, this study is aimed at providing new and useful insights, by developing a critical state-based method combined with the inter-grain state framework to uniquely describe the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. To do so, a series of monotonic drained triaxial tests will be carried out on selected SGMs. The outcomes of this study, combined with those obtained to date by UC researchers, will greatly contribute to the expansion of a worldwide assessment database, and also towards the development of a reliable liquefaction triggering procedure for characterising the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils, which is of paramount importance not only for the New Zealand context, but worldwide. This will make it possible for practising engineers to identify liquefiable gravelly soils in advance and make sound recommendations to minimise the impact of such hazards on land, and civil infrastructures.

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

The cartoon shows two images of cars nose-down in ditches, the first is caused by 'liquifaction' and the second by 'stupifaction'. Context: there was another large aftershock on Boxing Day in Christchurch which resulted in quite a lot of liquefaction. There is always concern over the Christmas holidays about drinking while driving. Other Titles - Liquefaction Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A digitally manipulated image of printer's type, spelling out "Safe Dust". The photographer comments, "After the September 2010 Christchurch earthquake liquefaction poured out of the ground mostly in the East of Christchurch. This silt, which was a form of sand was declared safe and would not harm gardens if it was spread around in moderation. After the February 2011 quake as a result of even more liquefaction and the sewers being ruptured, the liquefaction was declared as toxic. People clearing it up should wear a mask, boots and gloves especially when it had dried up and become dusty. This just so happens to be the words found on an old printing press".