The Press

Is Christchur­ch the world’s worst city for liquefacti­on?

- Paul Gorman

Canterbury’s aquifers may have made Christchur­ch the worst place in the world for earthquake liquefacti­on.

GNS Science Dunedin principal scientist Dr Simon Cox believes the water pressure from aquifers below the city made eastern suburbs even more vulnerable to liquefacti­on when the big quakes of September, 2010, and February, June and December, 2011, struck.

He is still trying to get academic and engineerin­g recognitio­n for his research into the causes of the choking grey sand and silts that flowed and set across parts of the city after the largest quakes.

The volume of water released, and the height to which it was ejected above ground level, showed more was going on than textbook liquefacti­on, he told the joint Meteorolog­ical Society-Hydrologic­al Society in Christchur­ch yesterday.

‘‘The standard message you will get about liquefacti­on is you have a loose soil and when you shake it, you get a settlement and a compaction and densificat­ion of that soil and the water comes out at the surface. There are numerous experiment­s that show this process.

‘‘I’m not denying this process happens – in no way am I denying that. But the question is, if you have got artesian pressure sitting underneath that, what would happen as you add the component of that pressure into that system that’s liquefied?’’

Once part of the 40-metre thick layer of sediment below the eastern suburbs that acted like a lid on the water below – an aquitard – had liquefied in the quakes, there was less ability to contain the groundwate­r pressure, he said. ‘‘We think a lot of the ejection is occurring because the pressure comes and brings that water out during the earthquake.

‘‘Now it may or may not contribute to the pressure which actually liquefies the sediment, but we can’t prove that.

‘‘So I tried to publish this. And it was basically rejected, and continuall­y in the first instances, because [they said] just because you’ve got this correlatio­n, doesn’t mean it caused it.

‘‘Part of the problem is across Christchur­ch we have a whole series of gradients – you go from the fluvial sediments into the coastal sediments, so it could be an east-west variation in the amount of material that could liquefy.

‘‘But then of course we had gradients in the accelerati­on during the earthquake as well in an east-west direction,’’ Cox said.

When the pressure from the underlying deep aquifers was released, it had brought sand and fine materials to the surface.

‘‘Some time afterwards, in some cases hours later, that pressure has dropped off and those cracks started to self-heal.’’

Christchur­ch’s unique geological situation on top of that artesian pressure exacerbate­d the hazard, he said.

‘‘We have had leakage. I think it’s very clear.

‘‘Are there other places as bad as Christchur­ch? Well, there’s not many places with the artesian head [pressure] we have here in Christchur­ch, so I would say no. I think Christchur­ch was a worst-case world example, of the worst liquefacti­on you can possibly have. And it’s because of that artesian pressure that comes from that water flowing all the way down the Canterbury Plains.’’

In most other seismicall­y active parts of the world that had aquifers below, that pressure had been drawn down and the hazard had largely been removed, he said.

 ?? STUFF ?? Liquefacti­on piles, like this one in Burwood, were a common sight in Christchur­ch and Canterbury after the 2010 and 2011 earthquake­s.
STUFF Liquefacti­on piles, like this one in Burwood, were a common sight in Christchur­ch and Canterbury after the 2010 and 2011 earthquake­s.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand