CCC Appendices Liquefaction

REPORT
Christchurch Liquefaction
Vulnerability Study
Prepared for
Christchurch City Council
Prepared by
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Date
July 2020
Job Number
1000273.v1.2
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd July 2020

Christchurch Liquefaction Vulnerability Study Job No: 1000273.v1.2
Document control
Title: Christchurch Liquefaction Vulnerability Study

Date Version Description Prepared Reviewed Authorised
by: by: by:
Sep-19 1.0 Initial issue MLO/MEJ MEJ PRC
Nov-19 1.1 Minor updates responding to peer review MLO/MEJ MEJ PRC
comments
Jul-20 1.2 Updated Section 6 to clarify that new MLO/MEJ MEJ PRC
Liquefaction Vulnerability Categories do
not supersede existing hazard
management maps and processes.
Distribution:
Christchurch City Council 1 PDF copy
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 PDF copy
PDF PART 2 of 2
APPENDICES
Table of contents
REFER TO SEPARATE PDF FILE FOR REPORT BODY
1 Introduction 3
2 Context 5
2.1 Background 5
2.2 Liquefaction hazard 5
2.3 Purposes for which liquefaction information is used 8
2.4 Previous information about the liquefaction hazard in Christchurch 12
3 Risk identification 16
3.1 The level of detail hierarchy 16
3.2 Level of detail required for intended purposes 17
3.3 Base information currently available 21
3.4 Level of detail supported by currently available base information 31
4 Risk analysis 34
4.1 Managing uncertainties in the liquefaction vulnerability assessment 34
4.2 Initial definition of liquefaction assessment sub areas 38
4.3 Groundwater scenarios 40
4.4 Earthquake scenarios 41
4.5 Determining expected degree of liquefaction-induced ground damage 42
4.6 Model validation 48
4.7 Refinement of liquefaction assessment sub area boundaries 51
4.8 Liquefaction vulnerability assessed against performance criteria 52
5 Communication and consultation 58
5.1 “Liquefaction Lab” public awareness website tool 58
6 Risk evaluation and risk treatment 61
6.1 Scope of the current assessment 61
6.2 Incorporating this hazard information into existing risk treatment options 61
6.3 The difference between “hazard maps” and “hazard management maps” 61
6.4 MBIE Technical Categories and District Plan Liquefaction Management Area 62
7 Monitoring and review 63
8 Recording and reporting 64
9 References 65
10 Applicability 67
Appendix A : Risk identification maps
Appendix B : Risk analysis maps
Appendix C : Communication and consultation maps
Appendix D : Calibration examples

Appendix A: Risk identification maps
 Figure A1 – Summary of District Planning Zones

 Figure A2 – Target Level of Detail
 Figure A3 – Summary of CPT Investigations
 Figure A4 – CPT Investigation Density
 Figure A5 – Ground Conditions Uncertainty
 Figure A6 – Depth to Groundwater Table Current-Day Median (2014 model)
 Figure A7 – Groundwater Uncertainty
 Figure A8 – Worst Land Damage Observations from the Canterbury Earthquakes
 Figure A9 – Land Damage Observation Uncertainty
 Figure A10 – Aggregated Uncertainty
COPYRIGHT ON THIS FIGURE IS RESERVED DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS FIGURE T:\Christchurch\TT Projects\1000273\WorkingMaterial\CCC_Liquefaction_Working\Report_Figures\1_Appendix_Figures\A1.mxd 2019-Nov-09 10:10:47 PM Drawn by MLO
District Planning Zones
Residential new neighbourhood

Brooklands
Residential medium density and central city
All other residential
Rural urban fringe
All other rural
Belfast
Commerical and industrial
Open space
Burwood All other zones

Harewood
Study area
Not assessed in this study, refer to Brackley (2012)

Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Upper Riccarton Central City
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
NOTES: PROJECT No. 1000273 CLIENT CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
This map is part of the report "Christchurch Liquefaction Vulnerability Study" prepared by T+T for CCC in 2019. DESIGNED MLO NOV.19 PROJECT CHRISTCHURCH LIQUEFACTION VULNERABILITY STUDY
Refer to the report for further detail and applicability limitations. DRAWN MLO NOV.19
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE SUMMARY OF DISTRICT PLANNING ZONES
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 06/09/19
2 Minor updates MLO MEJ 08/11/19
FIGURE A1 2
27-JUL-2020
REV DESCRIPTION GIS CHK DATE LOCATION PLAN APPROVED DATE SCALE (A3) 1:110,000 FIG No. REV
Ideal Level of Detail
Level A - Basic desktop assessment

Brooklands
Level B - Calibrated desktop assessment
Level C - Detailed area-wide asessment
Level D - Site-specific assessment
Level C (or Level B if Medium Liquefaction Vulnerabiltiy is confirmed)

Belfast
Study area
Brackley (2012) damaging liquefaction unlikely
Burwood
Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE TARGET LEVEL OF DETAIL
FIGURE A2 2
27-JUL-2020
CPT Investigation Depth
<5m
Brooklands
>5m
Study area
Liquefaction assessment sub areas
Belfast
Burwood
Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE SUMMARY OF CPT INVESTIGATIONS
FIGURE A3 2
27-JUL-2020
Distance to Nearest CPT
0 - 50 m (Level D)
Brooklands
50 - 225 m (Level C)
225- 1000 m (Level B)
> 1000 m (Level A)
Study area
Belfast
Burwood
Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE CPT INVESTIGATION DENSITY
FIGURE A4 2
27-JUL-2020
COPYRIGHT ON THIS FIGURE IS RESERVED DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS FIGURE T:\Christchurch\TT Projects\1000273\WorkingMaterial\CCC_Liquefaction_Working\Report_Figures\1_Appendix_Figures\A5.mxd 2019-Nov-12 8:42:41 AM Drawn by MLO
This map relates to the absolute level of uncertainty in the base information itself, Ground Conditions Uncertainty
not the resulting impact of that uncertainty on the final liquefaction assessment.
There are some locations across the study area where there is substantial uncertainty More Uncertainty in Ground Conditions
in the base information, but for one reason or another this uncertainty does not have Brooklands
a material impact on the liquefaction assessment. Refer to Section 3.4 of the report for
further discussion.
This map relates only to the density of CPT investigation data as this was the primary
source of quantitative data used for the liquefaction triggering analysis.
Less Uncertainty in Ground Conditions
Study area
Belfast
Burwood Because there is less quantitative investigation

Harewood data in this area there is more uncertainty in the
absolute soil profile and strengths. However,
the known geological nature of this land indicates
that Liquefaction Damage is Unlikely, so the
uncertainty in ground conditions does not have
Bishopdale
a material impact on the liquefaction vulnerability
Mairehau assessment.
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE GROUND CONDITIONS UNCERTAINTY
FIGURE A5 2
27-JUL-2020
Current-day Median (2014 Model)

Depth (m)
Brooklands Above ground
0-1
1-2
2-3
Belfast 3-4
4-5
5-6
Burwood
Harewood
? 6+
Study area
Bishopdale
Approx. 6 m GWD line
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
?
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER TABLE
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 06/09/19 CURRENT-DAY MEDIAN (2014 MODEL)
FIGURE A6 2
27-JUL-2020
This map relates to the absolute level of uncertainty in the base information itself, Groundwater Uncertainty
There are some locations across the study area where there is substantial uncertainty More Uncertainty in Groundwater Conditions
further discussion.
This map relates only to the density of the EQC/ECAN/CCC piezometers and
river/stream monitoring as this was the primary source of quantitative data used for the
development of the van Ballegooy et al. (2014) groundwater model. Less Uncertainty in Groundwater Conditions
Study area
Belfast
Approx. 6 m GWD line
Contour of 6 m depth to groundwater from
van Ballegooy et al. (2014) median model.
West of this line uncertainty in the absolute
Burwood groundwater levels does not have a significant
Harewood
?
impact on the final liquefaction vulnerability
assessment.
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
?
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE GROUNDWATER UNCERTAINTY
FIGURE A7 2
27-JUL-2020
Worst Land Damage
1 - None Observed
Brooklands
2 - Minor
3 - Moderate
4 - Major
5 - Severe
Belfast
6 - Very Severe
Study area
Burwood "Worst" land damage taken as the greatest level of

Harewood damage from the Sep-2010, Feb-2011, Jun-2011 and
Dec-2011 events.
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE WORST LAND DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 06/09/19 FROM THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES
FIGURE A8 2
27-JUL-2020
This map relates to the absolute level of uncertainty in the base information itself, Land Damage Observation Uncertainty
There are some locations across the study area where there is substantial uncertainty More Uncertainty in Land Damage Observations
further discussion.
This map relates only to the land damage mapping undertaken by EQC/T+T in urban
areas and ECAN/GNS in rural areas.
Less Uncertainty in Land Damage Observations
Study area
Belfast Extent of "well tested" : south of this line there is a 95%
confidence that PGA (M7.5) was greater than 0.13 g
during the Canterbury earthquakes.
Burwood
Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE LAND DAMAGE OBSERVATION UNCERTAINTY
FIGURE A9 2
27-JUL-2020
This map relates to the absolute level of uncertainty in the base information itself, Aggregated Uncertainty
There are some locations across the study area where there is substantial uncertainty More Uncertainty in Ground Conditions
further discussion.
Less Uncertainty in Ground Conditions
Study area
Belfast
This aggregation recognised that liquefaction vulnerability

can be assessed either by theoretical analysis (based on
Burwood the soil profile and groundwater level) or by empirical analysis
Harewood (based on observed performance). If there is more uncertainty
in the soil or groundwater information, then the impacts on the
final liquefaction assessment can be offset to some extent if
there is less uncertainty in the observation information (and
vice versa).
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE AGGREGATED UNCERTAINTY
FIGURE A10 2
27-JUL-2020
Appendix B: Risk analysis maps
 Figure B1 - Comparison of land damage observations and model predictions

 Figure B2 – GNS Geomorphology with Liquefaction Assessment Sub Areas
 Figure B3 – Liquefaction Vulnerability Categories
 Figure B4 – Level of Detail Supported by Currently Available Base Information
 Figure B5 – Difference between ideal and achieved Level of Detail
COPYRIGHT ON THIS FIGURE IS RESERVED DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS FIGURE T:\Christchurch\TT Projects\1000273\WorkingMaterial\CCC_Liquefaction_Working\Report_Figures\1_Appendix_Figures\B1.mxd 2019-Nov-14 3:37:21 PM Drawn by MLO
September 2010 Earthquake February 2011 Earthquake

(a) Land damage observations (b) Land damage observations
(c) Land damage observations classed (d) Land damage observations classed
(e) Model prediction (f) Model prediction
Less More Less More

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR damage damage damage damage

CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE COMPARISON OF LAND DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS AND
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 08/11/19 MODEL PREDICTIONS
FIGURE B1 1
27-JUL-2020
Study area
Sub areas assumed to have potential for lateral

Brooklands spreading
Belfast
Burwood
Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE GNS GEOMORPHOLOGY WITH LIQUEFACTION
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 06/09/19 ASSESSMENT SUB AREAS
FIGURE B2 2
27-JUL-2020
Liquefaction Vulnerability Categories
Liquefaction Category is Undetermined

Brooklands
Liquefaction Damage is Unlikely
Liquefaction Damage is Possible
Very Low Liquefaction Vulnerability
Low Liquefaction Vulnerability
Belfast
Medium Liquefaction Vulnerability
High Liquefaction Vulnerability
Burwood Study area

Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE LIQUEFACTION VULNERABILITY CATEGORIES
FIGURE B3 2
27-JUL-2020
Level of Detail
Level A - Basic desktop assessment

Brooklands
Level B - Calibrated desktop assessment
Level C - Detailed area-wide asessment
Level D - Site-specific assessment
Study area
Belfast
Burwood
Harewood
Bishopdale
Mairehau
New Brighton
Yaldhurst
Hornby Woolston
Sumner
Cashmere
Halswell
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km)
CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE LEVEL OF DETAIL SUPPORTED BY CURRENTLY
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 06/09/19 AVAILABLE BASE INFORMATION
FIGURE B4 2
27-JUL-2020
Achieved detail is greater than or equal to ideal level
Achieved detail is greater than or equal to ideal level,

provided that a liquefaction vulnerability category
of Medium is confirmed
Achieved detail is less than ideal level
Study area
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR
A3 SCALE 1:110,000
0 1 2 4 6 8
(km) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IDEAL AND
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 08/11/19 ACHIEVED LEVEL OF DETAIL
FIGURE B5 2
27-JUL-2020
Appendix C: Communication and consultation
maps
 Figure C1 – “Liquefaction Lab” Public Awareness Tool Example Ground Damage Scenarios
COPYRIGHT ON THIS FIGURE IS RESERVED DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS FIGURE E:\0_Local_Projects_External\CCC_Local\Report_Figures\1_Appendix_Figures\C1.mxd 2019-Nov-13 2:50:35 PM Drawn by MLO
PGA 0.1g, GW 1m deeper PGA 0.3g, GW 1m deeper PGA 0.6g, GW 1m deeper
PGA 0.1g, average GW PGA 0.3g, average GW PGA 0.6g, average GW
PGA 0.1g, GW 1m shallower PGA 0.3g, GW 1m shallower PGA 0.6g, GW 1m shallower
ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

CHECKED NOV.19 TITLE "LIQUEFACTION LAB" PUBLIC AWARENESS TOOL
1 Initial issue MLO MEJ 06/09/19 EXAMPLE GROUND DAMAGE SCENARIOS
FIGURE C1 2
27-JUL-2020
Appendix D: Calibration examples
 Figure D1 – Calibration Example 1: Sandy soils, CPT analysis gives good prediction
 Figure D2 – Calibration Example 2: Silty interlayered soils, CPT analysis over-predicts damage
 Figure D3 – Calibration Example 3: Shallow groundwater, CPT analysis over-predicts damage
Calibration Example 1: Sandy soils, CPT analysis gives good prediction
Sub-area ID = {D8E6030D-B72C-461E-A6AF-E669915FCCBD}
This sub area is an example of ground conditions where the CPT-based simplified liquefaction analysis provides predictions of performance which
are generally well aligned with observations during the Canterbury earthquakes. Examination of the base data identified some minor potential
sources of bias in the damage observations and CPT locations. But on balance the model appears to be reasonable without any manual Calibration control point
calibration required. Observed Ground Damage for Main Earthquakes
Sep-2010
Feb-2011
Jun-2011
Dec-2011
10th percentile response curve
BASE INFORMATION 50th percentile response curve
15th and 85th percentile response curves
Moderate to Severe ground damage prediction
Sub area {D8E6030D-B72C-461E-A6AF-E669915FCCBD} Image Driver

_D8E6030DB72C461EA6AFE669915FCCBD
Cell Minor to Moderate ground damage prediction
None to Minor ground damage prediction
Association ID 15
Number of Associated
2
Polygons
STEP 1 SHIFT TRIGGER PGA

Load Calibration Save Calibration
Parameter name Value adopted Description

PGA value of 1st
PGA_SHIFT1 0.18 4.82214
control point (g)
Liquefaction vulnerability category
PGA value of 2nd
Pre-calibration HIGH PGA_SHIFT2 0.51 28.37003
control point (g)
Post-calibration HIGH Model PGA Value [Mw6 Equivalent]
CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 PGA shift for 1st
PGA_SHIFT_DIST1 0
control point (g)
Design earthquake scenarios (Mw6 equivalent) 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100-yr PGA 0.3 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.9 4.5 7.1 11.6 14.8 17.0 19.4 20.9 PGA shift for 2nd
PGA_SHIFT_DIST2 0
500-yr PGA 0.52 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.6 5.8 9.1 14.2 17.9 20.1 22.1 23.5 control point (g)
15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.0 7.1 10.9 16.2 19.9 22.6 24.2 25.3
Metadata notes 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 8.0 12.2 18.1 21.7 24.4 26.1 27.3
Note - base info Dune geomorph, good CPT density in eastern half only.
Dune 25 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.1 8.8 12.9 19.0 23.0 25.1 27.0 28.3
Note - uncertainties 0Bias in CPTs to better performing green zone land. 30 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 4.6 9.5 13.9 20.0 24.0 26.3 28.0 29.3
Note - other 0CPT-based liquefaction analysis appears to correspond well 35 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 5.2 10.1 14.8 21.0 24.8 27.4 29.3 30.3
with observations 40 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 5.7 11.0 15.4 22.0 25.8 28.6 30.1 31.3 MODEL_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
45 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 6.2 11.6 16.3 23.2 26.9 29.3 31.0 32.4
50 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 6.8 12.4 17.6 24.2 28.1 30.6 32.1 33.3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.2 7.2 13.2 18.8 26.1 29.4 31.5 33.2 34.5
60 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 8.0 14.2 20.1 27.2 31.1 33.2 34.8 35.7
65 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.4 8.5 15.6 21.3 28.4 32.3 34.5 35.8 36.7 CALIB1_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
70 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.7 9.1 16.4 23.0 30.1 33.7 36.0 37.1 38.1
75 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.1 10.4 17.9 24.1 31.8 35.2 37.2 38.5 39.4
80 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 12.2 19.5 26.5 33.2 36.6 38.5 39.7 40.5
85 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.2 13.3 23.1 29.8 35.9 39.1 40.4 41.4 41.9 STEP 1 SHIFT TRIGGER PGA
90 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.0 15.0 25.3 32.5 38.3 41.1 43.5 44.3 45.1 60.0
95 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.8 19.5 30.4 37.0 44.9 46.9 48.1 48.9 49.6
Model 15
100 0.0 0.0 3.7 22.1 39.4 48.5 55.1 63.5 67.6 69.1 69.5 69.7 50.0
Model 50
Model 85
40.0
Land damage index thresholds CALIB1 15
LSN None-Minor 9 QPID and CPT Comment CALIB1 50
LSN
30.0
LSN Minor-Moderate 14 Good QPID and CPT count but biased to green zone properties, justifies scaling model up. Tight curves, slow steady climb indicating clean sand profiles. CALIB1 85
LSN Moderate - Severe 40 PGA_SHIFT1

20.0 PGA_SHIFT2
Phsyical explanation of differences between model and observation
September PGA
Observation and CPT statistics Model side
1. Mis s-prediction of event PGA. 10.0 February PGA
Median model base CPT count 467 2. Event groundwater inaccuracies. June PGA
Event specific model CPT count 476 3. Sys tematic over/under prediction of calculated severity, e.g. s ilty s oils, thick sand deposits. 0.0 December PGA
Property observation count 848 4. LSN limits for s everity classes. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
5. LSN hypersensitivity to s hallow groundwater. PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
6. Lateral s pread increasing ejecta.
Sep Feb Jun Dec Post-EQ 7. Bias for CPTs to be located where damage occurred.
None to minor 95% 2% 2% 6% Observation side
Minor to moderate 4% 25% 27% 17%
8. Sys temic overstating of observed land damage. SHIFT PGA
9. Extrapolation of LDIV for June and December. 0.3
Moderate to severe 0% 73% 71% 77%
1 Between stations that over/under predict PGA, no basis for shifting helpers.
0.2
PGA and GWD statistics 2 Large shift, justifies shifting helpers down for September, February and June.
Median GWD (per CPT) 1.87 1.78 1.89 1.24 1.27 3 1 m crust overlying thick, clean sand. Model expected to perform well.
0.1
Median PGA (per CPT), Mw6 equivalent 0.24 0.45 0.25 0.36 4 OK
PGA_SHIFT (g)
Median GWD (by area) 1.76 1.65 1.79 1.12 5 OK
0
Median PGA (by area), Mw6 equivalent 0.23 0.42 0.25 0.35 6 Lateral spreading in western part but would be severe given soil profile so no need to adjust model. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 PGA Shift
7 CPTs biased to better performing part of sub area. Justifies scaling model up.
8 OK -0.1
9 June and December potentially overstated in redzone.

-0.2
Groundwater Comment
CPT biased towards area of deeper groundwater. -0.3
PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
PGA Comment
Between stations that over/under predict PGA, so perhaps ok.
Notes: Refer to T+T report prepared for Christchurch City Council “Christchurch Liquefaction Vulnerability Study (2019)”. 1000273 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
MLO SEP.19 CHRISTCHURCH LIQUEFACTION VULNERABILITY STUDY
MLO SEP.19
NOV.19 CALIBRATION EXAMPLE 1
SANDY SOILS, CPT ANALYSIS GIVES GOOD PREDICTION
27-JUL-2020
Calibration Example 1: Sandy soils, CPT analysis gives good prediction
Sub-area ID = {D8E6030D-B72C-461E-A6AF-E669915FCCBD}
are generally well aligned with observations during the Canterbury earthquakes. Examination of the base data identified some minor potential
sources of bias in the damage observations and CPT locations. But on balance the model appears to be reasonable without any manual Calibration control point
calibration required. Observed Ground Damage for Main Earthquakes
Sep-2010
Feb-2011
Jun-2011
Dec-2011
Minor to Moderate ground damage prediction
STEP 2 SCALE LSN STEP 3 ADJUST VARIABILITY FINAL OUTPUT
Parameter name Value adopted Description Parameter name Value adopted Description Median CALIB3_LSN_MATRIX [Mw6 Equivalent]
Model PGA Value
PGA value of 1st PGA value of 1st
LSN_SCALE1 0.18 4.82214 LSN_VAR1 2.14795 0.18 9.641124 4.8 CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
control point (g) control point (g)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.9 4.5 7.1 11.6 14.8 17.0 19.4 20.9
PGA value of 2nd PGA value of 2nd
LSN_SCALE2 0.51 28.37003 LSN_VAR2 20.18153 0.51 39.24173 28.4 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.6 5.8 9.1 14.2 17.9 20.1 22.1 23.5
15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.0 7.1 10.9 16.2 19.9 22.6 24.2 25.3
LSN shift for 1st 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 8.0 12.2 18.1 21.7 24.4 26.1 27.3
LSN shift for 1st
LSN_SCALE_DIST1 0 LSN_VAR_DIST1-85 0 control point, 85th 25 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.1 8.8 12.9 19.0 23.0 25.1 27.0 28.3
control point
percentile 30 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 4.6 9.5 13.9 20.0 24.0 26.3 28.0 29.3
LSN shift for 1st 35 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 5.2 10.1 14.8 21.0 24.8 27.4 29.3 30.3
LSN shift for 2nd
LSN_SCALE_DIST2 0 LSN_VAR_DIST1-15 0 control point, 15th 40 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 5.7 11.0 15.4 22.0 25.8 28.6 30.1 31.3
control point
percentile 45 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 6.2 11.6 16.3 23.2 26.9 29.3 31.0 32.4
LSN shift for 2nd 50 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 6.8 12.4 17.6 24.2 28.1 30.6 32.1 33.3
LSN_VAR_DIST2-85 0 control point, 85th 55 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.2 7.2 13.2 18.8 26.1 29.4 31.5 33.2 34.5
percentile 60 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 8.0 14.2 20.1 27.2 31.1 33.2 34.8 35.7
LSN shift for 2nd 65 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.4 8.5 15.6 21.3 28.4 32.3 34.5 35.8 36.7
percentile 75 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.1 10.4 17.9 24.1 31.8 35.2 37.2 38.5 39.4
80 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 12.2 19.5 26.5 33.2 36.6 38.5 39.7 40.5
CALIB1_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 CALIB1_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 85 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.2 13.3 23.1 29.8 35.9 39.1 40.4 41.4 41.9
90 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.0 15.0 25.3 32.5 38.3 41.1 43.5 44.3 45.1
95 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.8 19.5 30.4 37.0 44.9 46.9 48.1 48.9 49.6
LSN_SCALE_VECTOR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% LSN_15_SCALE_VECTOR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100 0.0 0.0 3.7 22.1 39.4 48.5 55.1 63.5 67.6 69.1 69.5 69.7
LSN_85_SCALE VECTOR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of liquefaction-induced ground damage response curves

Difference
40 to median matrix (to hide)
Model PGA Value
CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
35 0 0 -0.02 -0.20949 -1.92391 -6.75429 -12.4492 -17.5946 -24.1845 -28.1259 -30.5674 -32.1412 -33.3161
5 0 -0.01 -0.20007 -1.43635 -4.84658 -7.96329 -10.529 -12.5578 -13.3451 -13.5189 -12.765 -12.4375
STEP 2 SCALE LSN STEP 3 ADJUST VARIABILTIY
10 0 -0.01 -0.19415 -1.22948 -4.12764 -6.64482 -8.46964 -9.95462 -10.217 -10.4403 -10.0735 -9.80653
60.0 60.0
3015 0 -0.01 -0.18503 -1.08534 -3.73343 -5.37086 -6.64762 -8.01857 -8.2092 -8.0022 -7.94232 -8.04009
CALIB2 15 20 0 -0.01 -0.17207 -0.93548 -3.19579 -4.49827 -5.42102 -6.12932 -6.45733 -6.144 -6.09058 -6.03193
50.0 CALIB1 15 50.0 CALIB2 50 25 0 -0.01 -0.15335 -0.79107 -2.65494 -3.68841 -4.67686 -5.14547 -5.11664 -5.42013 -5.15226 -5.02925
CALIB1 50 CALIB2 85 2530 0 -0.01 -0.12694 -0.66922 -2.19677 -2.96366 -3.65593 -4.2169 -4.11345 -4.2224 -4.13447 -3.98092
35 0 -0.01 -0.10369 -0.49201 -1.5999 -2.34665 -2.81908 -3.13687 -3.34476 -3.13797 -2.82381 -3.0476
CALIB1 85 CALIB3 15
40.0 40.0 40 0 -0.01 -0.06477 -0.31984 -1.05708 -1.40529 -2.17087 -2.18342 -2.33469 -2.016 -2.06513 -2.00866
CALIB2 15 CALIB3 50
2045 0 -0.01 -0.03773 -0.13633 -0.57684 -0.87722 -1.26606 -1.02595 -1.26679 -1.24399 -1.1334 -0.94955
LSN
CALIB2 50 CALIB3 85
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LSN
LSN
30.0 30.0
CALIB2 85 LSN_VAR1-15 55 0 0 0.036151 0.248361 0.494028 0.714657 1.190693 1.948119 1.296588 0.940426 1.062938 1.137199
LSN_SCALE1 LSN_VAR1-85
15
60 0 0 0.068561 0.372159 1.286814 1.731757 2.462442 3.046758 3.011173 2.678927 2.639572 2.383802
20.0 LSN_SCALE2 20.0 LSN_VAR2-15 65 0 0 0.122392 0.504445 1.726384 3.159252 3.716396 4.257026 4.223146 3.884765 3.659569 3.412876
September PGA LSN_VAR2-85 70 0 0 0.160455 0.810184 2.352658 3.971177 5.413645 5.920999 5.549905 5.410626 4.946501 4.773501
10.0 February PGA 10.0 September PGA 10
75 0 0 0.2 1.201003 3.655102 5.477005 6.508808 7.645799 7.071841 6.639642 6.336918 6.039951
80 0 0 0.283493 1.620506 5.400376 7.011911 8.94597 8.987271 8.513325 7.927676 7.551219 7.195151
June PGA February PGA
85 0 0 0.415965 2.280916 6.511031 10.64124 12.16146 11.76103 10.98796 9.82536 9.275155 8.617048
0.0 December PGA 0.0 June PGA
90 0 0 0.564329 3.032814 8.271939 12.88722 14.93415 14.07279 12.99113 12.89165 12.18893 11.75536
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 December PGA 5
95 0 0 0.790039 4.891134 12.71849 17.92797 19.41766 20.71301 18.74326 17.56123 16.72453 16.23733
PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent] PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
100 0 0 3.448678 20.20822 32.68899 36.05133 37.51456 39.31213 39.42774 38.53605 37.35774 36.38453
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
SCALE LSN SCALE LSN VARIABILITY PGA (g)
[Mw6 Equivalent]
100% 50%
80% 40%
60% 30%
40% 20%
LSN_SCALE (%)
LSN_SCALE (%)
20% 10%
0% 0% LSN 15 SCALE
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LSN SCALE 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LSN 85 SCALE
-20% -10%
-40% -20%
-60% -30%
-80% -40%
-100% -50%
MLO SEP.19
SANDY SOILS, CPT ANALYSIS GIVES GOOD PREDICTION
27-JUL-2020
Calibration Example 2: Silty interlayered soils, CPT analysis over-predicts damage
Sub-area ID = {6105AB10-D9BF-4E2D-84EA-A4CAD6DC2150}
appear to overstate the damage when compared to observations during the Canterbury earthquakes. Examination of the base data identified
factors such as silty interlayered soils, an intermediate gravel layer and model hypersensitivity due to shallow groundwater which provide a physical Calibration control point
explanation as to why the model over-predicts damage. Therefore the model was scaled down to a degree appropriate for these factors which Observed Ground Damage for Main Earthquakes
provided better agreement with the damage observed in the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes and the lack of damage observed in Sep-2010
the June 2011 and December 2011 earthquakes. Feb-2011
Jun-2011
Dec-2011
Sub area {6105AB10-D9BF-4E2D-84EA-A4CAD6DC2150} Image Driver

_6105AB10D9BF4E2D84EAA4CAD6DC2150
Association ID 62
8
Polygons


PGA value of 1st
PGA_SHIFT1 0.15 4.323727
control point (g)
Pre-calibration HIGH PGA value of 2nd
PGA_SHIFT2 0.28 22.59069
Post-calibration MEDIUM Model PGA Value [Mw6 Equivalent] control point (g)
PGA_SHIFT_DIST1 0
Design earthquake scenarios (Mw6 equivalent) 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 control point (g)
100-yr PGA 0.3 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.4 7.6 8.9 10.5 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.4
PGA shift for 2nd
500-yr PGA 0.52 10 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.0 9.0 12.0 13.1 13.1 13.7 13.8 13.8 PGA_SHIFT_DIST2 0
control point (g)
15 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 5.3 9.7 13.4 14.6 14.7 14.7 15.4 15.8
Metadata notes 20 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 6.7 12.2 14.9 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9
Note - base info River
Riverchannel
channelraised.
raisedGreenfield in 2010-11, so limited 25 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.2 8.6 14.6 17.1 18.2 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5
observations.
Note - uncertainties Short CPTs and limited GW information 30 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.6 9.4 15.7 18.2 19.2 19.4 19.5 19.5 19.5
Note - other Short
0 CPTs and limited GW information. 35 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.8 10.3 16.9 19.3 20.9 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Layered silty soils and intermediate gravel help to limit 40 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 11.2 18.0 19.8 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
liquefaction damage. 45 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 13.3 18.6 22.1 24.2 24.9 25.1 25.2 25.2 MODEL_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
50 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.3 14.2 20.1 24.2 25.8 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0
55 0.0 0.0 0.9 5.0 16.5 23.8 25.7 27.6 27.7 28.5 28.6 28.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.4 18.3 25.0 29.1 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.5 32.3
65 0.0 0.0 1.2 6.8 20.6 26.4 31.5 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.6 33.6
CALIB1_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
70 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.5 21.5 29.6 33.1 36.4 36.6 36.6 36.7 36.7
75 0.0 0.0 1.6 9.0 23.4 31.8 36.0 40.9 42.0 42.2 42.3 42.4
80 0.0 0.0 2.0 11.8 26.1 35.9 40.6 44.4 44.9 44.9 44.9 44.9
85 0.0 0.0 2.0 12.9 30.3 37.8 42.8 48.4 48.8 49.0 49.0 49.0
90 0.0 0.0 2.6 17.4 33.2 42.1 50.2 54.3 54.9 55.3 55.5 55.7
60.0
95 0.0 0.0 3.3 18.8 37.0 51.6 60.8 70.0 70.6 70.8 71.0 71.1
100 0.0 0.0 4.6 30.6 51.6 70.6 82.3 87.8 88.5 88.6 88.6 88.7
50.0 Model 15
Model 50
Land damage index thresholds Model 85
40.0
LSN Minor-Moderate 14 Number of CPTs <5 m (due to shallow gravel) filtered out of analysis, potential for overprediction. QPID- land damage breakdown based on aerial/ECAN data. CALIB1 50
LSN
30.0
CALIB1 85
LSN Moderate - Severe 40 Localised damage to the east, worst in September. ECAN damage observations suggest moderate levels of damage in September and then traces in February.
PGA_SHIFT1
Phsyical explanation of differences between model and observation 20.0 PGA_SHIFT2
September PGA
1. Mis s-prediction of event PGA.
Median model base CPT count 101 2. Event groundwater inaccuracies. 10.0 February PGA
Event specific model CPT count 118 3. Sys tematic over/under prediction of ca lculated severity, e.g. s ilty s oils, thick sand deposits. June PGA
Property observation count 16 4. LSN limits for s everity classes. 0.0 December PGA
5. LSN hypersensitivity to s hallow groundwater. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
6. Lateral s pread increasing ejecta. PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
Sep Feb Jun Dec Post-EQ 7. Bia s for CPTs to be located where damage occurred.
8. Sys temic overstating of observed land damage.
Minor to moderate 40% 20% 0% 0% 9. Extra polation of LDIV for June a nd December. SHIFT PGA
Moderate to severe 0% 0% 0% 0%
0.3
1 OK
PGA and GWD statistics 2 OK, but shallow.
0.2
Median GWD (per CPT) 1.22 1.69 1.66 1.62 1.58 3 2 m crust over interlayered silt/sand reaching gravel ~ 5 m. Justifies scaling model down.
Median PGA (per CPT), Mw6 equivalent 0.41 0.33 0.14 0.12 4 OK
0.1
Median GWD (by area) 0.28 0.69 0.73 0.67 5 Shallow groundwater, justifies scaling model down.
PGA_SHIFT (g)
Median PGA (by area), Mw6 equivalent 0.41 0.32 0.14 0.12 6 N/A
0
7 N/A 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 PGA Shift
8 N/A
9 N/A -0.1
Groundwater Comment -0.2
Shallower in September.
PGA Comment -0.3
0
MLO SEP.19
SILTY INTERLAYERED SOILS, CPT ANALYSIS OVER-PREDICTS DAMAGE
27-JUL-2020
Calibration Example 2: Silty interlayered soils, CPT analysis over-predicts damage
Sub-area ID = {6105AB10-D9BF-4E2D-84EA-A4CAD6DC2150}
factors such as silty interlayered soils, an intermediate gravel layer and model hypersensitivity due to shallow groundwater which provide a physical Calibration control point
explanation as to why the model over-predicts damage. Therefore the model was scaled down to a degree appropriate for these factors which Observed Ground Damage for Main Earthquakes
provided better agreement with the damage observed in the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes and the lack of damage observed in Sep-2010
the June 2011 and December 2011 earthquakes. Feb-2011
Jun-2011
Dec-2011
PGA value of 1st Model PGA Value
PGA value of 1st LSN_VAR1 2.9484 0.25 11.51325 6.1
LSN_SCALE1 0.25 20.12969 control point (g) CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
control point (g)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PGA value of 2nd 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 2.3 3.2 4.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
PGA value of 2nd LSN_VAR2 6.655097 0.4 22.08759 11.8
LSN_SCALE2 0.4 25.76844 control point (g) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 2.7 4.3 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.3
control point (g)
15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 2.9 4.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.2
LSN shift for 1st 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 2.0 3.7 5.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
LSN shift for 1st LSN_VAR_DIST1-85 -2 control point, 85th
LSN_SCALE_DIST1 -14 25 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.6 4.4 6.1 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
control point percentile 30 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.9 4.8 6.5 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9
LSN shift for 1st 35 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 3.1 5.1 6.9 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6
LSN shift for 2nd LSN_VAR_DIST1-15 0 control point, 15th
LSN_SCALE_DIST2 -14 40 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 3.4 5.5 7.0 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3
control point percentile 45 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 4.0 5.7 7.9 11.0 11.4 11.5 11.5 11.5
LSN shift for 2nd 50 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 4.3 6.1 8.6 11.8 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
LSN_VAR_DIST2-85 -5 control point, 85th 55 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 4.8 6.8 8.9 12.2 12.3 12.5 12.5 12.5
percentile 60 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 5.1 7.1 9.6 13.1 13.1 13.2 13.2 13.4
LSN shift for 2nd 65 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 5.5 7.3 10.1 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.7 13.7
percentile 75 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.2 6.1 8.4 11.1 15.3 15.6 15.7 15.7 15.7
80 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.7 6.6 9.1 12.0 16.1 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3
90 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.8 8.0 10.3 14.1 18.5 18.7 18.8 18.8 18.9
95 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.1 8.7 12.2 16.3 22.2 22.4 22.4 22.5 22.5
LSN_SCALE_VECTOR -70% -70% -70% -70% -70% -70% -64% -54% -54% -54% -54% -54% LSN_15_SCALE_VECTOR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.4 11.5 15.8 20.8 26.4 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6
LSN_85_SCALE VECTOR -37% -37% -37% -37% -37% -37% -41% -48% -48% -48% -48% -48% Distribution of liquefaction-induced ground damage response curves
Difference
Model PGA Value
CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
35 0 0 0 -0.21854 -1.31662 -4.3363 -6.12969 -8.60795 -11.7684 -11.8761 -11.8786 -11.8815 -11.8836
STEP 3 ADJUST VARIABILTIY 5 0 0 -0.20655 -0.98639 -3.31171 -3.80632 -5.45602 -6.98045 -6.71379 -6.68882 -6.6692 -6.6586
STEP 2 SCALE LSN
10 0 0 -0.19185 -0.97135 -3.12679 -3.38388 -4.35625 -5.80128 -5.87121 -5.64464 -5.58358 -5.58304
60.0 60.0
3015 0 0 -0.18048 -0.88856 -2.7085 -3.18129 -3.85819 -5.11334 -5.17745 -5.14645 -4.86391 -4.6732
CALIB2 15 20 0 0 -0.15736 -0.76114 -2.29115 -2.42625 -3.30446 -4.08092 -4.18004 -4.17598 -4.17369 -4.17173
50.0 CALIB1 15 50.0 CALIB2 50 25 0 0 -0.12983 -0.64547 -1.7286 -1.69434 -2.52966 -3.44145 -3.44212 -3.44159 -3.44428 -3.44601
CALIB1 50 CALIB2 85 2530 0 0 -0.10812 -0.51245 -1.48507 -1.34049 -2.13064 -3.0081 -3.01048 -2.99549 -2.98101 -2.96922
CALIB1 85 CALIB3 15 35 0 0 -0.09145 -0.45846 -1.19723 -0.99596 -1.73617 -2.20931 -2.30186 -2.29689 -2.29452 -2.29204
40.0 40.0
CALIB3 50 40 0 0 -0.07563 -0.39035 -0.91434 -0.64058 -1.58061 -1.50137 -1.585 -1.58568 -1.5862 -1.58623
CALIB2 15
45 0 0 -0.06583 -0.25954 -0.29739 -0.46008 -0.74146 -0.73489 -0.51772 -0.39685 -0.39195 -0.38949
LSN
CALIB3 85 20
CALIB2 50
LSN
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LSN
30.0 30.0
CALIB2 85 LSN_VAR1-15
55 0 0 0.042102 0.211916 0.695574 1.122496 0.518713 0.835809 0.758771 1.149936 1.182405 1.186411
15
60 0 0 0.111103 0.317093 1.224431 1.480276 1.722741 2.519894 2.452089 2.482548 2.505927 2.847482
20.0 20.0 LSN_VAR2-15
LSN_SCALE2 65 0 0 0.155727 0.759448 1.930845 1.918806 2.56887 3.373577 3.43169 3.442622 3.449389 3.454788
10.0 February PGA 10.0 September PGA
10
75 0 0 0.3 1.431526 2.797105 3.540807 4.176242 6.924127 7.290495 7.374403 7.442454 7.498586
June PGA February PGA 80 0 0 0.377575 2.277556 3.60833 4.793268 5.804502 8.490004 8.639113 8.639712 8.637563 8.635423
June PGA 85 0 0 0.404118 2.60381 4.891443 5.383562 6.6088 10.31915 10.40269 10.49807 10.49947 10.49997
0.0 December PGA 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 90 0 0 0.574197 3.994485 5.766494 6.676069 9.217171 13.04949 13.19687 13.3583 13.47714 13.57169
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 December PGA 5
[Mw6 Equivalent] PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
95 0 0 0.771275 4.406538 6.938038 9.594634 12.99047 20.20411 20.35254 20.45259 20.5302 20.59611
PGA (g)
100 0 0 1.178624 8.012434 11.36953 15.37093 20.62619 28.34779 28.52398 28.59089 28.5999 28.60913
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
SCALE LSN SCALE LSN VARIABILITY PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
100% 50%
80% 40%
60% 30%
40% 20%
LSN_SCALE (%)
10%
LSN_SCALE (%)
20%
0% 0% LSN 15 SCALE
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LSN SCALE 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LSN 85 SCALE
-20% -10%
-40% -20%
-60% -30%
-80% -40%
-100% -50%
MLO SEP.19
SILTY INTERLAYERED SOILS, CPT ANALYSIS OVER-PREDICTS DAMAGE
27-JUL-2020
Calibration Example 3: Shallow groundwater, CPT analysis over-predicts damage
Sub-area ID = {E7588B9F-D12B-410F-971C-04D487CA0FDF}
factors such as silty crust and model hypersensitivity due to shallow groundwater which provide a physical explanation as to why the model Calibration control point
over-predicts damage. Therefore the model was scaled down to a degree appropriate for these factors which provided better agreement with the Observed Ground Damage for Main Earthquakes
damage observed during the Canterbury earthquakes. Sep-2010
Feb-2011
Jun-2011
Dec-2011
Sub area {E7588B9F-D12B-410F-971C-04D487CA0FDF} Image Driver

_E7588B9FD12B410F971C04D487CA0FDF
Association ID 0
0
Polygons


PGA value of 1st
PGA_SHIFT1 0.16 3.53398
control point (g)
Pre-calibration HIGH PGA_SHIFT2 0.45 20.33774
PGA value of 2nd
control point (g)
Post-calibration MEDIUM Model PGA Value [Mw6 Equivalent]
PGA_SHIFT_DIST1 0
Design earthquake scenarios (Mw6 equivalent) 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 control point (g)
100-yr PGA 0.3 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.3 4.6 6.8 10.7 12.1 12.7 13.1 13.4
PGA shift for 2nd
500-yr PGA 0.52 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.0 6.9 9.9 13.0 15.2 15.9 16.4 16.7 PGA_SHIFT_DIST2 0
control point (g)
15 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 4.1 8.4 11.3 14.7 16.3 17.5 18.2 18.8
Metadata notes 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 4.8 9.2 12.0 15.3 16.8 18.1 18.7 19.2
Note - base info Swamp
Swampbasin
basingeomorph, good density of observations and CPT. 25 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 5.2 10.0 12.9 15.9 17.6 19.2 19.8 20.2
Note - uncertainties 0
Influence of shallow groundwater and silty crust. 30 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 5.9 10.8 13.6 16.5 18.4 19.7 20.6 21.1
Note - other 0
CPT-based liquefaction analysis appears to overpredict 35 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 6.5 11.5 14.3 16.9 18.9 20.2 21.4 22.0
compared to EQ observation. 40 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 7.3 12.1 14.7 17.6 19.6 21.1 22.0 22.7
45 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 7.9 12.5 14.9 18.7 20.9 21.8 22.9 23.5 MODEL_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
50 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.4 8.1 12.8 15.6 19.4 21.3 22.7 23.4 24.0
55 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.7 8.9 13.5 16.6 20.3 22.1 23.2 24.3 25.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.8 9.4 14.3 17.2 20.8 22.9 24.2 24.9 25.6
65 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.1 10.1 15.1 18.4 22.0 24.1 25.7 27.0 27.5
CALIB1_PGA_VECTOR 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
70 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.3 10.7 16.7 19.9 23.7 25.9 26.8 27.5 28.0
75 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.5 11.4 17.6 21.0 25.0 27.2 28.1 28.5 29.1
80 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.2 12.7 19.2 22.7 26.5 28.6 29.7 30.7 31.2
85 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.5 14.5 21.3 24.3 27.8 29.7 31.3 31.9 32.3
90 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.8 15.6 22.5 26.7 30.7 31.7 32.9 33.1 33.5
60.0
95 0.0 0.0 1.1 6.0 17.4 25.7 30.3 32.4 33.9 34.3 34.5 34.9
100 0.0 0.0 1.6 8.9 20.5 37.1 43.7 45.1 45.4 45.5 45.6 45.6 Model 15
50.0
Model 50
Land damage index thresholds 40.0
Model 85
LSN Minor-Moderate 14 Good QPID and CPT density. CPT response curves reasonably tight. CALIB1 50
LSN
30.0
CALIB1 85
LSN Moderate - Severe 40
PGA_SHIFT1
Phsyical explanation of differences between model and observation 20.0 PGA_SHIFT2
September PGA
1. Mis s-prediction of event PGA.
Median model base CPT count 194 2. Event groundwater inaccuracies. 10.0 February PGA
Event specific model CPT count 198 3. Sys tematic over/under prediction of ca lculated severity, e.g. s ilty s oils, thick sand deposits. June PGA
Property observation count 2413 4. LSN limits for s everity classes. 0.0 December PGA
5. LSN hypersensitivity to s hallow groundwater. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
6. Lateral s pread increasing ejecta. PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
Sep Feb Jun Dec Post-EQ 7. Bia s for CPTs to be located where damage occurred.
8. Sys temic overstating of observed land damage.
Minor to moderate 0% 68% 66% 35% 9. Extra polation of LDIV for June a nd December. SHIFT PGA
Moderate to severe 0% 4% 2% 0% 0.3
1 PGA model affected by nearby Heathcote station which showed high readings. Justifies shifting helpers left.
PGA and GWD statistics 2 Unlikely to be an issue except in June, pay attention to groundwater shift in this case.
0.2
Median GWD (per CPT) 0.89 0.77 0.59 0.82 0.98 3 Silty crust ~3-5m overlying MD sand - model potentially over predicts slightly, justifies scaling model down.
Median PGA (per CPT), Mw6 equivalent 0.30 0.60 0.35 0.24 4 N/A
0.1
Median GWD (by area) 0.91 0.79 0.70 0.88 5 GWD <1 m, potential hypersensitivity, partly explains overprediction, justifies scaling model down (esp June).
PGA_SHIFT (g)
Median PGA (by area), Mw6 equivalent 0.30 0.60 0.35 0.24 6 N/A
0
7 Bias from CPTs generally located in areas of damage - justifies scaling model down 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 PGA Shift
8 N/A
-0.1
9 Air photo suggests June and December damage overstated - justifies moving June/Dec helpers down.
-0.2
Groundwater Comment
Most events close to median except June which is 0.4 m higher.
PGA Comment -0.3
Varies 0.48-0.6 g across sub area (Mw6.2) in February. PGA model may overpredict 0.1-0.2 g.
MLO SEP.19
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER, CPT ANALYSIS OVER-PREDICTS DAMAGE
27-JUL-2020
Calibration Example 3: Shallow groundwater, CPT analysis over-predicts damage
Sub-area ID = {E7588B9F-D12B-410F-971C-04D487CA0FDF}
factors such as silty crust and model hypersensitivity due to shallow groundwater which provide a physical explanation as to why the model Calibration control point
over-predicts damage. Therefore the model was scaled down to a degree appropriate for these factors which provided better agreement with the Observed Ground Damage for Main Earthquakes
damage observed during the Canterbury earthquakes. Sep-2010
Feb-2011
Jun-2011
Dec-2011
PGA value of 1st PGA value of 1st Model PGA Value
LSN_SCALE1 0.2 8.142491 LSN_VAR1 2.593604 0.25 6.560165 4.0 CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PGA value of 2nd PGA value of 2nd 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.4 1.7 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7
LSN_SCALE2 0.5 21.25263 LSN_VAR2 8.621054 0.5 15.74357 11.3 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.1 3.0 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.5
15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.6 3.6 5.1 5.6 6.1 6.4 6.8
LSN shift for 1st 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 2.8 3.9 5.5 6.3 6.8 7.1 7.3
LSN shift for 1st
LSN_SCALE_DIST1 -6 LSN_VAR_DIST1-85 0 control point, 85th 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 3.1 4.3 5.9 7.1 8.0 8.3 8.4
control point
percentile 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 3.3 4.6 6.4 8.0 8.7 9.2 9.4
LSN shift for 1st 35 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.7 3.5 4.9 6.7 8.6 9.2 10.1 10.4
LSN shift for 2nd
LSN_SCALE_DIST2 -10 LSN_VAR_DIST1-15 0 control point, 15th 40 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.9 3.7 5.1 7.2 9.4 10.2 10.8 11.3
control point
percentile 45 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 2.1 3.8 5.2 8.0 10.9 11.0 11.8 12.2
LSN shift for 2nd 50 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 2.1 4.0 5.5 8.6 11.3 12.0 12.4 12.7
percentile 60 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.5 4.4 6.1 9.5 13.0 13.5 13.9 14.3
LSN shift for 2nd 65 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.7 4.7 6.7 10.3 14.1 15.0 16.0 16.2
LSN_VAR_DIST2-15 -3 control point, 15th 70 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 2.8 5.1 7.3 11.5 15.9 16.2 16.5 16.7
percentile 75 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 3.0 5.4 7.7 12.3 17.2 17.4 17.5 17.8
80 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 3.4 5.9 8.4 13.4 18.6 19.0 19.7 19.9
90 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 4.1 6.9 10.1 16.2 21.7 22.2 22.1 22.2
95 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 4.6 7.9 11.6 17.3 23.9 23.6 23.5 23.6
LSN_SCALE_VECTOR -74% -74% -74% -74% -74% -69% -65% -56% -47% -47% -47% -47% LSN_15_SCALE_VECTOR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -23% -68% -114% -114% -114% -114% 100 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.3 5.4 11.4 17.1 25.9 35.4 34.9 34.6 34.3
LSN_85_SCALE VECTOR 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 53% 89% 89% 89% 89% Distribution of liquefaction-induced ground damage response curves
Difference
Model PGA Value
CFD% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
35 0 0 -0.00526 -0.09257 -0.62672 -2.14249 -3.9502 -5.48706 -8.55942 -11.2526 -12.0063 -12.3866 -12.7061
STEP 2 SCALE LSN STEP 3 ADJUST VARIABILTIY 5 0 -0.00263 -0.08655 -0.45369 -1.52957 -2.52654 -3.08871 -3.85941 -4.8541 -5.28889 -5.46909 -5.63242
10 0 -0.00263 -0.08226 -0.38563 -1.35995 -1.82775 -2.00856 -2.80865 -3.18316 -3.59719 -3.72838 -3.85388
60.0 60.0
3015 0 -0.00263 -0.07249 -0.31464 -1.0604 -1.3566 -1.51001 -2.07885 -2.63158 -2.76629 -2.77662 -2.75046
CALIB2 15 20 0 -0.00263 -0.0644 -0.27787 -0.88576 -1.13294 -1.27022 -1.81435 -2.3325 -2.43283 -2.4746 -2.54117
50.0 CALIB1 15 50.0 CALIB2 50 25 0 -0.00263 -0.05382 -0.22416 -0.76589 -0.86214 -0.93393 -1.57262 -1.93927 -1.85915 -1.92288 -2.02791
CALIB1 50 CALIB2 85 2530 0 -0.00263 -0.04329 -0.177 -0.59041 -0.63825 -0.70561 -1.26891 -1.5195 -1.56651 -1.50309 -1.52501
CALIB1 85 CALIB3 15 35 0 -0.00263 -0.03254 -0.12232 -0.42914 -0.4069 -0.45759 -1.09521 -1.24224 -1.31958 -1.05527 -1.07037
40.0 40.0
CALIB2 15 CALIB3 50
40 0 -0.00263 -0.01988 -0.07128 -0.21448 -0.22357 -0.31557 -0.79812 -0.86553 -0.84917 -0.71966 -0.67931
2045 0 0 -0.0107 -0.02744 -0.05604 -0.10168 -0.22992 -0.33006 -0.17609 -0.47272 -0.27787 -0.25602
LSN
CALIB2 50 CALIB3 85
LSN
LSN
30.0 30.0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CALIB2 85 LSN_VAR1-15
55 0 0 0.011903 0.082779 0.20756 0.200298 0.359364 0.374974 0.438758 0.281399 0.470958 0.559955
15
60 0 0 0.024211 0.120729 0.329261 0.432547 0.551613 0.59128 0.897784 0.800002 0.815565 0.849806
20.0 LSN_SCALE2 20.0 LSN_VAR2-15 65 0 0 0.033399 0.177337 0.517427 0.706261 0.997193 1.139407 1.481825 1.588357 1.896104 1.851104
10.0 February PGA 10.0 September PGA 10
75 0 0 0.1 0.303884 0.845981 1.462657 1.904823 2.456436 3.157838 2.854719 2.716229 2.702774
June PGA February PGA 80 0 0 0.076848 0.476905 1.20848 1.962223 2.491473 3.126285 3.880731 3.694548 3.873342 3.82424
December PGA 85 0 0 0.101116 0.5548 1.662306 2.609961 3.062879 3.670827 4.490936 4.575162 4.517091 4.40026
0.0 0.0 June PGA
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 90 0 0 0.14269 0.647451 1.964212 2.975117 3.907113 4.958074 5.519799 5.395889 5.129546 5.007368
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 December PGA 5
PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent] [Mw6 Equivalent] 95 0 0 0.190407 0.962217 2.437851 3.959091 5.1583 5.701517 6.68587 6.156982 5.863486 5.77691
PGA (g)
100 0 0 0.325814 1.71885 3.262422 7.456861 9.874744 11.30637 12.79001 12.10356 11.74325 11.42565
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
SCALE LSN SCALE LSN VARIABILITY PGA (g) [Mw6 Equivalent]
100% 150%
80%
100%
60%
40%
50%
LSN_SCALE (%)
20%
LSN_SCALE (%)
0% 0% LSN 15 SCALE
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LSN SCALE
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LSN 85 SCALE
-20%
-40% -50%
-60%
-100%
-80%
-100% -150%
MLO SEP.19
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER, CPT ANALYSIS OVER-PREDICTS DAMAGE
27-JUL-2020
Applicability
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Christchurch City Council, with
respect to the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any
other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.
Recommendations and opinions in this report are based on data from primarily individual CPT and in
some cases borehole soundings. The nature and continuity of subsoil away from these locations is
inferred and it must be appreciated that the actual conditions could vary.
The analyses carried out represent probabilistic analyses of empirical liquefaction databases under
various earthquakes. Earthquakes are unique and impose different levels of shaking in different
directions on different sites. The results of the liquefaction susceptibility analyses and the estimates
of consequences presented within this document are based on regional seismic demand and
published analysis methods, but it is important to understand that the actual performance may vary
from that calculated.
This assessment has been made at a broad scale across the entire city, and is intended to
approximately describe the typical range of liquefaction vulnerability across neighbourhood-sized
areas. It is not intended to precisely describe liquefaction vulnerability at individual property scale.
This information is general in nature, and more detailed site-specific liquefaction assessment may be
required for some purposes (e.g. for design of building foundations).


CCC Appendices Liquefaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCC Appendices Liquefaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCC Appendices Liquefaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd July 2020

Title: Christchurch Liquefaction Vulnerability Study

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd July 2020

 Figure A1 – Summary of District Planning Zones

District Planning Zones

Residential new neighbourhood

All other residential

Rural urban fringe

All other rural

Burwood All other zones

Not assessed in this study, refer to Brackley (2012)

Upper Riccarton Central City

Ideal Level of Detail

Level A - Basic desktop assessment

Level C - Detailed area-wide asessment

Level D - Site-specific assessment

Level C (or Level B if Medium Liquefaction Vulnerabiltiy is confirmed)

Brackley (2012) damaging liquefaction unlikely

Upper Riccarton Central City

CPT Investigation Depth

Liquefaction assessment sub areas

Upper Riccarton Central City

Distance to Nearest CPT

225- 1000 m (Level B)

> 1000 m (Level A)

Upper Riccarton Central City

Brackley (2012) damaging liquefaction unlikely

Burwood Because there is less quantitative investigation

Upper Riccarton Central City

Current-day Median (2014 Model)

Brooklands Above ground

Upper Riccarton Central City

Upper Riccarton Central City

Worst Land Damage

Burwood "Worst" land damage taken as the greatest level of

Upper Riccarton Central City

Upper Riccarton Central City

Less Uncertainty in Ground Conditions

This aggregation recognised that liquefaction vulnerability

Upper Riccarton Central City

 Figure B1 - Comparison of land damage observations and model predictions

September 2010 Earthquake February 2011 Earthquake

(e) Model prediction (f) Model prediction

Less More Less More

NOTES: PROJECT No. 1000273 CLIENT CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

Sub areas assumed to have potential for lateral

Liquefaction assessment sub areas

Upper Riccarton Central City

Liquefaction Vulnerability Categories

Liquefaction Category is Undetermined

Liquefaction Damage is Possible

Very Low Liquefaction Vulnerability

Low Liquefaction Vulnerability

High Liquefaction Vulnerability

Burwood Study area

Upper Riccarton Central City

Level A - Basic desktop assessment

Level C - Detailed area-wide asessment

Level D - Site-specific assessment