Evaluation of CPT-based Liquefaction Procedures at Regional Scale

The liquefaction database describing the response of the Christchurch area in the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) provides a unique basis for evaluating the regional application of various liquefaction analysis procedures, from liquefaction triggering analyses through to liquefaction vulnerability parameters. This database was used to compare the Robertson and Wride [17], Moss et al. [15] and Idriss and Boulanger [7] liquefaction triggering procedures as well as evaluate the impact of the 2014 versus 2008 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-based liquefaction triggering procedure by Idriss and Boulanger on four liquefaction vulnerability parameters (S-v1D, LPI, LPIISH and LSN), the correlation of those parameters with observed liquefaction-induced damage patterns in the CES, and the mapping of expected damage levels for 25, 100 and 500 year return period ground motions in Christchurch. The effects on S-V1D,S- LPI, LPIISH and LSN were small relative to other sources of variability for the majority of the affected areas, particularly where liquefaction was clearly severe or clearly not. Nonetheless, considering the separation of the land damage populations as well as consistency between the events, the the IB-2008 liquefaction triggering procedures appears to give a slightly better fit to the mapped liquefaction-induced land damage for the regional prediction of liquefaction vulnerability for the Christchurch soils. The Boulanger and Idriss [1] triggering procedure produces improved agreement between the liquefaction vulnerability parameters and observations of damage for: areas south of the Central Business District (CBD) where there tends to be higher soil Fines Content (FC), and localized areas that experienced liquefaction during the smaller Magnitude (M) earthquake events. Implementation of the 2014 liquefaction triggering procedure for mapping of expected liquefaction-induced damage at 25, 100 and 500 year return period ground motions is shown to require use of representative Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)-M values consistent with the de-aggregation of the seismic hazard. Use of equivalent magnitude-scaled PGA-M7.5 pairs, where the equivalency relates to previously published MSF relationships, with the 2014 liquefaction triggering procedure is shown to be unconservative for certain situations. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.