Here - Stuff
Here - Stuff Here - Stuff
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 8. Damage to a river embankment near the Avon Rowing Club: A) 2010 earthquake; and B) 2011 earthquake.(A)(B)▲▲Figure 9. Cracks observed in Porritt Park: A) 2010 earthquake; and B) 2011 earthquake.quake triggered liquefaction of the loose uncompacted fill,resulting in ground settlement and lateral spreading. Ejectedsands filled up the whole neighborhood, as thick as 30 cm insome areas (Figure 10A). Following the 2011 earthquake,Bexley was again one of the worst-hit areas in terms of liquefaction-induceddamage. Massive amount of sands were againejected and deposited around houses (Figure 10B). The massivesand boils ejected from underground caused differentialground settlements, resulting in the tilting of many houses.Sand boils were also observed in the swamps of Bexley wetlands,indicating that the ground below the swamp also underwentliquefaction.KaiapoiThe township of Kaiapoi is located in the northeastern end ofthe Canterbury Plains, about 20 km north of Christchurch(Figure 1). The Kaiapoi River, which cuts through the centerof the town, joins the Waimakariri River on the eastern edge ofthe town and flows to the sea. In terms of liquefaction duringthe 2010 earthquake, Kaiapoi was probably the worst-hit area,with many residential houses, several commercial buildings,and other infrastructure facilities suffering damage due to lateralspreading, ground subsidence, and differential settlement.Investigations of old maps by Wotherspoon et al. (2010)showed that that much of the most significant liquefactiondamage in and around Kaiapoi during the 2010 Darfield eventoccurred in areas where river channels had been reclaimed orin old channels that have had flow diverted away. The highlymodified nature of the Waimakariri River and its proximity toKaiapoi meant that some of these reclaimed areas overlappedregions that have since been developed as the town has grown,as shown in Figure 11.Following the 2011 earthquake, re-liquefaction occurredin Kaiapoi; however, because of the farther epicentral distance,the impact of liquefaction was minor compared to thatobserved in September 2010. The peak ground accelerationsrecorded in Kaiapoi during the 2010 and 2011 earthquakeswere 0.36 g and 0.20 g, respectively. A comparison of the distributionof liquefaction in Kaiapoi during the two events showedsmaller liquefaction zones in 2011. Areas where re-liquefaction912 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 10. Damage to a residential house due to liquefaction in Seabreeze Close, Bexley: A) 2010 earthquake; and B) 2011 earthquake.43°22′11″43°24′52″172°37′56″ 172°42′32″▲▲Figure 11. Map of river channels in 1865 superposed on the present-day map of Kaiapoi (courtesy of L. Wotherspoon).was observed include some areas adjacent to the stopbanks(levees) in northern Kaiapoi and in the filled-up sections ofCourtenay Drive in southern Kaiapoi.Figure 12 shows a residential house that suffered severedamage due to lateral spreading following the September 2010earthquake. This house was standing on ground that movedtoward the Waimakariri River, resulting in tilting of the houseand formation of a 1.6-m-wide crack between the house andthe adjacent ground. Following the 2011 earthquake, the JGSteam revisited the same house. Sand boils were observed onlyin the ground cracks adjacent to the house, with the width ofthe crack increasing to 1.9 m. It is unknown, however, whetherthe increase in the crack opening was caused by the 2011earthquake alone. Creep deformation in this area due to theSeismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 913
- Page 107 and 108: Vertical-to-horizontal PGA ratio543
- Page 109 and 110: (A)(B)Station:CCCCSolid:AvgHorizDas
- Page 111 and 112: REFERENCESAagaard, B. T., J. F. Hal
- Page 113 and 114: ▲ ▲ Figure 1. Shear-wave veloci
- Page 115 and 116: Spectral Acceleration (0.3 s), (g)I
- Page 117 and 118: Spectral Acceleration (3 s), (g)In[
- Page 119 and 120: TABLE 1Mean (μ LLH ) and standard
- Page 121 and 122: Strong Ground Motions and Damage Co
- Page 123 and 124: ings and the Modified Takeda-Slip M
- Page 125 and 126: high, but there were no buildings d
- Page 127 and 128: REFERENCES▲▲Figure 8. Heavily d
- Page 129 and 130: (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)▲▲Figure 1. A) M
- Page 131 and 132: (A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 3. A) Typ
- Page 133 and 134: (A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 4. A) Typ
- Page 135 and 136: Case StudyKey ParametersTABLE 1Key
- Page 137 and 138: ▲ ▲ Figure 9. Representative bu
- Page 139 and 140: Soil Liquefaction Effects in the Ce
- Page 141 and 142: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Representative su
- Page 143 and 144: Location of structures illustrated
- Page 145 and 146: Shading indicates areaover which pr
- Page 147 and 148: 1.8 deg15 cmGround cracking due to
- Page 149 and 150: 30 cm17 cm30 cmFoundation beam▲
- Page 151 and 152: Comparison of Liquefaction Features
- Page 153 and 154: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 2. A) Simplified
- Page 155 and 156: (A)Acceleration (Gal)6004002000-200
- Page 157: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Distribution
- Page 161 and 162: (A)(B)▲ ▲ Figure 14. A) Subside
- Page 163 and 164: ▲▲Figure 17. A trench in a resi
- Page 165 and 166: Ambient Noise Measurements followin
- Page 167 and 168: ▲▲Figure 1. Location of the noi
- Page 169 and 170: ▲▲Figure 5. Site N20 showing HV
- Page 171 and 172: ▲▲Figure 8. Comparison between
- Page 173 and 174: Use of DCP and SASW Tests to Evalua
- Page 175 and 176: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Aerial image of C
- Page 177 and 178: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 4. DCP test bein
- Page 179 and 180: ▲▲Figure 7. SASW setup at a sit
- Page 181 and 182: where X ~ N(μ X , σ X 2 ) is shor
- Page 183 and 184: Using the same critical layers as s
- Page 185 and 186: Performance of Levees (Stopbanks) d
- Page 187 and 188: ▲▲Figure 3. Typical geometry an
- Page 189 and 190: TABLE 1Damage severity categories (
- Page 191 and 192: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 6. A) Large sand
- Page 193 and 194: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 8. A) Representa
- Page 195 and 196: each of the Waimakariri River and a
- Page 197 and 198: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Horizontal peak g
- Page 199 and 200: only minor damage, mostly to their
- Page 201 and 202: (A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 5. Ferrymead
- Page 203 and 204: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Damage to sou
- Page 205 and 206: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 11. Settlement o
- Page 207 and 208: (A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 14. Railway B
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 10. Damage to a residential house due to liquefaction in Seabreeze Close, Bexley: A) 2010 earthquake; and B) 2011 earthquake.43°22′11″43°24′52″172°37′56″ 172°42′32″▲▲Figure 11. Map of river channels in 1865 superposed on the present-day map of Kaiapoi (courtesy of L. Wotherspoon).was observed include some areas adjacent to the stopbanks(levees) in northern Kaiapoi and in the filled-up sections ofCourtenay Drive in southern Kaiapoi.Figure 12 shows a residential house that suffered severedamage due to lateral spreading following the September 2010earthquake. This house was standing on ground that movedtoward the Waimakariri River, resulting in tilting of the houseand formation of a 1.6-m-wide crack between the house andthe adjacent ground. Following the 2011 earthquake, the JGSteam revisited the same house. Sand boils were observed onlyin the ground cracks adjacent to the house, with the width ofthe crack increasing to 1.9 m. It is unknown, however, whetherthe increase in the crack opening was caused by the 2011earthquake alone. Creep deformation in this area due to theSeismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 913