Christchurch Press 27 January 2015: The Box, Page 10
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 9 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 4 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 8 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 January 2015.
Page 7 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 January 2015.
Page 12 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 7 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 20 January 2015.
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 20 January 2015.
Page 8 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 6 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 1 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 1 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 20 January 2015.
Page 6 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 January 2015.
Page 3 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 January 2015.
Page 3 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 5 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 2 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 January 2015.
Page 4 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 January 2015.
Page 9 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 7 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Page 5 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 27 January 2015.
Pages 8 and 9 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 19 January 2015.
Pages 6 and 7 of the Escape section of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 2 February 2015.
Pages 4 and 5 of the Escape section of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 19 January 2015.
Pages 10 and 11 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 24 January 2015.
Pages 8 and 9 of the Zest section of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 28 January 2015.
Pages 8 and 9 of the Zest section of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 12 of Section B of the South Island edition of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 16 January 2015.
Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 26 March 2015.
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.