Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, Japan

LIQUEFACTION IMPACTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
IN THE 2010-2011 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKES
Misko CUBRINOVSKI1, Duncan HENDERSON2 and Brendon BRADLEY3
1

Professor, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, misko.cubrinovski@canterbury.ac.nz
2
Master Student, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, duncan.henderson@pg.canterbury.ac.nz
3
Lecturer, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, brendon.bradley@canterbury.ac.nz

ABSTRACT: In 2010 and 2011, the city of Christchurch (New Zealand) was hit by asequence of strong, local and devastating earthquakes. Widespread and very severeliquefaction affected many of the city suburbs and its central business district. This paper
summarizes the characteristics of liquefaction and discusses its impacts on residential
houses and buried pipe networks.
Key Words: Christchurch earthquake, earthquake damage, liquefaction, residentialbuildings, pipe networks

INTRODUCTION
In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch (New Zealand) and its
surroundings were hit by a series of strong earthquakes including six significant events, all generated
by local faults in proximity to the city: 4 September 2010 (Mw=7.1), 22 February 2011 (Mw=6.2), 13
June 2011 (Mw=5.3 and Mw=6.0) and 23 December 2011 (M=5.8 and (M=5.9) earthquakes. As shownin Figure 1, the causative faults of the earthquakes were very close to or within the city boundaries
thus generating very strong ground motions and causing tremendous damage throughout the city.
Christchurch is shown as a lighter colour area, and its Central Business District (CBD) is marked witha white square area in the figure. Note that the sequence of earthquakes started to the west of the cityand then propagated to the south, south-east and east of the city through a set of separate but
apparently interacting faults. Because of their strength and proximity to the city, the earthquakes
caused tremendous physical damage and impacts on the people, natural and built environments ofChristchurch. The 22 February 2011 earthquake was particularly devastating. The ground motions
generated by this earthquake were intense and in many parts of Christchurch substantially above theground motions used to design the buildings in Christchurch. The earthquake caused 182 fatalities,
collapse of two multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, collapse or partial collapse of many
unreinforced masonry structures including the historic Christchurch Cathedral. The Central BusinessDistrict (CBD) of Christchurch, which is the central heart of the city just east of Hagley Park, waspractically lost with majority of its 3,000 buildings being damaged beyond repair. Widespreadliquefaction in the suburbs of Christchurch, as well as rock falls and slope/cliff instabilities in the Port

811

Hills affected tens of thousands of residential buildings and properties, and shattered the lifelines andinfrastructure over approximately one third of the city area. The total economic loss caused by the
2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes is currently estimated to be in the range between 25 and 30
billion NZ dollars (or 15% to 18% of New Zealand’s GDP).
After each major earthquake, comprehensive field investigations and inspections were conducted
to document the liquefaction-induced land damage, lateral spreading displacements and their impacts
on buildings and infrastructure. In addition, the ground motions produced by the earthquakes wererecorded by approximately 15 strong motion stations within (close to) the city boundaries providing
and impressive wealth of data, records and observations of the performance of ground and various
types of structures during this unusual sequence of strong local earthquakes affecting a city.
This paper discusses the liquefaction in residential areas and focuses on its impacts on dwellings(residential houses) and potable water system in the Christchurch suburbs. The ground conditions ofChristchurch including the depositional history of soils, their composition, age and groundwater
regime are first discussed. Detailed liquefaction maps illustrating the extent and severity ofliquefaction across Christchurch triggered by the sequence of earthquakes including multiple episodesof severe re-liquefaction are next presented. Characteristic liquefaction-induced damage to residential
houses is then described focussing on the performance of typical house foundations in areas affectedby liquefaction. Liquefaction impacts on the potable water system of Christchurch is also briefly
summarized including correlation between the damage to the system, liquefaction severity, and theperformance of different pipe materials. Finally, the characteristics of Christchurch liquefaction and its
impacts on built environment are discussed in relation to the liquefaction-induced damage in Japan
during the 11 March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.

LOCAL GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITIONS
Christchurch is located on deep alluvial soils of the Canterbury Plains, except for its southern edge,
which is located on the slopes of the Port Hills of Banks Peninsula. The plains are built of complex
inter-layered soils deposited by eastward-flowing rivers from the Southern Alps into the Pacific ocean.

Waimakariri River
South Pacific
Ocean

Cross section
shown in Fig. 2
23DEC11

4SEP1022FEB11

13JUN11

Fig. 1 Causative faults of the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes (4 September 2010 earthquake, redline = trace of surface rupture, yellow lines = subsurface rupture; 22 February 2011 earthquake, orange
area = fault area projection; 13 June 2011 earthquakes, magenta area = fault area projection; 23
December 2011 earthquake, green line = general source area); the Central Business District (CBD) of
Christchurch is shown with the white square

812

The plains cover an area approximately 50 km wide by 160 km long, and consist of very thick soil
deposits. At Christchurch, surface postglacial sediments have a thickness between 15m and 40m andoverlie at least 300-500m thick sequence of gravel formations interbedded with sand, silt, clay andpeat layers. These inter-layered formations of gravels and fine-grained soils form a system of gravelaquifers, with artesian (elevated) groundwater pressures.
Originally the site of Christchurch was mainly swamp lying behind beach dune sand; estuaries andlagoons, and gravel, sand and silt of river channel and flood deposits of the coastal Waimakariri Riverfloodplain. Since European settlement in the 1850s, extensive drainage and infilling of swamps has
been undertaken (Brown and Weeber, 1992). The Waimakariri River regularly flooded Christchurchprior to stopbank construction and river realignment. The location of present day Waimakariri River isindicated in Figure 1. Canterbury has an abundant water supply through rivers, streams and very active
groundwater regime including rich aquifers. It is estimated that over 10,000 wells have been sunkwithin the Christchurch urban area since 1860s (Brown and Weeber, 1992). The dominant features ofpresent day Christchurch are the Avon and Heathcote rivers that originate from springs in western
Christchurch, meander through the city, and feed the estuary at the southeast end of the city. Relatively
recent but numerous episodes of flooding by the Waimakariri River, and reworking of soils by the
spring fed waters of Avon River and Heathcote River until they were channelized, particularly
influenced and characterized the present day surficial soils.
The shallow soils in Christchurch comprise alluvial gravels, sands and silts (in the western part ofChristchurch) or estuarine, lagoon, beach, dune, and coastal swamp deposits of sand, silt, clay, andpeat (in the eastern suburbs). These surface soils overlie the Riccarton Gravel, which is the uppermost
gravel of an older age (14,000 – 70,000 years old) and also the topmost aquifer with artesian pressures.
The thickness of the surface soils or depth to the Riccarton Gravel is indicated in Figure 2 along an
east-west cross section through the city. The thickness of the surface alluvial soils is smallest at thewest edge of the city (approximately 10 m thick) and increases towards the coast where the thicknessof the Christchurch formation reaches about 40 m.
As a consequence of the abundant water supply through open channels, aquifers and low-lying
land near the coastline, the groundwater level is relatively high across the city. The water table is about
5 m deep in the western suburbs, becoming progressively shallower eastwards, and approaching the
ground surface near the coastline, as indicated in Figure 2. To the east of CBD, generally the watertable is within 1.0 m to 1.5 m of the ground surface. Seasonal fluctuations of the groundwater level are
relatively small, within 0.5 m to 1.0 m.

CBD

Recentalluvial soils

Sea

Riccarton gravel

Fig. 2 General geologic profile of shallow Christchurch soils indicating thickness of recent alluvial
soils and water table depth along an east-west cross section (indicated in Figure 1)

813

Data on age of the soils based on radiocarbon dating of samples from the Christchurch area
presented by Brown and Weeber (1992) is plotted in Figure 3 correlating the depth of the soils beneaththe ground surface and their age. The shallow soils within the top 10 metres are less than 4000 years
old, and some are only few hundred years old, which makes them vulnerable to liquefaction.

0

Depth from ground surface (m)

5
10
15
20
25
30

Western suburbs
Christchurch

35

Eastern suburbs

40

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Age (years before present)

Fig. 3 Age of recent alluvial soils overlying the Riccarton Gravel expressed as a function of depth(based on radiocarbon ages of Christchurch soils samples reported by Brown and Weeber, 1992)

GROUND MOTIONS AND SEISMIC DEMAND SPECIFIC TO LIQUEFACTION
The 4 September 2010 Mw=7.1 Darfield earthquake was caused by a complex rupture of several fault
segments, the largest and nearest to Christchurch being on the Greendale fault (red line in Figure 1)
about 20 km west of the CBD. A maximum horizontal PGA of 0.24 g was recorded in the CBD, and
the PGA decreased generally with distance downstream along the Avon River. The Mw=6.2, 22
February 2011 Christchurch earthquake was less than 10 km from the CBD along the southeastern
perimeter of the city in the Port Hills (Figure 1). The close proximity of this event caused higher
intensity shaking in the CBD as compared to the Darfield earthquake. Several of the recordings
exhibited forward-directivity significant velocity pulses. In the CBD, horizontal PGAs of between
0.37 g and 0.52 g were recorded. The peak ground velocities produced by this earthquake were in therange between 30 cm/s and 70 cm/s. The recorded geometric mean peak ground accelerations (PGA)at two stations within the CBD (CBGS and REHS) and two in the northeast and east suburbs of thecity (NNBS and PRPC) are summarized in Table 1 for six major earthquakes producing highaccelerations (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011). The data show that in addition to the high PGAs during
the 22 February 2011 earthquake (PGA = 0.37-0.52 g), the CBD buildings were subjected tosignificant PGAs in the range of 0.16-0.27 g in five additional events. In the eastern suburbs, thePGAs reached 0.63-0.67g in the February earthquake and 0.08-0.34g in five additional events.
For the shallow part of a deposit, the variation in the recorded PGA values corresponds closelywith variations in the cyclic stress ratio (CSR, used in liquefaction evaluation). Magnitude scaling
factors can then be applied to adjust each calculated CSR value (for each earthquake event) to an
equivalent value for a reference Mw=7.5 earthquake (CSR7.5) as summarized in Table 1. For the CBDstrong motion stations, the highest adjusted CSR7.5 values of 0.14-0.22 were obtained for the Mw=6.2,
22 February 2011 earthquake, which were about 1.6 times the corresponding CSR-values from the814

Mw=7.1, 4 September 2010, Darfield earthquake. At many sites in Christchurch liquefaction
re-occurred during the subsequent earthquakes. In the CBD itself, only isolated areas liquefied duringmultiple events. Instead, widespread liquefaction occurred only in the CBD during the 22 February
2011 earthquake. In the eastern suburbs where repeated liquefaction occurred during multiple events,
the adjusted CSR7.5 values at the water table were in the range of 0.26-0.28 for the February event and0.06-0.12 for the other significant earthquakes listed in Table 1. In order to compare the seismic
demand specific to liquefaction between the Christchurch earthquakes and the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake, the PGA and CSR7.5 values recorded/computed at Urayasu are also listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Geometric mean horizontal Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) and Cyclic Stress Ratios
adjusted to 7.5 magnitude earthquake (CSR7.5) from strong motion records in Christchurch (for six
2010-2011 earthquakes) and Urayasu (for the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake)
Earthquake Magnitude

MSF

4SEP1022FEB11
13JUN11
13JUN11
23DEC11
23DEC11
11MAR11

1.15
1.56
2.40
1.77
1.93
1.85
0.65

7.1
6.2
5.3
6.0
5.8
5.9
9.0

CBGS-CBD

REHS-CBD

PGA

CSR7.5PGA

CSR7.5PGA

PRPC
CSR7.5PGA

NNBS
CSR7.5PGA

Urayasu
CSR7.5

0.16
0.50
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.21
-

0.09
0.21
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.07
-

0.25
0.52
0.19
0.26
0.20
0.25
-

0.14
0.22
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.09
-

0.21
0.63
0.30
0.34
0.29

0.12
0.26
0.08
0.12
0.10

0.21
0.67
0.24
0.20

0.12
0.28
0.06
0.07

-

-

-

-

0.14

0.14

PGA values as fraction of gravity (g); MSF = 102.24/M2.56 (Youd and Idriss, 2011); CSR7.5 = 0.65PGA/MSF

SOIL LIQUEFACTION IN THE 2010-2011 EARTHQUAKES
The 2010 – 2011 earthquakes caused repeated liquefaction through the suburbs of Christchurch and its
Central Business District. The liquefaction was very severe and widespread (covering nearly one thirdof the city area) causing extensive damage to residential houses/properties, commercial buildings,
lifelines and infrastructure. Figure 4 indicates areas within Christchurch that liquefied during the 4September 2010 earthquake (white contour/shaded area), 22 February 2011 earthquake (red =moderate to severe liquefaction; yellow = low to moderate liquefaction; magenta = moderateliquefaction predominantly on roads with some on properties; Cubrinovski and Taylor, 2011) and 13
June 2011 earthquakes (dark grey contours/shaded area; Cubrinovski and Hughes, 2011). The extent ofliquefaction in the 23 December 2011 earthquake was similar to that in the June 2011 earthquake (theDecember event map is currently in preparation). The repeated liquefaction was often quite severe andsome residents reported that the liquefaction severity increased in subsequent events.
The liquefaction was particularly extensive and damaging along the meandering loops of Avon
River, from the CBD to the estuary, where multiple episodes of severe liquefaction occurred during theearthquakes. In areas close to waterways (rivers, streams), the liquefaction was often accompanied bylateral spreading. The liquefaction caused tremendous damage to properties and lifelines in theresidential suburbs of Christchurch. Nearly 6,000 residential properties will be abandoned in the “redzone” along the Avon River (New Zealand Government, 2011) because the damage is beyond
economic repair, and it is estimated that an additional 15,000 properties were affected by liquefaction,
the majority of which otherwise sustained only minor to moderate damage directly due to inertial
loading from ground shaking.
The most severely affected by liquefaction were the suburbs along Avon River to the east of CBD(Avonside, Dallington, Avondale, Burwood and Bexley). The soils in these areas are predominantly
loose fluvial deposits of liquefiable clean and fines-containing sands, with fines content predominantlyin the range between 0% and 30%. Importantly, the fines are non-plastic silts. The top 5-6 m of thesoils are often in a very loose state, with CPT cone tip resistance (qc) of about 2-4 MPa (or an SPT
blow count of 4-8). The cone resistance typically increases to 7-10 MPa (approximately 14-20 SPT

815

blow counts) at depths between 6 m and 10 m, however lower resistances are often encountered inareas close to wetlands. Characteristic penetration resistance for these areas and those within CBD isshown in Figure 5. These areas are within the zone where very severe liquefaction occurred duringmultiple events.

Avon River

Fig. 4 Liquefaction maps indicating areas of observed liquefaction in the 4 September 2010 (white
contours), 22 February 2011 (red, yellow, magenta areas), and 13 June 2011 (black contours)
earthquakes; normalized cyclic stress ratios at water table depth, CSR7.5(wt), which were calculatedusing the recorded geometric mean peak ground accelerations and respective earthquake moment
magnitude are also shown (green symbols indicate strong motion stations where the 22 February 2011
produced the highest CSR7.5(wt) value whereas the 4 September 2010 earthquake produced the highest
CSR7.5(wt) value at the SMS depicted with blue symbols)

Fig. 5 Characteristic CPT resistance in areas of severe liquefaction (red area along Avon River and

816

CBD)
Figure 6 illustrates typical manifestation of severe liquefaction in the eastern suburbs ofChristchurch. There was widespread and very large in volume (thickness) sand/silt ejecta covering theresidential properties and streets in these suburbs. In numerous cases the entire area of the property
was covered by 50-60 cm thick silt/sand ejecta (Figure 6a), and massive in size sand boils (Figure 6b)
indicated very severe (and often extreme) liquefaction of loose to very loose soils highly susceptible toliquefaction. In the worst affected areas, extreme liquefaction with mud and water flooding entire
streets and adjacent properties and even larger neighborhoods encompassing several streets within asuburb. Following the 22 February 2011 earthquake, over 400 000 t of silt/sand ejecta was removed in
the clean up of streets and properties which indicates both the extreme severity and extent of theliquefaction. While the 22 February event caused in most cases the most severe liquefaction, acomplete flooding of streets and very severe liquefaction occurred in these areas also during otherearthquakes, as illustrated in Figures 6c and 6d where substantial sand boils and effects of liquefaction
are seen in Avonside and Avondale after the 13 June earthquakes.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 6 Severe liquefaction in residential areas (suburbs along Avon River in the abandoned “red zone”)

DAMAGE TO FOUNDATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSES
Christchurch has a population of about 350,000 (the second largest city in New Zealand) and an
urban area that covers approximately 450 km2. It is sparsely developed with approximately 150,000
dwellings, predominantly single-storey houses with a smaller number of two-storey houses spread
evenly throughout the city. Typical residential houses in Christchurch are light timber-frame structure817

with weatherboard (older buildings), unreinforced brick veneer and stucco used as exterior cladding.
Four different foundation types have been largely used in the Christchurch region for residentialbuildings, i.e. concrete slab on grade, timber floor with perimeter footing, piled foundations and more
recently rib-raft or waffle slab with inverted beams. The concrete slab on grade and the perimeterfooting (schematically shown in Figure 7) are the two prevalent foundation types covering probably
over 70%-80% of the housing stock in Christchurch. The slab on grade is unreinforced (except for the
thickened perimeter beam) approximately 100 mm thick concrete slab for one-storey houses, and it isreinforced by a relatively low capacity wire-mesh for two-storey houses. The slab rests on
un-compacted or poorly compacted gravel bed. The concrete perimeter foundations range fromunreinforced concrete filled with loose bricks (old construction) to (continuous) reinforced concrete
foundations (newer construction). As shown in Figure 7, the timber floor, which is elevated above theground, is supported along its edges by the perimeter footing and by uniformly spaced concrete/timber
supports (piers) across the floor area.
Approximately 20,000 houses were seriously affected by liquefaction, out of which more than
6,000 have been damaged beyond economic repair (in the abandoned areas suffering extensiveliquefaction). The worst damage to residential houses was inflicted in areas where severe lateral
spreading occurred, however, liquefaction on its own, even in the absence of lateral spreading, caused
extensive and often substantial damage beyond economic repair. Some typical damage patterns ofhouse foundations are schematically illustrated in Figure 8 (DBH, 2011).
The liquefaction often led to large global and differential settlements. In the worst cases, the total(global) settlement exceeded 40-50 cm. Differential settlement resulting in permanent tilt of houses
and often causing foundation and structural damage (Figure 9a) was the most common mode of
deformation for both foundation types. Concrete slabs suffered serious damage including wide cracks(Figure 9b), and non-uniform deformation such as dishing (sagging) and hogging. Figure 9c shows acharacteristic dishing of a newly constructed slab on grade which was affected by heavy liquefactionin the foundation soils. A number of different deformation modes could be identified for the perimeter

Fig. 7 Prevalent house foundation types in Christchurch: (a) concrete slab; (b) concrete perimeterfooting818

Fig. 8 Schematic plot of typical damage patterns for house foundations (DBH, 2011)
(c)

(b)

(a)
Cracks / wall
separation

Differential settlement /Tilt

Fig. 9 Observed typical liquefaction-damage to house foundations: (a) differential settlement resulting
in tilt and damage to house; (b) large crack in a concrete slab; (c) dishing of concrete slab on gradefooting foundations including humping of floors (often in individual rooms) due to larger settlement
beneath the heavier walls, dishing caused by heavy brick chimneys founded on isolated footings in theinterior of the floor plan, and racking/twisting of the superstructure caused by differential
settlement/movement of corners/parts of the foundation due to its inadequate stiffness.
In order to examine the performance of different foundation types, 160 house foundations were
inspected in detail (approximately 40 for each of the four foundation types distributed in areas ofdifferent liquefaction severity: none, low, moderate, severe and very severe liquefaction). In theinspections, land damage (liquefaction and lateral spreading severity in multiple earthquake events),
foundations damage (where detectable in visual inspections), estimates of differential settlements, tilt(based on measured floor elevations using precision altimeter with ± 1 mm accuracy and local tilt
measurements) and structural damage were documented. Some preliminary results for the slab on
grade and perimeter footing foundations are summarized in Figures 10 and 11 respectively.
Correlation between the slope of concrete slab foundations (a proxy for the tilt as well) andliquefaction severity (0=none, 1=low, 2=moderate, 3=severe, 4=very severe, extreme liquefaction) is
shown in Figure 10. Here, the maximum floor slope is shown based on approximately 15-20 floor
elevation measurements across the footprint of the building. The plot also indicates several recently
developed damage criteria in New Zealand (DBH, 2011) and Japanese practices (Yasuda et al., 2012)
based on experiences from the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes and 2011 Great East Japan
earthquake respectively. The shaded (yellow) area (1/300 to 1/150 slope) indicate the typical range ofslope found in newly constructed concrete floor slabs (the average slope between two points 2m apart),
DBH, 2011). In the DBH guidelines for repairing and rebuilding of houses affected by the
Christchurch earthquakes, differential settlement (floor slope) and cracks width have been adopted as
criteria to evaluate whether the foundation damage requires repair or not, as summarized in Table 2.
The 1/200 slope is also indicated in Figure 10, as a reference ‘no-damage’ threshold. It is interesting tonote that the new Japanese evaluation criteria for damage to houses (Yasuda et al., 2012) are defined
as: partial damage (1/100 to 1/60), substantial damage (1/60 to 1/20) and severe destruction (over 1/20
slope). It is apparent from Figure 10, that the measured slope of concrete slabs was clearly related tothe severity of liquefaction. In general, in areas of no/low liquefaction, the measured slope was within
the construction tolerance or allowable slope. In areas of moderate and particularly severe liquefaction,
however, the slope was often above the allowable threshold slope of 1/200. In several cases, the slope
exceeded the partial damage limit of 1/100 specified in the Japanese assessment criteria.
Table 2 ‘No Damage’ DBH Criteria (if satisfied, no repair is required for the foundation)
Foundation type
Slab on grade
andPerimeter footing

Settlement
Differential settlement < 50 mm, andfloor slope < 1/200 between any two points> 2 m apart

819

Lateral stretch

Crack width

Total cracks width< 20 mm

Maximum crack
width < 5 mm

Fig. 10 Correlation between liquefaction severity and measured slope of concrete slab foundations for
32 houses in Christchurch with reference to recent New Zealand and Japanese damage criteria

Fig. 11 Summary of damage to concrete perimeter foundations (49 inspected houses in Christchurch)
indicating percentage of foundations exceeding the DBH no-damage criteria listed in Table 2

The 49 inspected perimeter footing foundations were scrutinized against the DBH damage criteria
listed in Table 2. Since most of these foundations/houses were old (pre 1930, 1930-1959, 1960-1979)
and of poor quality (often without any reinforcement), they suffered very high proportion of damage:
82% had tilts exceeding 1/200, 25% had total width of cracks exceeding 20mm and 51% max width ofa single crack over 5mm. The damage for these foundations was poorly related to the liquefaction
severity, and 8 foundations showed damage greater than at least one of the criteria listed in Table 2
despite being located in areas of no liquefaction.

DAMAGE TO THE WATER SUPPLY NETWORK
Buried pipe networks suffered extensive liquefaction-induced damage in the 2010-2011 Christchurch
earthquakes. The wastewater system of Christchurch was hit particularly hard resulting in numerous
failures and reduction/loss of service to large areas. Out of the 1766 km long wastewater pipe network,820

142 km (8%) were out of service and 542 km (31%) were with limited service nearly one month after
the February earthquake. A significant part of the network was still out of service even three months
after the quake, and it is estimated that it will take at least two to three years to fully recover thesystem. Typical damage to the wastewater network included loss of grade in gravity pipes, breakage ofpipes/joints and infiltration of liquefied silt into pipes (often accompanied by depression ofcarriageways, undulation of road surface and relative movement of manholes), and failure of joints
and connections (particularly numerous failures of laterals). A number of pump stations were taken outof service and the wastewater treatment plant suffered serious damage and barely remained inoperation though with significantly diminished capacity.
The potable water system was proven to be much more resilient. Even though a large number ofbreaks/repairs have been reported, the water supply service was quickly restored. The Christchurch
water supply system is an integrated citywide network that sources high quality groundwater from
confined aquifers, and pumps the water into a distribution pipe network consisting of 1600 km ofwatermains and 2000 km of submains (CCC 2010). The water is supplied from approximately 150
wells at over 50 sites, 8 main storage reservoirs, 37 service reservoirs and 26 secondary pumping
stations. Watermains and submains are located almost exclusively within legal roads, at shallow depths,
usually at about 0.8m to 1.0m depth. About half of the watermains are asbestos cement (AC) pipes,
while polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes dominate the remaining portion of the watermains. The
submains network predominantly consists of polyethylene (PE) pipes (covering over 80% of the
network) whereas Galvanized Iron (GI) pipes are dominant in the remaining 20% of the network.
Figure 12 shows the location of repairs/faults on the watermains network (red symbols) following
the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Superimposed in the background of the figure (with red, orange andyellow colours) is the liquefaction map (Cubrinovski and Taylor, 2011) indicating the severity ofliquefaction (and associated land damage) induced by this earthquake. Preliminary GIS analyses(Cubrinovski et al., 2011) using the pipe network damage data and liquefaction observation maps
show a clear link between the damage to the pipe network and liquefaction severity. Approximately
58% of the damaged pipes were in areas of moderate to severe liquefaction, 20.2% were in areas of
low to moderate liquefaction, 2.5% in areas where traces of liquefaction were observed and 19.3% inareas where no signs of liquefaction were observed.

Fig. 12 Liquefaction map and locations of damage to the potable water network of mains (redsymbols) of Christchurch due to the 22 February 2011 earthquake (Cubrinovski et al., 2011)821

The analyses also revealed that PE pipes and PVC pipes suffered significantly less damage (three
to five times less on average) than AC, steel, GI and other material pipes. Figure 13 summarizes theperformance of different pipe materials (PVC, steel and AC pipes for the watermains; PE and GI pipes
for the submains) and clearly indicates the difference in the performance of different pipe materials
and the increase in the pipe network damage with increasing liquefaction severity.

Fig. 13 Summary of damage to water pipes due to the 22 February 2011 earthquake indicating
performance of different materials in relation to liquefaction severity: Water mains: (a) PVC, (b) Steel,(c) Asbestos Cement pipes; Submains: (d) PE, (e) Galvanized Iron pipes

DISCUSSION
There are many similarities but also important differences between the liquefaction and its impacts inthe 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. From a seismic
demand perspective both events are unusual in their own way. The Japan earthquake because of itsvery large magnitude and associated extreme duration of strong ground shaking including one verysignificant ‘aftershock’ following the main event, and in the Christchurch case, because of thesequence of at least six local earthquakes producing strong ground motions within the city boundaries.
This feature is well depicted in Figure 14 where records at a strong motion station in Christchurch(CBGS) are comparatively shown with the records at Urayasu obtained during the 2011 Great East
Japan Earthquake.
As shown in Table 1, when normalizing the seismic demand specific to liquefaction with respect
to a reference magnitude 7.5 earthquake, the cyclic stress ratios at Urayasu of about 0.14, is well
below the respective CSRs in Christchurch for the 22 February 2011 earthquake but is above the CSRs
for the other Christchurch earthquakes. The key difference is however that in Urayasu reclaimed soilsliquefied, whereas in Christchurch severe liquefaction was triggered in native soils in multiple events,
including earthquakes producing CSRs lower than those in Urayasu. This suggests that the native soils
in Christchurch have liquefaction resistance similar to that of reclaimed deposits despite being much822

older. It appears that at least several factors contributed to such low resistance of the Christchurch soils,
with the low in-situ density, unfavorable soil composition and absence of aging effects being the mostprominent factors. There is an interesting distinction in the time threshold for the aging effects, wheresoils 40 years or older showed greater resistance than more recent soils in Urayasu (Ishihara et al.,2011), whereas even several hundred years old deposits did not show an improved liquefaction
resistance in the Christchurch environment. The potential role of the aquifers in the Christchurchliquefaction needs also further scrutiny.
The liquefaction impacts on residential houses and pipe networks were generally similar, but again
different in details. Even for a single event and area (e.g. in Christchurch during the 22 February 2011
earthquake) there were significant differences in the manifestation and impacts of liquefaction due tospecific ground conditions and build environment (construction details, materials, age of construction,etc), hence, such variability in impacts between different events is to be expected. Further studies are
required to understand both the characteristics of liquefaction and details about its impacts on theperformance of buildings and pipe networks in order to enhance our liquefaction assessment
procedures and seismic design considerations.

CONCLUSIONS
Widespread and very severe liquefaction occurred in native soils in Christchurch during the sequenceof 2010-2011 earthquakes. While the 22 February earthquake was the most damaging, in many areas
along Avon River the soils liquefied in multiple events. The liquefied soils were loose to very loose

Fig. 14 Recorded acceleration time histories in Christchurch, New Zealand (records of 6 earthquakes
at CBGS from 4 September 2010 to 23 December 2011) and Urayasu, Japan (records from the main
shock and first larger aftershock in the 11 March 2011 earthquake)823

fluvial deposits of clean sand and fines-containing sands (with non-plastic silts). The high water tableand generated strong ground motions contributed to the extreme severity of the liquefaction and its
impacts on buildings and infrastructure. The very intense ground water regime of Christchurch andsupply of water through aquifers probably exacerbated the severity of liquefaction and its impacts onbuildings and infrastructure.
Nearly 20,000 residential houses and properties were damaged by liquefaction, over 6,000 ofwhich will be abandoned because they were damaged beyond economic repair. The liquefaction often
led to large global and differential settlements, and damage to house foundations. Both concrete slab
and particularly older perimeter foundations suffered substantial liquefaction-induced damage because
of inadequate stiffness, strength and liquefaction considerations in their design. There is a clear link
between the severity of liquefaction and observed damage to the potable water network with nearly
80% of the damaged pipes being in liquefied areas, and 50% in areas of moderate to severeliquefaction. Also, a significant difference in the performance of different pipe materials was found,with the PE and PVC pipes showing much better performance than pipes of other materials. The
Christchurch experience clearly shows that special considerations should be given to an improved
design of the waste water system, which is more vulnerable to liquefaction and more difficult torecover/repair due its large depth of embedment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Part of this study was funded by the Natural Hazard Research Platform (NHRP), New Zealand. The
authors would also like to acknowledge the financial support from the University of Canterbury and
the New Zealand Earthquake Commission (EQC) in the reconnaissance efforts following theChristchurch earthquakes.

REFERENCES
Bradley, B.A. and M. Cubrinovski (2011). “Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22
February 2011 Christchurch earthquake.” Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 82, No. 6, 853-865.
Brown L.J. and Weeber J.H. (1992). “Geology of the Christchurch Urban Area.” Institute ofGeological and Nuclear Sciences, p.103.
DBH (Department of Building and Housing) (2011). “Revised guidance on repairing and rebuilding
houses affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence.” p.137.
Christchurch City Council (2010). Construction Standard Specification, Part 4: Water Supply, p. 59.
Cubrinovski M, Hughes M, Bradley B, McCahon I, McDonald Y, Simpson H, Cameron R, Christison
M, Henderson B, Orense R and O’Rourke T. (2011). “Liquefaction impacts on pipe networks.”
Recovery Project No. 6, Natural Hazards Research Platform, University of Canterbury, p.149.
Cubrinovski M, Taylor M 2011. “Liquefaction map of Christchurch based on drive-throughreconnaissance after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.” University of Canterbury.
Cubrinovski M, Hughes M 2011. “Liquefaction map of Christchurch based on drive-throughreconnaissance after the 13 June 2011 earthquake.” University of Canterbury.
Ishihara, K., Araki K. and Bradley, B. (2011). “Characteristics of liquefaction-induced damage in the2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.” Int. Conf. on Geotechnics for Sustainable Development Geotec, Hanoi, Vietnam. p.22.
New Zealand Government (2011). http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-outlines-next- stepspeople-canterbury. Last accessed 18 July 2011.
Yasuda, S., Harada, K., Ishikawa, K. and Kanemaru, Y. (2012). “Characteristics of liquefaction inTokyo bay Area by the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Soils and Foundations (under review).
Youd T.L. and Idriss I.M. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, 817-833

824