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

CPT at a liquefaction affected site through the Canterbury earthquake

series
P. J. Malan & J. L. Simpson
Tonkin & Taylor Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand

ABSTRACT: The recent Canterbury earthquake series caused consequential liquefaction and ground set-
tlement between September 2010 and December 2011. Six CPT were carried out at a site where liquefac-
tion effects and settlements were observed through the earthquake series. Comparison of depths to marker
layers in the CPT traces and calculated volumetric densification settlements do not show any apparent cor-
relation. The total measured settlements were generally lower than the calculated settlements, indicating
that the published correlations may over-predict settlements due to repeated liquefaction in these ground
conditions. The CPT tip resistances did not typically change, despite the observed settlement and densifi-
cation at the site.

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A series of earthquakes has affected the Canterbury region of New Zealand following a major earthquake
on 04 September 2010. The earthquake series has caused widespread liquefaction, lateral spreading and
ground surface subsidence as well as shaking related damage. This paper compares calculated and meas-
ured liquefaction related settlement effects in field CPT records and considers changes to CPT traces
through the series.
Ground subsidence has caused a number of adverse effects including increases in vulnerability to the
liquefaction hazard, increased risk of flooding, ponding and damage to gravity drainage systems. Changes
to the liquefaction vulnerability at sites were reported by Tonkin & Taylor (2011), and this report uses in-
formation and methods presented in that document. The 2011 reports implementation of the Idriss &
Boulanger (2008) liquefaction triggering method combined with the Zhang et al. (2002) volumetric densi-
fication calculations are used in this paper.
This paper compares calculated and measured settlements in layers at a site affected by liquefaction,
ground damage and subsidence where liquefaction was observed to occur on multiple occasions. Lique-
faction can cause ground subsidence due to ejection of material to the ground surface, volumetric densifi-
cation of ground or by lateral spreading. The calculated volumetric densification strains are compared
with those measured in CPT traces. This provides a case study on application of the volumetric densifica-
tion method to field data affected by real earthquakes.

1039
2 THE SITE, INVESTIGATIONS AND GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

The subject site is located at the northern end of Kingsford Street, Burwood, Christchurch and shown in
Figure 1. The area is generally low lying and the CPTs were pushed on the inside bend of the horseshoe
lake that gives the area its name. The area was affected by liquefaction in the September 2010 earthquake,
with extensive liquefaction ejecta observed at the surface and lateral spreading cracks of up to 50 mm
wide identified (Tonkin & Taylor, 2011).

Figure 1- Site location plan and BH/CPT locations

Following the 04 September 2010 earthquake, the Earthquake Commission undertook site investiga-
tions comprising CPT and boreholes in areas severely affected by liquefaction and the first CPT (identi-
fied as CPT-BUR-18 or CPT_280) was pushed as part of this. Supplementary CPT were pushed at the
same location (typically within a metre of the original CPT) through the earthquake series to track possi-
ble changes in the nature of the subsurface materials. The CPTs pushed are summarised in Table 1 be-
low, with the number of days since the last major earthquake. The dates of earthquakes are summarised in
Table 2.

1040
Table 1 Summary of CPT tests
Date Maximum Depth CPT Operator CPT ID Days since major
[m] earthquake
09/11/2010 20.84 Opus CPT-BUR-18 5
28/02/2011 26.29 McMillan CPT-BUR-18a 6
09/03/2011 13:23 25.46 McMillan CPT-BUR-18b 15
09/03/2011 14:50 25.75 McMillan CPT-BUR-18c 15
15/06/2011 11.36 McMillan CPT-BUR-18d 2
06/11/2012 20.00 McMillan CPT-BUR-18e 146

A borehole, BH BUR-04, was drilled adjacent to the CPT locations on 14 January 2011. The borehole ex-
tended to 20 m below ground level and logged fine sand extending from the surface to around 7 m depth,
with fine to coarse dense sands beneath this. Laboratory testing in this material showed fines content of
less than 5%.
The volumetric densification method presented by Zhang et al. (2002) requires the inputs of a normal-
ised CPT tip resistance, and a factor of safety against liquefaction. The method used is presented in the
liquefaction vulnerability study (Tonkin & Taylor, 2011), with earthquake specific inputs summarised in
Table 2 below.

Table 2 Summary of design inputs for liquefaction triggering and densification calculation

Earthquake date PGA Mw Groundwater level CPT Analysed

[proportion of g] [Magnitude] [m below ground lev-
el]
22 February 2011 0.3402 6.2 1.7 CPT_280
13 June 2011 0.2070 6.2 1.2 CPT_29076
23 December 2011 0.2825 6.1 1.0 CPT_29071

3 CPT DATA AND LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING

The available CPT traces considered in this paper are presented in Figure 2. They show that the recorded
raw tip resistances generally do not change through the earthquakes, despite liquefaction being observed
on a number of occasions. The last CPT (November 2012) varied from this pattern by having consistently
higher tip resistances in the upper 7 m of material. Beneath 7 m, where little to no liquefaction is likely to
have occurred, the tip resistances were similar through the series. The depth to the dense sand layer typi-
cally reduces through the earthquake series, from 7.49 m in November 2010 to 7.21 m in November 2012,
a total change of 280 mm. The depth to this layer increased by 70 mm in the two CPT pushed on 9 March
2011, and 30 mm between June 2011 and November 2012. These depth changes are interpreted as indica-
tive of natural variation in the top of the dense sand layer, noting that CPT could be up to 2 m from each
other. The accuracy of the depth measurements, both from the ground surface and due to inclination can
also cause apparent changes in layer depths.

1041
Figure 2 Tip resistances of all CPT traces

1042
4 VOLUMETRIC DENSIFICATION AND GROUND SUBSIDENCE

Post-liquefaction volumetric densification of material is a phenomenon that has been considered by a

number of authors since the 1970s. Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) published correlations between the
initial relative density and factor of safety against liquefaction with volumetric densification strains.
These correlations were based on laboratory tests of clean river sands and included a relationship between
relative density and CPT or SPT test results. Zhang et al. (2002) reconsidered the data using a different
CPT normalisation technique and presented a revised set of correlations that have been used in this paper.
Idriss and Boulanger (2008) note that a number of studies have shown good correlations between calculat-
ed and predicted volumetric densification settlements.
LiDAR survey records and site observations confirm that the site has both experienced liquefaction and
settled during the earthquake sequence. This settlement is attributed to a combination of volumetric densi-
fication settlement and the ejection and subsequent removal of liquefied material to the ground surface.
Lateral spreading can also cause settlement to occur in the upper materials.
To assess the settlement in the ground, the CPT tip resistance traces have been inspected to identify
markers within the profile that can be used to delineate layers. Layers are defined here as being material
located between characteristic shapes of tip resistance that are present through the CPT sequence. The
location of the identified markers and layers are presented on Figure 3, with each CPT trace offset from
the previous one to show the progression through the sequence. The layer thicknesses are calculated for
each CPT, and the change in thickness through the series is presented on Figure 4. These are referred to
as the measured (or inferred) settlements.
The calculated volumetric densification strains for comparison with the measured values have been an-
alysed based on the method and correlations presented by Zhang et al. (2002) to produce profiles of post-
liquefaction volumetric densification strain with depth. Seismic loading and depth to groundwater inputs
for the triggering analysis are based on the CGD data (Section 3). The calculated strain profiles are inte-
grated through each layer to generate a calculated settlement in each layer. These are compared with the
measured settlements on a layer by layer basis. A check on the results has been carried out using the Rob-
ertson & Wride (1998) triggering method. This produced broadly similar results, which are not explicitly
reported here.
The analyses presented here have inherent limitations, including possible inherent inaccuracies in the
input parameters, liquefaction triggering analysis and natural variability of the soil profile. The analyses
use groundwater conditions and seismic loading based on interpolated data, which may vary from the ac-
tual field conditions. Liquefaction triggering analyses are probabilistic, and the liquefaction of layers
within the soil profile may alter the subsequent liquefaction potential of other layers. The CPT data used
were pushed within 2 m of each other, but there is still the potential for natural variability of alluvial de-
posits, both in depth and cone resistance.
Finally, we note that no CPT is available at the site prior to the 04 September 2010 earthquake. The
CPT considered in the analysis have therefore been pushed in material that has recently liquefied. Lique-
faction triggering analyses do not generally consider this to have any significant difference on the suscep-
tibility to liquefaction, but the authors are not aware of any commentary relating to the effect of repeated
liquefaction on densification correlations.

1043
Figure 3 Marker layers used in the analyses

1044
5 DISCUSSION OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED SETTLEMENTS

The measured (or inferred) and calculated settlements for two datasets comprising total settlement above
the dense sand and layers within the CPT (in the upper 7m) are presented on Figure 4. An inspection of
the data shows that there is substantial scatter in the layer dataset, with no consistent trends identified.
Measured layer thicknesses appear to both expand and settle, while the calculated settlements calculate
only settlement.
An inspection of Figure 3 does not show any correlation between changes in layer thickness and
depth. Layer 1 reduced in thickness the most, from 2.0 m to less than 1.2 m, while layers 5 and 10 re-
duced in thickness noticeably through the CPT sequence. Layers 3 and 8 appear to expand through the
earthquakes, although the authors are not aware of liquefaction related mechanisms whereby layers will
increase in thickness. The data may therefore be misleading, or the expansion phenomenon could tenta-
tively be explained by a hypothesis whereby liquefied material moves from one layer to another through
the liquefaction sequence. The authors are not aware of other instances where this has occurred, and do
not draw conclusions relating to this at present. This apparent phenomenon may warrant further study in
the future.

Figure 4 Calculated and measured strain deformations

1045
The total settlements presented for the three earthquakes showed that the measured settlement was on av-
erage 61% of the calculated settlement. However, the measured settlements were larger than the calculat-
ed in the June 2011 earthquake. Liquefaction settlement was not analysed in other earthquakes or CPT
traces, despite field observations that liquefaction had occurred. For the three earthquakes modelled, 510
mm of settlement was calculated, compared to a total measured settlement of 280 mm through the series.
The calculated liquefaction correlations do not consider the ejection of liquefied material, and therefore
overpredict volumetric densification at this site for repeated liquefaction through the earthquake series.

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has compared the calculated volumetric densification settlements using the triggering method
of Idriss and Boulanger (2008) combined with Zhang et al. (2002), with the settlements inferred in layers
identified by marker shapes in the CPT traces. The comparison did not show any clear correlations be-
tween the calculated and measures (inferred) settlements. The measured settlements showed that some
layers appeared to increase in thickness through the earthquake series, but no mechanism for this unusual
behaviour has been identified. The depth to a dense layer of sand typically reduced through the CPT,
showing settlement behaviour that was consistent with the surveyed settlement of the ground surface. The
CPT tip resistances generally did not change through the earthquake series, despite settlements being ob-
served and recorded at the site and in the CPT traces. For the three earthquakes analysed, the recorded to-
tal settlements at the site were around 60% of those calculated. This may indicate that the settlement cor-
relations overpredict settlements for repeated liquefaction at sites through an earthquake series.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the information made available by the New Zealand
Government through its agencies including in particular the Earthquake Commission and Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery Authority. The data collected, processed and supplied by these agencies has al-
lowed these analyses to be carried out and their assistance is appreciated.

8 REFERENCES

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.
Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M. 1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during
earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32(1): 173-188.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998 Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on the CPT Canadian Ge-
otechnical Journal, 1998, Vol. 35, August.
Tonkin and Taylor Ltd. 2013 Liquefaction vulnerability study, Tonkin and Taylor Report 52020.0200/v1.0 Tonkin
& Taylor, 52 pages and 14 appendices.
Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the
CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180

1046