Semi-empirical models based on in-situ geotechnical tests have become the standard of practice for predicting soil liquefaction. Since the inception of the “simplified” cyclic-stress model in 1971, variants based on various in-situ tests have been developed, including the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). More recently, prediction models based soley on remotely-sensed data were developed. Similar to systems that provide automated content on earthquake impacts, these “geospatial” models aim to predict liquefaction for rapid response and loss estimation using readily-available data. This data includes (i) common ground-motion intensity measures (e.g., PGA), which can either be provided in near-real-time following an earthquake, or predicted for a future event; and (ii) geospatial parameters derived from digital elevation models, which are used to infer characteristics of the subsurface relevent to liquefaction. However, the predictive capabilities of geospatial and geotechnical models have not been directly compared, which could elucidate techniques for improving the geospatial models, and which would provide a baseline for measuring improvements. Accordingly, this study assesses the realtive efficacy of liquefaction models based on geospatial vs. CPT data using 9,908 case-studies from the 2010-2016 Canterbury earthquakes. While the top-performing models are CPT-based, the geospatial models perform relatively well given their simplicity and low cost. Although further research is needed (e.g., to improve upon the performance of current models), the findings of this study suggest that geospatial models have the potential to provide valuable first-order predictions of liquefaction occurence and consequence. Towards this end, performance assessments of geospatial vs. geotechnical models are ongoing for more than 20 additional global earthquakes.
Well-validated liquefaction constitutive models are increasingly important as non-linear time history analyses become relatively more common in industry for key projects. Previous validation efforts of PM4Sand, a plasticity model specifically for liquefaction, have generally focused on centrifuge tests; however, pore pressure transducers installed at several free-field sites during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in Christchurch, New Zealand provide a relatively unique dataset to validate against. This study presents effective stress site response analyses performed in the finite difference software FLAC to examine the capability of PM4Sand to capture the generation of excess pore pressures during earthquakes. The characterization of the subsurface is primarily based on extensive cone penetration tests (CPT) carried out in Christchurch. Correlations based on penetration resistances are used to estimate soil parameters, such as relative density and shear wave velocity, which affect liquefaction behaviour. The resulting free-field FLAC model is used to estimate time histories of excess pore pressure, which are compared with records during several earthquakes in the CES to assess the suitability of PM4Sand.
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010-2011 (CES) induced widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch city. Liquefaction was more commonly observed in the eastern suburbs and along the Avon River where the soils were characterised by thick sandy deposits with a shallow water table. On the other hand, suburbs to the north, west and south of the CBD (e.g. Riccarton, Papanui) exhibited less severe to no liquefaction. These soils were more commonly characterised by inter-layered liquefiable and non-liquefiable deposits. As part of a related large-scale study of the performance of Christchurch soils during the CES, detailed borehole data including CPT, Vs and Vp have been collected for 55 sites in Christchurch. For this subset of Christchurch sites, predictions of liquefaction triggering using the simplified method (Boulanger & Idriss, 2014) indicated that liquefaction was over-predicted for 94% of sites that did not manifest liquefaction during the CES, and under-predicted for 50% of sites that did manifest liquefaction. The focus of this study was to investigate these discrepancies between prediction and observation. To assess if these discrepancies were due to soil-layer interaction and to determine the effect that soil stratification has on the develop-ment of liquefaction and the system response of soil deposits.
