Using case studies from the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence, this study assesses the accuracies of paleoliquefaction back-analysis methods and explores the challenges, techniques, and uncertainties associated with their application. While liquefaction-based back-analyses have been widely used to estimate the magnitudes of paleoearthquakes, their uncertain efficacies continue to significantly affect the computed seismic hazard in regions where they are relied upon. Accordingly, their performance is evaluated herein using liquefaction data from modern earthquakes with known magnitudes. It is shown that when the earthquake source location and mechanism are known, back-analysis methods are capable of accurately deriving seismic parameters from liquefaction evidence. However, because the source location and mechanism are often unknown in paleoseismic studies, and because accurate interpretation is shown to be more difficult in such cases, new analysis techniques are proposed herein. An objective parameter is proposed to geospatially assess the likelihood of any provisional source location, enabling an analyst to more accurately estimate the magnitude of a liquefaction-inducing paleoearthquake. This study demonstrates the application of back-analysis methods, provides insight into their potential accuracies, and provides a framework for performing paleoliquefaction analyses worldwide.
Liquefaction features and the geologic environment in which they formed were carefully studied at two sites near Lincoln in southwest Christchurch. We undertook geomorphic mapping, excavated trenches, and obtained hand cores in areas with surficial evidence for liquefaction and areas where no surficial evidence for liquefaction was present at two sites (Hardwick and Marchand). The liquefaction features identified include (1) sand blows (singular and aligned along linear fissures), (2) blisters or injections of subhorizontal dikes into the topsoil, (3) dikes related to the blows and blisters, and (4) a collapse structure. The spatial distribution of these surface liquefaction features correlates strongly with the ridges of scroll bars in meander settings. In addition, we discovered paleoliquefaction features, including several dikes and a sand blow, in excavations at the sites of modern liquefaction. The paleoliquefaction event at the Hardwick site is dated at A.D. 908-1336, and the one at the Marchand site is dated at A.D. 1017-1840 (95% confidence intervals of probability density functions obtained by Bayesian analysis). If both events are the same, given proximity of the sites, the time of the event is A.D. 1019-1337. If they are not, the one at the Marchand site could have been much younger. Taking into account a preliminary liquefaction-triggering threshold of equivalent peak ground acceleration for an Mw 7.5 event (PGA7:5) of 0:07g, existing magnitude-bounded relations for paleoliquefaction, and the timing of the paleoearthquakes and the potential PGA7:5 estimated for regional faults, we propose that the Porters Pass fault, Alpine fault, or the subduction zone faults are the most likely sources that could have triggered liquefaction at the study sites. There are other nearby regional faults that may have been the source, but there is no paleoseismic data with which to make the temporal link.
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.
Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence created a wealth of shallow subsurface intrusions with geometries and orientations governed by (1) strong ground motion severity and duration, and (2) intrinsic site characteristics including liquefaction susceptibility, lateral spreading severity, geomorphic setting, host sediment heterogeneity, and anthropogenic soil modifications. We present a suite of case studies that demonstrate how each of these characteristics influenced the geologic expressions of contemporary liquefaction in the shallow subsurface. We compare contemporary features with paleo-features to show how geologic investigations of recurrent liquefaction can provide novel insights into the shaking characteristics of modern and paleo-earthquakes, the influence of geomorphology on liquefaction vulnerability, and the possible controls of anthropogenic activity on the geologic record. We conclude that (a) sites of paleo-liquefaction in the last 1000-2000 years corresponded with most severe liquefaction during the Canterbury earthquake sequence, (b) less vulnerable sites that only liquefied in the strongest and most proximal contemporary earthquakes are unlikely to have liquefied in the last 1000-2000 years or more, (c) proximal strong earthquakes with large vertical accelerations favoured sill formation at some locations, (d) contemporary liquefaction was more severe than paleoliquefaction at all study sites, and (e) stratigraphic records of successive dike formation were more complete at sites with severe lateral spreading, (f) anthropogenic fill suppressed surface liquefaction features and altered subsurface liquefaction architecture.
On February 22, 2011, a magnitude Mw 6.2 earthquake affected the Canterbury region, New Zealand, resulting in many fatalities. Liquefaction occurred across many areas, visible on the surface as ‘‘sand volcanoes’’, blisters and subsidence, causing significant damage to buildings, land and infrastructure. Liquefaction occurred at a number of sites across the Christchurch Boys High School sports grounds; one area in particular contained a piston ground failure and an adjacent silt volcano. Here, as part of a class project, we apply near-surface geophysics to image these two liquefaction features and determine whether they share a subsurface connection. Hand auger results enable correlation of the geophysical responses with the subsurface stratigraphy. The survey results suggest that there is a subsurface link, likely via a paleo-stream channel. The anomalous responses of the horizontal loop electromagnetic survey and electrical resistivity imaging highlight the disruption of the subsurface electrical properties beneath and between the two liquefaction features. The vertical magnetic gradient may also show a subtle anomalous response in this area, however the results are inconclusive. The ground penetrating radar survey shows disruption of the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the liquefaction features, in particular sediment mounding beneath the silt ejection (‘‘silt volcano’’) and stratigraphic disruption beneath the piston failure. The results indicate how near-surface geophysics allow the characteristics of liquefaction in the subsurface to be better understood, which could aid remediation work following liquefaction-induced land damage and guide interpretation of geophysical surveys of paleoliquefaction features.
