3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - 2014

Comparison of observed and calculated earthquake-

induced settlements at 6 sites in Christchurch, NZ
S. A. Bastani
GMU Geotechnical, Inc., Rancho Santa Margarita, California, USA

ABSTRACT: The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes near Christchurch caused widespread
liquefaction of the recent sandy fills and young loose sediments in the city and its
suburbs. Detailed geotechnical investigations were performed at 6 liquefied sites with
various magnitudes of earthquake-induced settlements and deformations. These sites
were characterized with a minimum of 4 CPTs and 1 or 2 geotechnical borings with
SPTs. This paper presents results of the field and laboratory index tests providing 6
well documented liquefaction case histories. The observed earthquake-induced
settlements after the February 22, 2011 earthquake are compared with earthquake-
induced settlements estimated utilizing widely used standard of practice empirical
relationships.

1 INTRODUCTION

Several simplified empirical relationships have been developed for liquefaction

triggering evaluation based on a number of liquefied and non-liquefied case histories
from previous earthquakes. High quality liquefaction cases for medium dense sands
and high cyclic stress ratio (CSR) are rare. This paper presents 6 high quality case
histories (Figure 1) with SPT and CPT measurements and laboratory index tests in the
critical layers. The encountered material included loose to dense silty sands, sands, and
gravels. The granular soils were interbedded with low plasticity fine-grained soils with
occasional layers of organic and high plasticity fines. High quality case histories will
help in refining the simplified deterministic and probabilistic empirical liquefaction
evaluation methods.
This paper primarily focuses on presenting liquefaction case histories, earthquake-
induced ground settlements, and comparison of the measured and estimated settlements
at the sites. Visual examinations and subsequent field investigations at the sites were
performed between December 2011 and April 2012. The field investigations were
conducted after the December 23, 2011 aftershocks. Visual observations and
communications with the property owners indicated that all sites liquefied during the
February 22, 2011 Christchurch Earthquake (Mw = 6.1). The liquefaction triggering of
the sites were evaluated with 5 different widely used CPT-based methodologies. A
single approach (Zhang, et al., 2002) based on Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) was used
to estimate the earthquake-induced settlements with different liquefaction triggering
methods.

797
Figure 1. Site location plan and selected strong motion stations.

2 SITE GEOLOGY

Geology of the city of Christchurch is predominately controlled by fluvial processes.

Prior to development, the Christchurch area was underlain by river and floodplain
deposits along with deposits associated with swamps, beach dunes, estuaries, and
lagoons of Pegasus Bay. The younger deposits (i.e., post-glacial) are about 15 to 40 m
thick and overlay the Riccarton Gravel, which is the uppermost gravel of the older (i.e.,
glacial) deposits and the topmost aquifer (Cubrinovski, et al., 2011).
River realignment and stopbank construction has been occurring since the city was
established in 1850, which has resulted in abandoned and infilled paleo river channels
and former swamps. These areas of young, loose, and soft sediment, along with
shallow groundwater, contributed to widespread liquefaction, lateral spreading, and
settlement that occurred during the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes.
3 CASE HISTORIES

High quality data were collected at 6 sites, 5 were in or near the CBD, and 1 (Site 4)
was located in the Ferrymead area, east of Christchurch. At least 4 CPTs were
performed at each site and were complimented with 1 or 2 borings with SPTs. The
borings were drilled using the Sonic Drilling method. Soil gradation and Atterberg
Limits were performed to evaluate susceptibility to liquefaction of the low plasticity
fines and wherever soil classifications were in doubt. The boring diameters and
hammer efficiency for each site are presented in Table 1. Figures 2 through 7 present
the uncorrected CPT tip resistance and friction resistance, measured SPT N-values,
moisture contents, Atterberg Limits, % fines, and % 2 for Sites 1 through 6,
respectively. The hammer efficiencies of the automatic hammers were based on the

798
factory measurements except at Site 3 where a winch and steel cable auto hammer was
used. All 6 locations liquefied during the February 22, 2011 earthquake, and signs of
sand and silt ejecta were observed during the site visit several months after the
earthquake. Due to delayed site visits, evaluation of the volume of sand ejecta after the
earthquake could not be accurately performed. Based on the observations and
laboratory results, the underlying liquefiable sands were generally fine sands. The sand
layers were generally interfingered with fine-grained soils. The fine-grained soil layers
were generally non- to low-plasticity silts, some rich organic layers, and occasionally
high plasticity silts and clays.
Table 1. Borehole diameter and hammer efficiency
Boring Size Hammer Boring Size Hammer
Site Site
(in) Efficiency (%) (in) Efficiency (%)
1 3.25 0.94* 4 4 0.85*
2 3.25 0.94* 5 3.54 0.94*
3 3.54 0.60+ 6 3.54 0.94*
*
Auto trip hammer reported by drill rig manufacturer.
+
Winch with steel cable with automatic trip hammer, unreliable hammer efficiency.

Friction (MPa) Qt (MPa) Atterberg Limits %Fines

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0

Drilled Gravel Layer

5

10
Depth (m)

15 B-1 %Fines
B-2 %Fines
B-1 %2
B-2 %2
CPT-1
CPT-2
20 B-1 PL
CPT-3
B-1 LL
CPT-4
B-2 PL
CPT-5
B-2 PL
Z5-1
B-1 Mc
B-1
B-2 Mc
B-2
25
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
N-Value Moisture Content (%) % 2

Figure 2. Site 1 soil profile and laboratory data.

799
 Friction (MPa) Qt (MPa) Atterberg Limits %Fines
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0

5
Depth (m)

10

B-1 PL
B-1 LL B-1 %Fines
B-1 Mc B-1 %2

15

CPT-1
CPT-2
20 CPT-3
CPT-4
B-1

0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
N-Value Moisture Content (%) % 2

Figure 3. Site 2 soil profile and laboratory data.

Friction (MPa) Qt (MPa) Atterberg Limits %Fines
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0

5
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
10 CPT-6
CPT-7 B-1 PL
CPT-8 B-1 LL
Depth (m)

B-1 B-2 PL
B-2 B-2 PL
15 B-1 Mc
B-2 Mc

20

25 B-1 %Fines
B-2 %Fines
B-1 %2
B-2 %2

30
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
N-Value Moisture Content (%) % 2

Figure 4. Site 3 soil profile and laboratory data.

800
 Friction (MPa) Qt (MPa) Atterberg Limits %Fines
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0

10
Depth (m)

15 CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4 B-1 %Fines
B-1 B-1 %2
20

B-1 PL
B-1 LL
25
B-1 Mc

30
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
N-Value Moisture Content (%) % 2

Figure 5. Site 4 soil profile and laboratory data.

Friction (MPa) Qt (MPa) Atterberg Limits %Fines
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
Drilled Gravel Layer

10
Depth (m)

15
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4 B-1 PL
CPT-5 B-1 LL
20 B-1 %Fines
CPT-6 B-2 PL
B-2 PL B-2 %Fines
CPT-7
CPT-8 B-1 Mc B-1 %2
B-1 B-2 Mc B-2 %2
B-2
25
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
N-Value Moisture Content (%) % 2

Figure 6. Site 5 soil profile and laboratory data.

801
 Friction (MPa) Qt (MPa) Atterberg Limits %Fines
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0

CPT-1
5 CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
B-1

10
Depth (m)

B-1 PL
B-1 %Fines
B-1 LL
15 B-1 %2
B-1 Mc

20

25
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
N-Value Moisture Content (%) % 2

Figure 7. Site 6 soil profile and laboratory data.

4 GROUND MOTION

For the purpose of this paper, the ground motion stations in the Christchurch area in the
vicinity of the sites were reviewed. The criterion was to choose free field ground
motion stations in the vicinity of the sites with similar subsurface conditions. The peak
ground accelerations were estimated based on the measured peak horizontal ground
accelerations (PHGA). No strong motion station was available in the vicinity of Site 4
at the time of the February 22, 2011 earthquake. Therefore, the PHGA provided at the
Canterbury Geotechnical Database was used for Site 4.
A number of strong motion stations were triggered (Figure 1) during the
Christchurch February 22, 2011 earthquake using New Zealand GeoNet (2012)
database. The maximum of the two horizontal components of recorded accelerations in
accordance with the original simplified liquefaction procedures was used in the
liquefaction analyses. PHGAs varied from 0.49g (CCCC-NS) to 0.73g (REHS-EW).
Low frequency cycles with dampened acceleration amplitudes occurring after
liquefaction were observed in all acceleration time histories in the area. PHGAs used
for each site are presented on Figure 1.
5 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION

Five different methods were utilized to evaluate the liquefaction potential at the subject
sites. These methods included Robertson and Wride (R&W, 1998), Moss, et al. (2006),
Idriss and Boulanger (I&B, 2008), Robertson (2009), and Te Tari Kaupapa Whare
Department of Building and Housing (DBH, 2012). DBH (2012) recommended
calculating the liquefaction triggering using the Idriss & Boulanger 2008 method,

802
combined with fines content values using Robertson and Wride (1998) wherever fine
contents were not measured. The Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method used in this
study used either the measured fine contents values (Idriss & Boulanger 2008) or
values estimated from the CPT based on the Robertson and Wride (1998) correlation
(DBH 2012).
The groundwater table was estimated based on the pore pressure dissipation tests
from the CPTs and the measured groundwater depth in the borings at the time of the
field investigation. Significant artesian pore water pressure was observed in these
areas. The considered groundwater depths varied between 1.0m and 2.7m.
CLiq version 1.7.4.21 software (GeLogismiki, 2006) was used to evaluate the
liquefaction potential of the 6 sites. All methods predicted that the sites would liquefy
during the February 22, 2011 earthquake.
6 EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SETTLEMENTS

The earthquake-induced settlements were dominated by liquefaction-induced

settlements at these sites, and the earthquake-induced compaction of the unsaturated
soils was expected to be negligible. The five different CPT-based liquefaction
triggering methods were combined with the Zhang, et al. (2002) method for estimating
earthquake-induced settlements. Earthquake-induced settlements were also estimated
using the SPT-based method by Youd, et al. (2001) for liquefaction triggering
combined with Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). The estimated surface settlements
calculated by the different methods are summarized in Table 2. The estimated
settlements used the data for the full depth of CPTs and borings. In general, Robertson
and Wride (1998) and Robertson (2009) liquefaction triggering resulted in relatively
similar earthquake-induced settlements due to their similar basis. The estimated
settlements based on the SPT had a wider range of over or under estimations relative to
the CPT based estimations due the discontinuous nature of the blowcounts and
consequently the liquefiable layer thickness. In general, Moss, et al. (2006) triggering
method resulted in higher settlements than the other triggering methods.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has compiled a comprehensive Google
Earth geotechnical database. This database also includes elevation differences that
contributed to earthquake-induced settlements for the different Christchurch events.
The estimated elevation differences were based on a pre-earthquake airborne LiDAR
survey and LiDAR surveys after each earthquake event. Bare earth or terrain models
were created by removing points for structures and vegetation that were judged to be
higher than 0.5m above the surrounding ground. Then, a Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) was developed from each LiDAR set by averaging the ground-return elevations
within a 10m radius of each grid point. All of these DEM's used a common 5m grid
and used either moving averages or windowed averages. The DEMs were provided in
10cm color intervals. The estimated earthquake settlement at each CPT was
normalized with the average of the observed settlement interval by LiDAR at each site
in Figure 8 for the February 22, 2011 earthquake. The normalized minimum, average,
and maximum settlements are plotted for different liquefaction triggering methods at
each site based on the CPT data. Due to similar predictions using the Robertson
(2009) and Robertson and Wride (1998) methods, only the Robertson (2009) values are
shown in Figure 8. The average predictions were bounded by about 50 percent under
prediction at Site 3, to 250 percent over prediction at Site 6. The Robertson (2009)

803
(and R&W 1998) method for liquefaction triggering combined with Zhang, et al.
(2002) for liquefaction-induced settlements resulted in the narrowest band for the
prediction of earthquake-induced settlements in this exercise.
7 SUMMARY

A large number of high quality soil liquefaction cases have been generated by the
2010-11 earthquakes at Christchurch area. The affected areas were surveyed by
LiDAR and subsurface investigations were performed before and after events creating
one of the most significant liquefaction databases available to the geotechnical
engineering community. This paper presents 6 high quality case histories that have
from 4 to 8 CPTs and 1 to 2 borings with SPTs and associated laboratory index tests at
each site.
The sites were analyzed using 5 different CPT-based liquefaction triggering
methods. All methods resulted in similar stratigraphy for liquefiable soils. However,
the calculated earthquake-induced settlements were more variable when the same
methodology for liquefaction-induced volumetric strain (Zhang et al., 2002) was used
with the different triggering methods. The calculated settlements based on the SPT
results resulted in an even wider range of earthquake-induced settlements. On average,
the earthquake-induced settlements were under predicted 19% by the Robertson &
Wride (1998) and Robertson (2009) triggering methods, and were over predicted 39%,
19%, and 26% by Moss, et al. (2006), Idriss and Boulanger (2008), and DBH (2012)
triggering methods, respectively. The Robertson & Wride (1998) and Robertson
(2009), Moss, et al. (2006), Idriss and Boulanger (2008), and DBH (2012) triggering
methods also resulted in normalized earthquake-induced settlement standard deviations
of 40%, 40%, 68%, 67%, and 65%, respectively.
The author acknowledges that evaluation of finite deformations due to liquefaction
is generally a difficult task, and other variables such as sand ejecta and building loads
make the estimation of seismic settlements further complicated. It is also understood
that the subsurface soil conditions may have been altered due to the aftershocks since
the February 22, 2011 earthquake. Since the survey benchmarks had settled due to the
earthquake(s), and accurate survey of the total settlements were not available, the
estimated earthquake-induced settlements based on LiDAR were the only available
measure of the total earthquake-induced settlements at Christchurch.
The estimated earthquake-induced settlements presented in this paper consider the
post-earthquake reconsolidation of the liquefied soils and do not consider the effects of
sand boils or adjacent building loads. However, the sand boils and building loads
generally exacerbate the actual seismic settlements. Therefore, the calculated seismic
settlements based on soil reconsolidation should be lower than the actual settlements
wherever sand boils and/or building loads are present. This paper compared the
predicted seismic settlements as generally applied in geotechnical practice with the
measured earthquake-induced settlements, which showed that the current estimations
correlated reasonable well to the observed values. However, large variations should be
expected and addressed by additional field investigations for subsurface conditions
such as Christchurch.

804
 Table 2. Estimated EQ-induced settlements using liquefaction triggering methods.

CERA Estimated Range Based on LiDAR: 10-20 cm, USED 15cm

SITE-1 for Normalization SITE-4 CERA Estimated Range Based on LiDAR: Not Available
Method/Location CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 CPT-5 Z5-1 B-1 B-2 Method/Location CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 B-1
R&W 1998 15.9 15.4 8.5 12.6 7.8 12.6 R&W 1998 41.3 37.6 34.9 41.49
Robertson 2009 17.2 16.1 8.6 12.7 7.8 12.9 Robertson 2009 43 39.2 35.9 44.6
Moss 2006 28.4 24.2 20.2 23.3 20.1 26.3 Moss 2006 59.8 49.2 48.9 64
DBH 2012 19.2 19.9 13.6 13.7 15 14.3 DBH 2012 59.8 57.8 53.2 62.1
I&B 2008 17 15.9 13.2 11.8 12.5 14.1 I&B 2008 54.3 55.3 48.1 53.7
Y&I 2001 29.4 21.1 Y&I 2001 80

CERA Estimated Range Based on LiDAR: 10-30 cm, USED 20cm CERA Estimated Range Based on LiDAR: 20-30 cm, USED 25cm
SITE-2 for Normalization SITE-5 for Normalization
Method/Location CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 B-1 Method/Location CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 CPT-5 CPT-6 CPT-7 CPT-8 B-1 B-2
R&W 1998 15.9 9 11.4 9.3 R&W 1998 5.8 6.1 5.7 9.2 3.5 11.3 8.4 8.2
Robertson 2009 16.5 9.2 11.4 9.4 Robertson 2009 6.4 6.4 6.3 9.4 4 11.8 9.3 8.7

805
Moss 2006 28.4 16.6 23.2 18.8 Moss 2006 8.2 15.2 11.1 15 6.3 19.7 15.6 13
DBH 2012 24.9 14 17.3 16.1 DBH 2012 11.2 10.7 12.3 16.8 8.8 17.4 18.4 16.5
I&B 2008 23.2 12.5 15.2 13.3 I&B 2008 7.5 8.7 12.9 14.2 6.1 15.1 12.8 13.4
Y&I 2001 21.5 Y&I 2001 4.4 4.2

CERA Estimated Range Based on LiDAR: 0-20 cm, , USED 10cm CERA Estimated Range Based on LiDAR: 0-20 cm, USED 10cm for
SITE-3 for Normalization SITE-6 Normalization
Method/Location CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 CPT-6 CPT-7 CPT-8 B-1 B-2 Method/Location CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 B-1
R&W 1998 2.7 5.2 5.6 13.2 12.2 4.6 10.3 R&W 1998 12.4 15.2 12.7 10.7
Robertson 2009 2.7 6.2 6.9 15.5 14.6 5.9 12.8 Robertson 2009 13.4 16 13.3 12.3
Moss 2006 6.5 9.4 10.3 23.3 19.9 10 16.7 Moss 2006 22.5 26.9 26.2 19.6
DBH 2012 4.2 11.2 12.8 23.6 24 12.9 20.5 DBH 2012 22 26 20.6 20.8
I&B 2008 4.3 11.8 13.4 24.7 26.5 13.1 22.4 I&B 2008 20.5 24.5 19.9 18.8
Y&I 2001 40.9* 58.5* Y&I 2001 40
* Auto Trip Hammer with Steel wire pulley

Note: R&W (1998): Robertson & Wride (1998), I&B (2008): Idriss & Boulanger (2008), Y&I (2001): Youd & Idriss (2001).
 3

Normalized Calculated EQ-Induced Settlement by

Liquefaction Triggering Method:
Moss et al. (2006)

LIDAR Information was not available for

Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
Robertson (2009)
DBH (2012)
Observed Values

February 22, 2011 Earthquake

1

0
(Normalized by 20 cm)

(Normalized by 10 cm)
(Normalized by 25 cm)
(Normalized by 10 cm)

(Normalized by 10 cm)
(Normalized by 15 cm)
0

Site No. 1

Site No. 2

Site No. 3

Site No. 4

Site No. 5

Site No. 6
Figure 8. Comparison of liquefaction triggering methods compared to observed settlements

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to thank Hushmand Associates, Inc. for providing the data presented in
this paper and Professor Robertson and Mr. Gregory Silver for reviewing this manuscript.

9 REFERENCES

Department of Building and Housing, Te Tari Kaupapa Whare, 2012. Interim guidance for repairing and
rebuilding foundations in Technical Category 3, 106 pp.
CLiq, v.1.7.4.14, 2012, Software for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation using Cone Penetration Tests and
Standard Penetration Tests, Prepared by GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Software.
Cubrinovski, M., Green, R. A., and Wotherspoon, L., 2011, Geotechnical Reconnaissance of the 2011
Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake, 184 pp.
GeoNet, 2012. The Official Source of Geological Hazard Information for New Zealand,
http://geonet.org.nz/.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute MNO-12, 237 pp.
Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp: 173-188.
Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R. E., Stewart, J. P., Der Kiureghian, A., Cetin, K. O., CPT-Based
Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 1, 2006.

806
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E., 1998, Cyclic liquefaction and its Evaluation based on the CPT,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, August 1998.
Robertson, P. K. (2009). Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests-a Unified Approach, in Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp: 1337-1355.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified Procedures for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE 97(9), pp. 1249-1273.
Youd, T. L., Idriss. I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Finn, W. D.
L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G.
R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H., 2001.
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 127, No. 10: pp. 817-833.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K., Brachman, R., 2002. Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements
from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp. 1168-1180.

807
808