SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand during the Canterbury earthquake sequence by M.C. Quigley et al.

Similar documents
Characterisation of Liquefaction Features in Eastern Christchurch, New Zealand

Comparison of liquefaction-induced land damage and geomorphic variability in Avonside, New Zealand

Interpretational Analysis of Liquefaction Dike Systems in Christchurch, New Zealand. McKinnon Main 1,2 & Josh Borella 1

Analysis of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading Data from the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes

LSN a new methodology for characterising the effects of liquefaction in terms of relative land damage severity

Cross-Checking Liquefaction Hazard Assessments with Liquefaction Observations from New Zealand Earthquakes and Paleo-liquefaction Trenching

Late Holocene Liquefaction at Sites of Contemporary Liquefaction during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand

A SUMMARY OF STRONG GROUND MOTIONS OBSERVED IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE

Sensitivity of predicted liquefaction-induced lateral displacements from the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes

Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading Misko Cubrinovski University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

A high-resolution shear wave velocity model for near surface soils in Christchurch using CPT data

Liquefaction induced ground damage in the Canterbury earthquakes: predictions vs. reality

A Summary of Strong Ground Motions Observed in the Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake Sequence

Foundations on Deep Alluvial Soils

3.4 Typical Soil Profiles

Technical Note 04 The Liquefaction Phenomenon

Forms of Flat Land Damage

Seismic Performance of Silty Soil Sites

Sensitivity of predicted liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements from the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Date: April 2, 2014 Project No.: Prepared For: Mr. Adam Kates CLASSIC COMMUNITIES 1068 E. Meadow Circle Palo Alto, California 94303

Soil type identification and fines content estimation using the Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) data

Comparison between predicted liquefaction induced settlement and ground damage observed from the Canterbury earthquake sequence

Earthquake Commission Darfield Earthquake Recovery Geotechnical Factual Report New Brighton

Performance and Post Earthquake Assessment of CFA Pile Ground Improvement 22 February 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake

Consideration of Ground Variability Over an Area of Geological Similarity as Part of Liquefaction Assessment for Foundation Design

Increased Liquefaction Vulnerability (ILV) Engineering Assessment

Deconvolution of Surface Motions from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence for use in Nonlinear Effective Stress Site Response Analyses

Correlation of gravel deposits from trenching project on Alder Creek fluvial terrace near Point Arena, California

Evaluation of the Liquefaction Potential by In-situ Tests and Laboratory Experiments In Complex Geological Conditions

THE DEPOSITS OF TSUNAMIS WESLEY PESANTEZ, CATHERINE NIELD, COLIN WINTER

Paleoseismic Investigations for Determining the Design Ground Motions for Nuclear Power Plants

Paleoliquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand

Ground Motion Comparison of the 2011 Tohoku, Japan and Canterbury earthquakes: Implications for large events in New Zealand.

Probabilistic Earthquake Risk Assessment of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Part 1 Seismic Hazard.

SFSI in shallow foundation earthquake response

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION DELFT 3-D MODELING: MODEL DESIGN, SETUP, AND ANALYSIS

The LSN Calculation and Interpolation Process

Comparison of existing CPT- correlations with Canterbury-specific seismic CPT data

Preliminary report on the Canterbury Earthquake South Island of New Zealand , M 6.3

SD-100 SD-200 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN SODO SEGMENT. FIG. 3 Sheet 4 of 9. Seattle Monorail Project Seattle, Washington Scale in Feet

Select Liquefaction Case Histories from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence

GEL 109 Midterm W01, Page points total (1 point per minute is a good pace, but it is good to have time to recheck your answers!

Evaluation of Geotechnical Hazards

Effective stress analysis of pile foundations in liquefiable soil

Reliability of lateral stretch estimates in Canterbury earthquakes

Jocelyn Karen Campbell

Case Study - Undisturbed Sampling, Cyclic Testing and Numerical Modelling of a Low Plasticity Silt

Earthquake-induced liquefaction triggering of Christchurch sandy soils

Landslides and Ground Water Permeability with Respect to the. Contact Point of Glacial Lake Vermont and the Champlain Sea

Principles of Geology

NZ Transport Agency s Detailed Design Guidance for Piled Bridges at Sites Prone to Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading

Observed Ground Motions in the 4 September 2010 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes.

Hydraulic uplift forces on basements subject to liquefaction

Starting at Rock Bottom

Geology Stratigraphic Correlations (Lab #4, Winter 2010)

LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF INDUS SANDS USING SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ! Relative Dating and Stratigraphic Principles Quiz

Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction-induced settlement mapping through multiscale random field models

DYNAMIC SITE CHARACTERIZATION OF CHRISTCHURCH STRONG MOTION STATIONS

IMAGING OF DEEP SINKHOLES USING THE MULTI-ELECTRODE RESISTIVITY IMPLANT TECHNIQUE (MERIT) CASE STUDIES IN FLORIDA

LECTURE 10. Module 3 : Field Tests in Rock 3.6 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION

Geotechnical aspects of the M Maule, Chile earthquake

Christchurch CBD: Lessons Learnt and Strategies for Foundation Remediation 22 February 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, Earthquake

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL & POST EARTHQUAKE STABILITY ASSESSMENT. H2J Engineering

Site-specific hazard analysis for geotechnical design in New Zealand

GUIDANCE D. Part D: Guidelines for the geotechnical investigation and assessment of subdivisions in the Canterbury region.

Imaging Unknown Faults in Christchurch, New Zealand, after a M6.2 Earthquake

Earthquake Commission. Darfield Earthquake Recovery Geotechnical Factual Report Avondale

(THIS IS ONLY A SAMPLE REPORT OR APPENDIX OFFERED TO THE USERS OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM

The undrained cyclic strength of undisturbed and reconstituted Christchurch sands

Seismic Attributes and Their Applications in Seismic Geomorphology

MECHANICAL SIZE ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS

Densification of Liquefiable Soils using Driven Timber Piles

Liquefaction Resistance and Internal Erosion Potential of Non-Plastic Silty Sand

Sediment and sedimentary rocks Sediment

SST3005 Fundamentals of Soil Science LAB 5 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF SOIL TEXTURE: MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Module 8 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY (Lectures 37 to 40)

Safety Factor Assessment Report. Area 15 DTE Monroe Power Plant

Sequence Stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, A Bench, Wattenberg Field, Denver Julesburg Basin, Colorado*

Residual Deformation Analyses to Demonstrate the Effect of Thin Steel Sheet Piles on Liquefaction-Induced Penetration Settlement of Wooden Houses

Converse Consultants Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Inspection & Testing Services

Controls on fluvial evacuation of sediment from earthquake-triggered landslides

EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES OF TWO SITES WITH DIFFERENT EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION DURING EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE

Geology 109L Lab 3: Modern Sedimentary Environments --Field Trip to Bodega Bay--

Liquefaction Susceptibility of Pleistocene Aged Wellington Alluvium Silt

Data Repository item DATA REPOSITORY

Liquefaction and Foundations

CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES: THE RESTHAVEN RECORDS AND SOIL AMPLIFICATION RESPONSE

Key factors in the liquefaction-induced damage to buildings and infrastructure in Christchurch: Preliminary findings

Spectra and Pgas for the Assessment and Reconstruction of Christchurch

APPENDIX C HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

A.M. TUESDAY, 12 May hours


SURFACE GEOLOGY AND LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY IN THE INNER RIO GRANDE VALLEY NEAR ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

GeoCanada 2010 Working with the Earth

A Spatial Analysis of Modern and. Paleo Rockfall. Purau, Lyttelton Harbour, New Zealand. Laura Stamp 1,2, Josh Borella 1, Sam Hampton 1

Image: G. Parker. Presenters: Henry Chan, Kayla Ireland, Mara Morgenstern, Jessica Palmer, Megan Scott

Field Exploration. March 31, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 115 Northstar Avenue Twin Falls, Idaho Attn: Mr. Tracy Ahrens, P. E. E:

1.1 Calculation methods of the liquefaction hazard.

Identification of Lateral Spread Features in the Western New Madrid Seismic Zone J. David Rogers and Briget C. Doyle

Transcription:

GSA DATA REPOSITORY 2013113 M.C. Quigley et al. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand during the Canterbury earthquake sequence by M.C. Quigley et al. Christchurch liquefaction mapping and seismologic data The following Figures DR1-DR6, Table DR1, and Video DR1 provide supplementary information relevant to the text of Quigley et al., Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. FIGURE DR1: (a) Photo log of a small (~25 cm deep) trench exposing cross-section of successive sand blow units from June 13, 2011 (2 events) and Dec. 23, 2011 (2 events) earthquakes. Box in A corresponds to photograph in C. The location of the trench is shown in Fig. 3 in Quigley et al. (2013)(b) Detailed interpreted log of the above trench through successive liquefaction events, with the packages of liquefaction and dividing silt drapes indicated. Cross-bedding of silt within the sand deposit is also indicated. (c) Close-up annotated photograph indicating the four liquefaction packages within the trench and the location of the overlying silt drapes comprised of coarsegrained silt to very fine-grained sand. The gradational contact from oxidised sand to grey sand is visible. (d) Cumulative grain size plots for the oxidised sand, grey sand and silt drape identified within each package of surface ejecta. (e) Results of lab experiment in attempt to recreate sand blow stratigraphy from a sample of mixed ejecta. We added 20ml of distilled water to beaker then shook the beaker until sediment was in a liquefied state, then placed the sample in oven at 40 o C for 7 hrs to speed up the drying of the sample. Photographs were taken of the initial liquefied state, then at the 7 hr mark once the sample had dried. Fines were suspended at 0 hrs, and then settled out by 7 hrs. The compositional layering observed in the liquefaction ejecta, of the oxidised sand grading into gray sand, was not re-created, suggesting that the observed colour differences may reflect different provenance of source material during the liquefaction process and/or post-depositional alteration of similar grain-size / density layers. However, we cannot discount differential settling given the simplicity of this experiment, and more experiments will be conducted. FIGURE DR2: Field photographs and trench logs for the east and west walls of a 1.2m deep trench through sand blows perpendicular to axis of sand blow vent alignments (location shown in Fig. 3 in Quigley et al., 2013). Blow-ups of feeder dikes (insets) show the absence of clearly recognizable multiple dike sets, with only one, texturally uniform feeder dike recognizable on the west wall (and two smaller feeder dikes also texturally uniform visible in northern part of the trench) that could be interpreted as only one liquefaction episode in the geologic record, despite the occurrence of at least 8 events that used this feeder system. Two different sand intrusions are recognizable on the east wall; a subhorizontal sand sill (white arrow) that is cross-cut by a sub-vertical feeder dike (red arrow). Despite at least 8 liquefaction episodes, only two episodes would be confidently inferred from this geologic relationship at this location. The liquefaction dike on the east wall is truncated by a small trench cut perpendicular to the dike that was dug after the liquefaction causing events. This area is labelled trench fill.

FIGURE DR1

FIGURE DR2

FIGURE DR3: Field photograph taken at Sullivan Park, Avonside (172 40'9''E, 43 30'58''S) indicating multiple feeder dike reactivation, with three distinguishable events. The oxidised and bioturbated nature of the outermost dike indicates this is a paleo-liquefaction feature formed in a pre-ces earthquake. This feature was also traced up the wall where it was truncated by a flood deposit in the subsurface further supporting a pre-ces age (Bastin et al., 2012). FIGURE DR4: Penetration resistance at the study site in Quigley et al. (2013) measured in Swedish Weight Sounding tests expressed in terms of the number of half-rotations per metre, N SW. The tests were conducted ten days after the Darfield earthquake. The liquefiable layer extends to a depth of 5 m. Figure from Cubrinovski et al. (2010).

FIGURE DR5: Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) data from the study site. The DCPT blow count is the number of drops of the weight required to drive the cone ~4.5 cm. The ground water table at this location was at ~0.8m, and the top of the liquefiable layer was at a depth of ~2 m. The strata overlying the liquefiable layer were clayey. Penetration resistance sharply increases at a depth of ~3.5 m. Figure from Cubrinovski et al. (2010).

FIGURE DR6: Cumulative (for clustered earthquakes) or individual PGA 7.5 vs. (individual or cumulative) mapped aerial extent (AE) and maximum stratigraphic thickness (ST) for sand blows produced in liquefaction-inducing earthquakes. Modelled best fit relations include PL=Power Law, E = Exponential, and L=Linear best fit functions and corresponding R 2 values. VIDEO DR1: Liquefaction at the study site approximately 3-5 minutes after the June 13, 2011-b earthquake, showing largest water discharge from source in NW corner of the property, and abundance of suspended sediment that eventually forms silt drapes as water drains.

TABLE DR1: Seismologic and liquefaction data for the Canterbury earthquake sequence Event CUSP_ID Date Latitude Longitude ML Mw H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 Repi (km) PGA geo (g) MSF PGA7.5 (g) 3366146 20100903163500 43.5382 172.1635 7.1 7.2 0.198 0.231 0.228 0.220 0.176 0.175 40.4 0.203 1.110 0.183 1 0.1830879 65 12.0 0.188 25 0.758 3366230 20100903195600 43.6048 172.4042 5.1 4.8 0.034 0.046 0.036 0.028 22.9 0.036 3.133 0.012 0 3366933 20100905010400 43.6309 172.382 4.9 4.5 0.033 0.015 0.013 0.010 25.8 0.016 3.696 0.004 0 3367742 20100906112400 43.5699 172.3878 5.1 4.8 0.021 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.019 0.036 22.9 0.026 3.133 0.008 0 3367749 20100906114000 43.5885 171.8914 5.4 5 0.047 0.026 0.033 0.028 62.7 0.032 2.823 0.012 0 3368445 20100907194900 43.574 172.69 5 4.7 0.198 0.221 0.250 0.129 0.137 0.191 6.3 0.185 3.307 0.056 0 3382676 20101004092100 43.5627 172.4031 5.2 4.8 0.029 0.023 0.018 0.025 21.5 0.023 3.133 0.007 0 3391440 20101018223200 43.6256 172.5636 5.1 4.8 0.052 0.056 0.173 0.084 0.112 0.049 14.2 0.079 3.133 0.025 0 3437105 20101225213000 43.5544 172.6615 4.9 4.7 0.082 0.086 0.220 0.217 0.194 0.127 3.7 0.145 3.307 0.044 0 3450113 20110119170300 43.6153 172.5497 5.1 4.8 0.052 0.034 0.025 0.020 14.0 0.031 3.133 0.010 0 3468575 20110221235100 43.566 172.6909 6.3 6.2 0.647 0.609 0.490 0.376 0.297 0.375 5.5 0.472 1.627 0.290 1 3468581 20110222000400 43.5892 172.6605 5.8 5.5 0.123 0.198 0.156 0.134 0.096 0.084 7.6 0.130 2.211 0.059 1 3468635 20110222015000 43.5904 172.6336 5.9 5.6 0.092 0.079 0.072 0.142 0.139 0.223 8.1 0.121 2.112 0.057 1 0.292 1% 344 63.6 1.000 33 1.000 3468672 20110222030400 43.5652 172.647 5 4.5 0.030 0.027 0.040 0.043 5.1 0.036 3.696 0.010 0 3474093 20110305063400 43.5686 172.7337 5 4.6 0.248 0.128 7.7 0.178 3.494 0.051 0 3481489 20110320084700 43.522 172.6974 4.9 4.5 0.094 0.166 2.7 0.125 3.696 0.034 0 3497857 20110416054900 43.6134 172.7886 5.3 5 0.192 0.259 0.111 0.122 14.4 0.172 2.823 0.061 1 0.0610651 6 1.1 0.017 5 0.152 3509905 20110509150400 43.5994 172.4068 5.2 4.9 0.042 0.054 0.058 0.087 22.5 0.059 2.972 0.020 0 3525264 20110605210900 43.6051 172.4125 5.5 5.1 0.038 0.055 22.3 0.046 2.683 0.017 0 3528810 20110613010100 43.5684 172.7531 5.6 5.3 0.339 0.264 0.301 0.198 8.9 0.273 2.431 0.112 1 3528839 20110613022000 43.5638 172.7431 6.4 6 0.291 0.399 0.211 0.163 8.0 0.267 1.770 0.151 1 0.17 11% 78 14.4 0.226 18 0.545 3529702 20110614182700 43.6461 172.8382 5 4.8 0.053 0.050 0.024 0.022 19.8 0.038 3.133 0.012 0 3529858 20110615010300 43.6546 172.8547 4.7 4.6 0.035 0.035 0.020 0.029 21.4 0.030 3.494 0.009 0 3533107 20110621103400 43.5988 172.5249 5.4 5.2 0.086 0.092 0.076 0.075 14.2 0.083 2.553 0.032 1 0.0323403 1 0.2 0.003 3 0.091 3572067 20110901152900 43.5711 172.8137 5 4.6 0.174 0.074 0.036 0.060 13.3 0.082 3.494 0.023 0 3591448 20111008031700 43.696 172.8486 4.8 4.6 0.039 0.041 0.014 0.016 24.5 0.028 3.494 0.008 0 3591999 20111009073400 43.5799 172.7899 5.5 4.9 0.171 0.103 0.057 0.070 12.1 0.100 2.972 0.033 0 3631359 20111223005800 43.4862 172.7957 5.9 5.8 0.316 0.283 0.140 0.137 0.253 0.244 11.3 0.239 1.930 0.124 1 3631363 20111223010600 43.4729 172.8406 5.3 5.4 0.068 0.075 0.067 0.057 15.2 0.067 2.318 0.029 0 3631380 20111223021800 43.53 172.7428 6 5.9 0.165 0.196 0.242 0.282 6.4 0.226 1.848 0.122 1 0.165 25% 42 7.9 0.124 12 0.364 3631432 20111223035000 43.4955 172.7734 5.1 4.7 0.045 0.040 0.033 0.043 9.3 0.040 3.307 0.012 0 3631755 20111223173700 43.6638 172.8397 5.1 4.9 0.070 0.041 0.032 0.048 0.027 0.039 21.3 0.042 2.972 0.014 0 3635309 20111231004400 43.5173 172.7754 4.8 4.5 0.065 0.058 0.048 0.032 0.028 0.033 9.0 0.045 3.696 0.012 0 3636018 20120101122700 43.4695 172.8519 5.1 4.8 0.068 0.068 0.048 0.036 0.058 0.022 16.2 0.050 3.133 0.016 0 3636397 20120102055900 43.4679 172.8752 4.8 4.6 0.076 0.058 0.040 0.032 0.046 0.037 18.0 0.050 3.494 0.014 0 3638237 20120106012000 43.4791 172.801 5 4.5 0.024 0.032 0.017 0.020 0.021 0.018 12.0 0.022 3.696 0.006 0 3638451 20120106122100 43.51 172.8219 5.3 4.8 0.171 0.118 0.080 0.053 0.060 0.039 12.8 0.089 3.133 0.028 0 3642657 20120114134700 43.5376 172.7654 5.1 4.6 0.117 0.115 0.048 0.042 0.047 0.062 8.4 0.075 3.494 0.022 0 3711648 20120525024400 43.4867 172.8007 5.2 5 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.047 0.044 0.045 11.7 0.044 2.823 0.016 0 Date: yyyymmddhhmm00; ML: local magnitude; Mw: moment magnitude; H1,H2 = peak horizontal accelerations PGA geo = geometrically corrected peak ground acceleration at study site MSF = Magnitude scaling factor (Youd et al. 2001) PGA7.5 = PGA*1/MSF = equivalent PGA for a Mw7.5 event Cummulative PGA7.5 computed for clustered sequences Mapped aerial extent derived from Arc GIS T=max strat thickness Recorded PGA values (g) Inferred PGA values PRPC CCCC SHLC 11 Bracken St liquefaction (1=yes; 0=no; 1=inferred) Cumm PGA7.5 for sequence % increase over largest individual event Cumm mapped aerial liq extent (m2) % of study area covered Normalized area to max coverage Max Strat thickness (cm) Nomalized T to max T

REFERENCES: Bastin, S., Quigley, M., Bassett, K., 2012, Paleo-liquefaction in Christchurch, American Geophysical Union Program with Abstracts, San Francisco, v. X p. X. Cubrinovski, M., Green, R.A., Allen, J., Ashford, S., Bowman, E., Bradley, B., Cox, B., Hutchinson, T., Kavazanjian, E., Orense, R., Pender, M., Quigley, M. and Wotherspoon, L., 2010, Geotechnical Reconnaissance of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) Earthquake, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering v. 43, n. 4, p.243-320.