Liquefaction Vulnerability Map for Gisborne

REPORT
Liquefaction Vulnerability
and Geotechnical Assessment
Guidance for Gisborne
District Council
Prepared for:
Gisborne District Council

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, Auckland 1023 p. +64
355 6000 www.tonkin.co.nz
Distribution:
Tonkin
Taylor Ltd (FILE)
copies
Table of contents
1
Introduction
1.1 Scope
4
4
Geology, geomorphology and groundwater

2.1 Poverty Bay Flats
2.2 Sponge Bay and Wainui
6
6
7
3
4
Liquefaction description
Gisborne seismicity
4.1 General
4.2 Seismic Hazard
4.3 Recent liquefaction observations (2007 Gisborne Earthquake)
9
10
10
11
12
Sub-regional liquefaction vulnerability assessment

5.1 Existing ground investigation data
5.2 Methodology summary
5.2.1
Review of existing ground investigation data
5.2.2
Liquefaction analyses using existing CPT data
5.3 Typical land damage observations and photographs
5.4 Liquefaction hazard mapping
5.5 Data reliability
Geotechnical assessment guidance
6.1 Low level geotechnical assessment
6.2 Moderate and high level geotechnical assessments
6.3 Canterbury approach to liquefaction investigations and assessment
14
14
15
15
16
17
18
20
22
22
22
23
7
8
Mitigation
Suggested further study
8.1 Development of geotechnical assessment criteria for land vulnerability categories
8.2 Lateral spread consideration
8.3 Groundwater model refinement
24
25
25
25
25
9
10
11
Conclusions
Limitations
Applicability
26
27
28
12
Bibliography
29
Appendix A :
Appendix B :
Liquefaction hazard assessment methodology and CPT triggering analysis

output
Appendix C :
Typical photographs of land damage
Liquefaction Vulnerability and Geotechnical Assessment Guidance for Gisborne District Council
Job No: 30214.v1

May 2015
Executive summary
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) has been engaged by Gisborne District Council (GDC) to undertake a
sub-regional assessment of liquefaction vulnerability in Gisborne. This report describes the
geotechnical assessment and analyses used to categorise and map liquefaction vulnerability
across Gisborne City, Poverty Bay Flats, Sponge Bay and Wainui.
The primary aim of this study is to provide GDC with a sub-regional assessment and map of land
vulnerability to liquefaction. This information will assist GDC to better understand the hazard and
appropriate responses, including determining appropriate site specific levels of geotechnical
assessment. By ensuring appropriate geotechnical assessment is undertaken in accordance with
the relevant mapped vulnerability, Council will be better able to implement building controls to
develop greater resilience to liquefaction damage in the Gisborne community. A proactive
approach to build resilience prior to a large earthquake event will help to avoid some of the
liquefaction related damage observed during the recent Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (2010
2011).
Liquefaction is one of a number of natural hazards that can be caused by earthquakes. The
Gisborne region is more likely to experience a large earthquake and associated liquefaction than
many other areas in New Zealand due to the close proximity of the Hikurangi subduction margin
located immediately off the coast. Liquefaction can cause ground surface subsidence due to
volumetric densification, the ejection of fluidised sand, topographic re-levelling and lateral
spreading, resulting in damage to buildings and infrastructure.
The majority of the study area comprises the Poverty Bay Flats from Gisborne City inland to Te
Karaka. This area is characterised by steep hills surrounding a low lying alluvial plain underlain by
soft sediments. The flat land at Sponge Bay to the east of Gisborne also comprises loose alluvial
deposits. These geologically young, Holocene (10,000 years till present) deposits are much more
likely to liquefy than older more consolidated deposits.
The study area has been mapped as one of three land vulnerability categories as shown in Table
E1.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
2
Table E1: Land vulnerability categories for mapping
Land
vulnerability
category1
Colour
Simplified
land damage
category
Low
Yellow
None to minor
No observed cracks, undulations/deformations at

the ground surface
No signs of ejected material at the ground surface
No apparent lateral movement
No apparent differential settlement
Moderate
Orange
Minor to
moderate
Minor cracking (typically <50mm), buckling and

undulations at the ground surface
Minor to moderate quantities of ejected liquefied
material at the ground surface (typically <25% of site
covered with ejected material)
Differential settlement of buildings causing minor to
moderate structural damage
High
Red
Moderate to
severe
Moderate to large cracks with horizontal and vertical

displacement (>50mm), buckling and undulations at
the ground surface
Large quantities of ejected liquefied material at the
ground surface (typically >25% of site covered with
ejected material)
Noticeable ground surface subsidence
Lateral spreading
Significant total and differential settlement of
buildings causing structural damage
Typical land damage and consequent building

performance2
1. For 500 year return period levels of earthquake shaking

2. The land and building damage outlined for each land vulnerability category represents the typical likely behaviour of
flat land and light residential dwellings only. Land damage for a particular site may vary due to natural variations and
many other factors which effect site performance. Building damage could vary significantly from the typical description
as the extent of damage will depend on many building specific variables including the type and shape of the building
and foundation stiffness.
The liquefaction hazard map prepared during this study is shown in Figure E-1. A digital copy (GIS
shapefile) of the map accompanies this report.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
Figure E-1: The liquefaction vulnerability map prepared for the study area
(also shown enlarged as Figure 5-2)
Limitations
The liquefaction assessment undertaken has been mapped at a sub-regional scale and is not to be
viewed at scales more detailed than 1:10,000 in urban areas and 1:25,000 in rural areas. A GIS
shapefile has been developed primarily based on information obtained from, and analysis of,
existing geotechnical investigation data, observations from the 2007 Gisborne earthquake and
LiDAR survey derived topography mapped onto a digital aerial photograph base. No liability
beyond the client (GDC) is accepted for any of the information presented, as the information
provided is only an indication of where potential liquefaction induced land damage at the ground
surface may occur at the level of earthquake shaking considered. The vulnerability map would be
different for smaller or larger and associated levels of earthquake shaking. It would also be
different if climate change effects on groundwater levels was considered.
The map should not be used as a replacement for a site-specific liquefaction assessment of a
property. Appropriate geotechnical investigations and an assessment at a property-scale which
considers the site topography, geology and depth to groundwater may in some cases indicate that
the site can be categorised differently from that shown on the vulnerability map. It must also be
appreciated that a site can range from low vulnerability land though to high vulnerability
depending upon the property size, topography and underlying geology and the level of
earthquake shaking for which the liquefaction is being considered. Properties that straddle two
categories shown on the map should be investigated based on the higher vulnerability category.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
Introduction
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) has been engaged by Gisborne District Council (GDC) to undertake a
sub-regional assessment of liquefaction and to prepare a liquefaction vulnerability map for
Gisborne City, Poverty Bay Flats and the flat land at Sponge Bay and Wainui. This work has been
carried out to assist GDC to better understand the hazard and appropriate responses, including
determining appropriate site specific levels of geotechnical assessment.
The Gisborne region is subject to significant seismic activity due to the close proximity of the
Hikurangi subduction margin off the east coast of New Zealand. Liquefaction is one of a number
of natural hazards that can be caused by a large earthquake and it occurs when loose saturated
soils lose strength and stiffness in response to an applied cyclic loading from such as earthquake
shaking.
Liquefaction damage during future earthquakes depends on the earthquake magnitude and
ground accelerations. This sub-regional level assessment of liquefaction vulnerability has been
assessed for a large earthquake. The vulnerability map would be different for smaller or larger
levels of earthquake shaking.
This report describes the geology and seismicity of the study area and the sub-regional
liquefaction assessment undertaken to develop the liquefaction vulnerability map.
1.1
Scope
The boundary of the study area is shown in Figure 1-1 and generally follows the base of the
steeply sloping hill country surrounding the Poverty Bay Flats. Mapping has been carried out at a
scale of 1:10,000 for the existing urban area (Tiles F and G) and 1:25,000 for the surrounding more
rural areas (Tiles A to E). The tiles shown on Figure 1-1 represent A2 size sheets at the above
mapping scales. The regional liquefaction assessment included the following:
Review of aerial photography, existing liquefaction hazard maps and published geology
Review of selected published papers about Gisborne geology, geomorphology and
seismicity
Review of published topography maps and bare earth digital elevation model (DEM)
derived from LiDAR survey data supplied by GDC
Review of observations and available reports prepared at the time of the 2007 Gisborne
Earthquake
Sourcing and collating various existing ground investigation data within the study area
(boreholes, CPTs, penetrometer tests) held on T&T and Land Development and Exploration
Ltd (LDE) job files into a database containing over 1,200 investigations
Review of subsurface information in the database to characterise ground conditions (e.g.
soil type, depth to groundwater, etc.)
Upload of available cone penetrometer test (CPT) raw data to the T&T database
Assessment of the likelihood of liquefaction induced land damage at the ground surface for
each investigation point in the database
Analysis of CPT data to calculate internationally recognised quantitative measures of
liquefaction induced land damage. Liquefaction vulnerability parameters calculated include;
the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN), calculated settlement (SVID) and the cumulative
thickness of liquefiable material (CTL) at each CPT location for a range of peak ground
accelerations including Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS) at
magnitude 7.5.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
5
A GIS map was set up for the project with layers including; aerial photography, geological
maps, LiDAR DEM contours, depth to groundwater, and liquefaction vulnerability estimates
from review of existing ground investigation data including map layers showing calculated
LSN, SVID and CTL
All of the above map layers were reviewed at a workshop attended by senior staff of T&T
and LDE, to ensure the project benefited from local knowledge and ground investigation
data held on LDE files. Assimilation and review of information on maps was carried out at
the workshop and liquefaction vulnerability map boundaries were determined
Preparation of this report
Preparation of an accompanying GIS shapefile (digital copy) of the map for use by GDC in
their GIS system
Figure 1-1: An overview of the study area showing the study boundary and tiles representing an A2 sheet
at the scales used for mapping (1:10,000 for urban areas tiles and and 1:25,000 for rural areas
Tiles to E)
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
Geology, geomorphology and groundwater
The geomorphology, structure and seismicity of the Gisborne region is controlled by subduction
of the Pacific plate beneath the Australian plate at the Hikurangi subduction margin off the east
coast of New Zealand.
2.1
Poverty Bay Flats
The majority of the study area comprises the Poverty Bay Flats from Gisborne/Poverty Bay inland
to Te Karaka. This area is characterised by steep hills surrounding a low lying alluvial plain. The
Waipaoa River flows through the Poverty Bay Flats, reaching the ocean near the southern end of
Poverty Bay.
Figure 2-1: photograph of the Poverty Bay Flats and the surrounding hill country looking west over the
city of Gisborne with the Taruheru river in the foreground (source: Design Arts 2010, Gisborne)
The Holocene (10,000 years ago up to the present) stratigraphy of the Poverty Bay Flats generally
comprises fluvial and beach deposits. Fluvial deposits up to 200m thick consist of flood plain
silts/mud, river channel gravels and sand deposited as the Waipaoa River migrated across the
coastal plain. Estuarine or shallow marine mud and sand is present in localised areas to significant
depths. Accumulation of fluvial deposits over the Waipaoa coastal plain occurred behind a
migrating sandy shore face and has fed the pro-gradation of the shoreline at Poverty Bay over
12km to reach its present position. Paleo-shorelines indicate an initial rapid shoreline migration
(3m/year for the period 7,000 to 5,000 years ago) has been followed by a period of slower
migration (2,000 years ago to the present) (M.A. Wolinsky, 2010).
Historically the Waipaoa River migrated broadly over the Poverty flats. Pullar and Penhale (1970)
note that around 3,500 years ago the lower river followed a similar alignment to the present day
Taruheru River (Figure 2-2A) with the river mouth located at the north eastern end of the present
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
7
day beach shoreline. The Te Arai river was separate from the Waipaoa and flowed south with the
river mouth located close to the south eastern end of the modern beach near Muriwai. Since
3.5ka, the Waipaoa migrated west to reach its present position around 1888 and the Te Arai River
is now a tributary to the lower Waipaoa.
Upland erosion due to deforestation has driven rapid floodplain aggradation around the modern
Waipaoa River. Large floods historically inundated the flats but the river is now relatively fixed as
it is contained by engineered levees (Gomez et al., 1998).
Sandy beach deposits are generally interbedded in the fluvial deposits and are associated with
historic transgression and regression of the shoreline. The maximum inland transgression is
considered to have occurred at the same time as sea levels peaked around 7,000 years ago
(Brown, 1995). Figure 2-2B shows a reconstruction of the prograding shoreline from 7,000 years
ago to present.
Tilting and differential movement of the more persistent deposits observed in borehole
stratigraphy indicates significant historic tectonic deformation, with most of the Poverty Bay Flats
having undergone subsidence (Wolinsky et al. 2010).
Groundwater levels across the Poverty Bay Flats are typically shallow and can be within 1m of the
ground surface following heavy rainfall and during the wetter months of the year.
Figure 2-2: A) Locations of the present day rivers on the Poverty Bay Flats. B) Reconstruction of the
Poverty Bay shoreline progradation from 7000 years ago to present (Source: M.A. Wolinsky et al.)
2.2
Sponge Bay and Wainui
Residential development has taken place at Sponge Bay and Wainui to the east of Gisborne.
Published geological maps indicate that the low lying flat land located inland of the coast at
Sponge Bay comprises Holocene (10,000 years ago till present) silt, sand and gravel river deposits.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
8
Elevated land nearer the coast comprises sandstone and mudstone sedimentary rock with some
allochthonous Melange.
Wainui beach has a narrow strip of gently sloping land along the shoreline which is generally
underlain by sandy beach deposits. Steeply sloping sandstone hill country is located immediately
west of the shoreline with State Highway 35 and existing residential dwellings located near the
coast at the base of the steep slopes.
Groundwater is typically at a shallow depth in the low lying areas at Sponge Bay and near the
coast at Wainui.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
Liquefaction occurs when saturated non-cohesive soils lose strength and stiffness in response to
an applied cyclic loading form earthquake shaking. Liquefaction can cause damage to land,
buildings and infrastructure. Only some soil types are susceptible to liquefaction and only some
earthquakes are strong enough to trigger liquefaction. Geotechnical investigations and
assessment can estimate the likelihood of liquefaction occurring and its potential consequence for
different structures at a specific site.
A large earthquake in Gisborne is likely to be associated with displacement of the Hikurangi fault.
It is expected that such an event could cause widespread liquefaction of the loose to medium
dense sands underlying much of Gisborne. In a large event even dense sands can liquefy. Where
the depth to the groundwater is shallow, those soil layers can liquefy. Where the non-liquefying
crust is thin, water and soil could make its way to the ground surface via the path of least
resistance (i.e. through defects in the crust), depositing it on the ground surface as sand and silt
ejecta. Likewise, man-made structures such as power poles can rock back and forth during an
earthquake creating weaknesses in the non-liquefying crust creating ejecta pathways. Pore water
pressures generated from liquefaction can result in uplift of underground services, further
creating ejecta pathways.
In areas near streams, lateral movements can occur causing cracking and land deformations.
Where sand or silt is ejected to the ground surface, differential settlement often occurs.
Liquefaction can also result in the punching failure of some buildings (i.e. they appear to sink into
the ground). In general, liquefaction can cause the ground to subside often differentially. Roads
and services can suffer significant damage. The extent of liquefaction induced damage will
ultimately depend on the intensity and duration of shaking imposed by the earthquake, soil and
topographic conditions locally at the site and also the depth to groundwater.
Further detail on the process and effects of liquefaction are given in Appendix A.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
10
Gisborne seismicity
4.1
General
The following historic earthquakes have caused minor to major damage in the Gisborne region:
Table 4.1: Historic earthquakes causing damage in Gisborne
Date
Location
Magnitude (Mw)
February 1931
Hawke's Bay earthquake (Napier)
7.8
September 1932
Wairoa
6.9
March and May 1947
Gisborne
6.9-7.1
March, 1966
Gisborne
5.6
March 1976
South of Wairoa
5.4
April 1979
Central Hawkes Bay
5.1
March 1984
Raukumara Peninsula
6.4
November 1989
Gisborne
5.0
August 1993
Ormond
6.3
March 1996
Offshore Poverty Bay
6.0
December 2007
Gisborne
6.6
GDC commissioned a review of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Gisborne to
estimate ground shaking intensity likely to be experienced for certain return periods. The
Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale is a seismic scale used for measuring the intensity of
earthquake shaking. It is a measure of the felt level of shaking which is different to the Magnitude
(Mw) of an earthquake, which is a measure of the energy released. A high energy earthquake at a
great depth, which is located far away from the respective property and which is not felt at the
ground surface will have a low MM value. Conversely a very shallow earthquake of lesser energy
which causes intense shaking at the ground surface has a high MM. The MM estimates developed
from the NSHM shown on Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Ground shaking intensity estimates for Gisborne (Source: Pondard, 2012)
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
11
Figure 4-1 shows that when averaged over many years, Gisborne is likely to experience an
earthquake having an MM intensity up to 9 in every 500 years and up to 10 every 2500 years
(subject to local site conditions). An earthquake having MM up to 8 can be expected to cause
widespread liquefaction induced damage with sand boils and water ejection on alluvial plains
(such as the Poverty Bay Flats) causing differential settlement, lateral spreading and topographic
re-levelling. An earthquake with MM up to 10 is expected to cause widespread and severe
liquefaction induced damage with numerous sand boils and water ejection at the ground surface.
The NSHM review states that smaller (MM 6 and 7) earthquakes are estimated to occur every 9
and 35 years respectively and could be expected to result in a few instances of liquefaction
expression at the ground surface (small water and sand ejections) on alluvial plains. This is
generally consistent with observations made following the 2007 Gisborne Earthquake which had
MM intensities ranging from MM8 near Gisborne to MM3 further afield (discussed further in
Section 4.3).
4.2
Seismic Hazard
The National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for New Zealand estimates the magnitude of
potential seismic shaking that could be generated by movement along various faults (both
mapped and unmapped) across New Zealand. This model was recently updated in 2010 to
incorporate over 200 new onshore and offshore fault sources and eleven years of seismicity data
collected since the earlier NSHM developed in 2000 (Stirling et al., 2012).
The peak ground acceleration caused by an earthquake is a measure of ground acceleration
(shaking) expressed in g, the acceleration due to the earths gravity (1g=9.81m/s2). PGA can be
measured by instruments during an earthquake and will vary depending upon the nature of the
underlying ground. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) caused by earthquake shaking is one of
the measures of seismic hazard estimated by the NSHM. The PGA generated by the model varies
depending upon the return period being considered as this alters the probability of exceedance
within a given timeframe. For example, a 475 year return period represents a 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years while a 2500 year return period represents a 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years. Figure 4-2 shows the peak ground acceleration estimated by the NSHM for the 475
and 2500 year return periods for shallow soil sites throughout New Zealand and indicates the
relatively high seismic hazard present in the Gisborne region.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
12
Figure 4-2: Seismic hazard map of peak ground acceleration for return period of 475 and 2500 year
return periods (10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) for shallow soil sites
The NSHM is used to estimate seismic loadings for the design of structures in in accordance with
NZS 1170 Part 5:2004 Earthquake actions New Zealand in order that structures comply or
exceed specified operational and life safety performance objectives.
This sub-regional assessment of liquefaction vulnerability has been assessed at a 500 year return
period level of earthquake shaking. The vulnerability map would look different for smaller or
larger levels of seismic shaking. A 500 year return period level of earthquake shaking has been
adopted as it is also the return period used to derive seismic loading for Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
design of residential buildings in accordance with NZS 1170 Part 5:2004 Earthquake actions New
Zealand, which considers a 7.5 magnitude (Mw) earthquake. For residential dwellings in Gisborne
this corresponds to a PGA of 0.48g for shallow soil sites and 0.4g for deep soil sites.
Accordingly, the vulnerability map and associated land damage categories show what liquefaction
damage could look like for a large earthquake. Targeting a 500 year return period of earthquake
shaking also allows GDC to assess the relative vulnerability of existing and proposed residential
dwellings with respect to the life safety performance objectives of NZS1170.5:2004. This objective
at ULS shaking is that while the building may sustain significant damage, occupants must be able
to safely evacuate the building.
The 2007 Gisborne Earthquake was the third time since 1966 that Gisborne City has experienced
recorded peak ground accelerations exceeding 0.25g (Francois-Holden et al., 2008). Ground
damage observations are discussed in Section 4.3.
4.3
Recent liquefaction observations (2007 Gisborne Earthquake)
The 6.6 magnitude Gisborne Earthquake occurred on Thursday 20 December 2007 at 8.55pm with
shaking lasting 32 seconds. The earthquake was located 50km southeast of Gisborne at a depth of
44km. Measured PGAs exceeded 0.1g at three locations as follows: Central Business District of
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
13
Gisborne City (0.28g), near the middle of the Poverty Bay Flats approximately 10km northwest of
Gisborne (0.19g) and Tolaga Bay (0.18g). Shaking intensities on the Modified Mercalli scale ranged
from MM8 near Gisborne to MM3 further afield (Francois-Holden et al., 2008).
Ground, building and infrastructure damage occurred as a result of the earthquake. Earthquake
related ground damage observed following the earthquake included: landslips, lateral spreading,
mud volcanos and sand ejecta at the ground surface (sand boils) as a result of liquefaction of the
underlying soils.
The photographs below show sand boils observed on the Poverty Bay Flats following the 2007
earthquake. The sand boils were located around 1.5km inland from the mouth of the Waipaoa
River. Liquefaction and associated sand boils such as these can cause damage to buildings.
Stronger and/or more prolonged seismic shaking could result in more significant land and building
damage due to liquefaction.
Figure 4-3: Liquefaction observed near the Waipaoa River during the 2007 Gisborne Earthquake (source:
Mr Derek Birks 2007)
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
14
Sub-regional liquefaction vulnerability assessment
The sub-regional liquefaction hazard assessment undertaken has drawn on a number of

information sources, observations and analyses to develop a vulnerability map using engineering
judgement. The following sections describe the assessment methodology including the data
sources used and the analyses undertaken to inform that engineering judgement.
5.1
Existing ground investigation data
This study has included sourcing and collating existing ground investigation data within the study
area (machine boreholes, CPTs, handaugers and Scala penetrometer tests) held on T&T and LDE
job files into a database of over 1,200 geotechnical investigations.
Table 5.1 provides a summary of the existing ground investigations reviewed as part of this study
and Figure 5-1 shows the investigation locations.
Table 5.1: Investigation data analyses as part of the liquefaction study
Investigation method
Number of investigations
Machine Boreholes
62
Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT)
430
Handauger boreholes and Scala penetrometer tests
725
Figure 5-1: Map showing the locations of the existing investigations
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
15
5.2
Methodology summary
Resistance of a soil to liquefaction is dependent on a combination of various soil properties and

shaking intensities. Taking into account all of these factors during a regional wide hazard
assessment is neither feasible nor practical. Accordingly, liquefaction hazard mapping can be
undertaken using one of a number of simplified methodologies.
Generally, the most basic method of mapping is a geological approach where maps are
developed primarily on existing published geological maps. Liquefaction hazard map boundaries
follow the boundaries of geological units shown on the geological maps. This method has
limitations as it does not consider the depth at which liquefaction may occur and the level of
shaking required to trigger liquefaction, which is critical for predicting the damaging effects at the
ground surface.
More sophisticated mapping methodologies require information about the soil and groundwater
conditions and consider specific geotechnical parameters and seismic demand at various return
periods in order to calculate liquefaction vulnerability indicators such as the Liquefaction Potential
Index (LPI) or the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN).
Many liquefaction hazard maps prepared for Councils in New Zealand (including GDCs existing
Liquefaction hazard map) are based on a basic geological approach. However, we do not
consider that the existing published geological maps of Gisborne are sufficient for this purpose as
they do not accurately portray the nature and liquefaction potential of the underlying soils nor
the damage potential at the ground surface.
Accordingly, more detailed information on ground conditions and the groundwater profile across
Gisborne was required to improve the existing liquefaction hazard map. This information was
obtained through a review of a number of sources as follows:
Published aerial photography
Published topography maps
LiDAR DEMs supplied by GDC
A significant number of existing ground investigations describing ground conditions and
groundwater levels across Gisborne
A GIS map was set up for the project with layers including; aerial photography, geological maps,
LiDAR DEM contours, depth to groundwater, liquefaction vulnerability estimates from review of
existing ground investigation data including calculated LSN, SVID and CTL for CPT data. This
mapped information was reviewed at a workshop attended by senior staff of T&T and LDE.
Review of information on the map layers was carried out at the workshop and liquefaction
vulnerability map boundaries were determined using engineering judgement.
5.2.1
A significant number of existing ground investigations (as described in Section 5.1) were reviewed
as part of this study. Typical characteristics which make a soil susceptible to liquefaction are as
follows:
1
2
Loose to medium dense

Fine grained and non-cohesive (i.e. not a clay)
Fully saturated (i.e. typically below the ground water table)
A database of key ground characteristics at the existing ground investigation locations was
developed which included details of the soil composition, stratigraphy (layering), strength and
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
16
groundwater levels. The database includes a record of layers of soil within 15m of the ground
surface identified as having characteristics making them vulnerable to liquefaction.
Liquefaction of soil within 10m to 15m of the ground surface has the potential to damage the
ground surface if the crust thickness is less than 3m (Ishihara, 1985) for magnitude 7.5
earthquakes with shaking < 0.2g. Thicker layers of liquefying soil at shallow depths generally result
in more damaging surface effects especially differential settlement. Liquefaction occurring at
significant depth does not typically damage the ground surface as settlement caused by deep
liquefaction is generally rafted out by the non-liquefying soil crust, which also acts to prevent
water, sand and silt from ejecting at the ground surface.
A matrix approach has been used to estimate the damage at the ground surface likely to be
caused by the layers of liquefiable soil identified in existing ground investigations. The matrix
allows for consideration of the more damaging surface effects of thicker layers of liquefying soil at
shallow depths. Further detail about the process used when reviewing existing ground
investigation data is included in Appendix B.
5.2.2
Liquefaction analyses using existing CPT data
A review of ground conditions shown on existing investigation logs has been supplemented with a
large number of CPT-based liquefaction triggering analyses using the existing CPT data. These
analyses calculate a Factor of Safety (FoS) for triggering of liquefaction for each CPT and were
undertaken for a range of earthquake shaking scenarios (peak ground accelerations). The CPT
based triggering analyses undertaken are discussed further in Appendix B which includes a typical
analysis output. Liquefaction vulnerability indicators are used as a proxy for land damage
consequence at the ground surface and the following are calculated by the above analyses for
each CPT investigation;
Cumulative thickness of liquefiable material (CTL)
Calculated settlement (SV1D)
Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN)
Each of the above parameters provides a quantitative indication of the extent of liquefaction
damage expected for the earthquake accelerations used in the analyses. All were considered
during land vulnerability categorisation and mapping.
5.2.2.1
Liquefaction severity number (LSN)
LSN is one of the vulnerability indicators that has been calculated using the CPT based triggering
analyses described in Section 5.2.2 and considered during preparation of the vulnerability map.
The theoretical value of LSN varies from 0 (representing no predicted liquefaction damage) to
more than 100 (representing very high predicted liquefaction vulnerability). Very large values of
LSN can only be calculated when the groundwater table is very close to the ground surface and
the soil layers immediately below the ground surface are susceptible to liquefaction.
The LSN parameter correlates with the damaging effects of liquefaction and is documented in van
Ballegooy et al. (2014) where it was found that existing liquefaction vulnerability parameters (e.g.
LPI and calculated settlement) did not correlate as well with observed land and foundation
damage recorded following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (2010-2011).
The key difference between LSN and calculated settlement (SV1D) is that the LSN calculation
weights the shallow liquefying soil layers as a key contributor to surface land damage. This
inference is supported by observations made during the liquefaction induced land damage
mapping undertaken following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (2010-2011). During this
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
17
mapping it was observed that shallow liquefying soil layers tended to result in the ejection of
liquefied material and various forms of ground surface distortion; cracking and fissuring causing
significant differential settlement to residential buildings.
Further detail about the LSN liquefaction vulnerability parameter is available in the T&T
Liquefaction Vulnerability Study (2013) prepared for Canterbury which is publicly available on
the Canterbury Geotechnical Database (CERA, 2015).
As discussed in T&T (2013) and van Ballegooy et al. (2015a & 2015b), LSN parameter is currently
the best available indicator of liquefaction induced land damage. This applies to Christchurch and
would also apply to Gisborne during future seismic shaking. This is because the geomorphology
and ground conditions in Gisborne and particularly the Poverty Bay Flats, are similar to the
Eastern Christchurch setting. In addition, this assessment is particularly concerned with potential
damage at the ground surface. Accordingly, the ability of LSN to account for the more damaging
effects of shallow liquefaction is appropriate and beneficial. When mapped, the calculated values
of LSN generally correlate well with our appreciation of liquefaction vulnerability across Gisborne
based on our experience having undertaken a number of geotechnical investigations and
liquefaction assessments in the area and also with observations made following the 2007
Gisborne earthquake.
Accordingly, the land vulnerability categories selected for this study have been aligned with
published LSN ranges correlating to categorised levels of land damage observed in Canterbury as
shown in Table 5.2 (Russell et al., 2015).
Table 5.2: LSN ranges for varying levels of land damage in Canterbury
Published LSN range
Simplified land damage

observation category
Land vulnerability category

for Gisborne1
0-15
None to minor
Low
16-25
Minor to moderate
Moderate
26+
Moderate to severe
High
5.3
Typical land damage observations and photographs
The typical land damages observed in Canterbury following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence
(2010-2011) for each land damage category are shown in Table 5.3. Appendix C also contains a
number of photographs of land damage observed for each category.
The land damage described in Table 5.3 and shown in the photographs in Appendix represents
typical behaviour only. Land performance for a particular site may vary due to natural variations
and other factors which effect site performance.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
18
Table 5.3 Typical land damage observations
Simplified land
damage category
Typical land damage observations
None to minor
No observed cracks, undulations/deformations at the ground surface

No apparent building damage
Minor to moderate
Minor cracking (typically <50mm), buckling and undulations at the

ground surface
Minor to moderate quantities of ejected liquefied material at the ground
surface (typically <25% of site covered with ejected material)
Moderate to severe
Moderate to large cracks with horizontal and vertical displacement

(>50mm), buckling and undulations at the ground surface
Large quantities of ejected liquefied material at the ground surface
(typically >25% of site covered with ejected material)
Lateral spreading
5.4
Liquefaction hazard mapping
A liquefaction hazard map for Gisborne has been developed based on the sub-regional
liquefaction assessment undertaken using the various information sources summarised in Section
5.2, including the review and assessment of over 1,200 existing geotechnical investigations. The
vulnerability map zones land within the study area into one of the three land vulnerability
categories based on a large earthquake event (see Section 4.2) as summarised in Table 5.4. The
map would be different if mapping was undertaken at different levels of earthquake shaking.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
19
Table 5.4: Land vulnerability categories for mapping
Land
vulnerability
category1
Colour
Simplified
land damage
category
Low
Yellow
None to minor
No observed cracks, undulations/deformations at

the ground surface
No apparent differential settlement
Moderate
Orange
Minor to
moderate
Minor cracking (typically <50mm), buckling and

undulations at the ground surface
Minor to moderate quantities of ejected liquefied
material at the ground surface (typically <25% of site
covered with ejected material)
Differential settlement of buildings causing minor to
moderate structural damage
High
Red
Moderate to
severe
Moderate to large cracks with horizontal and vertical

displacement (>50mm), buckling and undulations at
the ground surface
Large quantities of ejected liquefied material at the
ground surface (typically >25% of site covered with
ejected material)
Lateral spreading
Significant total and differential settlement of
buildings causing structural damage
Typical land damage and consequent building

performance2

2. The land and building damage outlined for each land vulnerability category represents the typical likely behaviour of
flat land and light residential dwellings only. Land damage for a particular site may vary due to natural variations and
many other factors which effect site performance. Building damage could vary significantly from the typical description
as the extent of damage will depend on many building specific variables including the type and shape of the building
and foundation stiffness.
The liquefaction vulnerability map prepared during this study is shown in Figure 5-2. A digital copy
(GIS shapefile) of the map accompanies this report.
The broad sub-regional assessment and mapping undertaken have not allowed for an assessment
at an individual property scale. Geotechnical investigations and liquefaction assessment for an
individual property which considers the specific site topography, geology and long term depth to
groundwater monitoring may in many cases indicate that the site can be categorised differently
from that shown on the vulnerability map. It must also be appreciated that a site can range from
low vulnerability land though to high vulnerability depending upon the property size, topography
and underlying geology. Accordingly, the map should not be used as a replacement for a site
specific liquefaction assessment of a property.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
20
Figure 5-2: Map showing liquefaction vulnerability for the study area
5.5
Data reliability
Existing geotechnical investigation data relied upon for the hazard map varies in density, quality
and depth. Deep investigation data provides better information and a greater degree of
confidence in the mapped liquefaction vulnerability. This data is generally concentrated in the
existing urban areas. Ground investigation data is typically shallow and sparse over much of the
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
21
rural area meaning the hazard map relies more heavily on other information sources described in
this report and is assigned a lower degree of confidence.
Figure 5-3: Map showing the location of deep existing geotechnical investigations concentrated in the
urban area.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
22
Geotechnical assessment guidance
It is important that appropriate geotechnical investigations and a liquefaction assessment is

carried out for future developments. Preliminary guidance on appropriate geotechnical
assessments with respect to the three land vulnerability categories is given in Table 6.1 and
Sections 6.1 and 6.2. The guidance given is for the assessment of liquefaction only and additional
assessments may be required to investigate other geotechnical concerns such as foundation
bearing capacity, settlement or slope stability.
These preliminary recommendations form initial guidance for GDC only and additional work is
required to develop them further prior to Council implementation. Drill method, depth and the
method of liquefaction analysis would all need to be considered when developing detailed
assessment criteria. Complexities introduced by the size and nature of future development will
also need to be considered in terms of what is practical and economic. For example, very low
importance structures may not warrant deep and costly geotechnical investigations appropriate
for higher importance structures.
Table 6.1: Geotechnical assessment recommendations
Land
vulnerability
Category
Colour
Geotechnical
Liquefaction
Assessment
Preliminary geotechnical assessment recommendations
Low
Yellow
Low level
investigation*
Shallow geotechnical investigations with the engineering

assessment likely to focus primarily on other geotechnical
concerns
Moderate
Orange
Moderate level
investigation*
Deep geotechnical investigations and quantitative

liquefaction analysis may be required.
High
Red
High level
investigation
Deep geotechnical investigations and quantitative

liquefaction analysis.
* A low and moderate level investigation is generally only considered appropriate for residential and small commercial
development. Lifeline infrastructure, important buildings (e.g. hospitals and other public buildings), large commercial
and large scale subdivisions should all be subject to a high level geotechnical investigation.
6.1
Low level geotechnical assessment
Low level geotechnical assessment should address liquefaction, but the key focus is likely to be on
other site specific geotechnical concerns. Geotechnical investigations are likely to be scoped in a
manner which targets other geotechnical issues such as slope stability, settlement or foundation
bearing capacity.
Minimum geotechnical investigation requirements for residential and light commercial buildings
in Gisborne are detailed in the GDC guideline Bearing Capacity and Geotechnical Investigation
Requirements for Buildings, November 2011. This guideline requires shallow ground testing using
simple hand held equipment to a depth of at least 2.5m. For site specific assessments we consider
that a liquefaction assessment based on a site walkover and a review of the ground conditions
including ground water levels encountered during this type of investigation should typically be
suitable for a low vulnerability site. This would not be sufficient for subdivision or other land use
planning purposes.
6.2
Moderate and high level geotechnical assessments
We consider that in most cases, moderate and high level geotechnical assessments should include
deep CPT and/or machine borehole investigations and a quantitative liquefaction analysis. In
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
23
many cases it is likely that robust foundations or site ground improvement may be required if the
site is confirmed as being vulnerable.
High vulnerability land is typically expected to require more robust foundations and/or more
ground improvement than moderately vulnerable land. The engineering analysis undertaken for
these two categories is likely to be similar. However, geotechnical investigations are likely to be
more extensive (e.g. a greater density of CPTs or boreholes) for a high level geotechnical
assessment. It is important that the level of geotechnical investigations for these land
vulnerability categories is assessed by a competent geotechnical engineer on a site by site basis
depending on the proposed development.
It should be noted that development works can increase land vulnerability to liquefaction induced
damage. Works that could increase liquefaction vulnerability include:
Surcharging the land by filling.
Making roads lower than surrounding properties.
Increasing groundwater levels and/or piezometric pressures by putting stormwater and/or
effluent waste water onto or into the land.
Excavating to create drainage channels or an unsupported free face (see Section 8.2).
Penetration of the surface crust.
The effect of development works on liquefaction vulnerability of the site should be considered as
part of moderate and high level geotechnical assessments.
6.3
Canterbury approach to liquefaction investigations and

assessment
The preliminary geotechnical assessment guidance given in Sections 6.0 to 6.2 of this report is
generally consistent with recommendations on the scope of geotechnical investigations required
for residential buildings in Canterbury given in the Ministry for Business Innovation and
Employment (MBIE 2012) technical guidance titled Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by
the Canterbury earthquakes. .
Generally this guidance recommends, with respect to liquefaction only, the use of procedures
outlined in NZS3604:2011 for areas where future land damage from liquefaction is unlikely based
on the observations from the earthquake sequence (MBIE, 2012).
Deep geotechnical investigations are recommended for land where liquefaction damage is
possible in future moderate and large earthquakes. The guidance recommends that the scope of
the deep geotechnical investigation be determined by a chartered professional geotechnical
engineer (CPEng).
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
24
Mitigation
The successful management of natural hazards involves a balance between land-use controls,
building controls, insurance, and acceptance of risk. The liquefaction vulnerability map prepared
is intended to help GDC assess vulnerability to liquefaction induced damage at the ground surface
across the study area, enabling Council to implement appropriate building controls, thus
promoting resilience to liquefaction in the Gisborne community. Appropriate controls are likely to
involve either avoiding areas that, following site specific assessment (at various levels of
earthquake shaking), are assessed as being vulnerable to liquefaction damage or appropriately
mitigating the effects of liquefaction.
Generally, there are two possible approaches to mitigating liquefaction effects:
1.
Accept that liquefaction may occur and design foundations, buildings, services and
infrastructure to tolerate the resulting ground surface deformation and other
consequences.
2.
Improve the ground in such a manner that either liquefaction does not occur or the severity
of its effects are reduced. Options which improve land are likely to provide a greater level
of community resilience to earthquake events as this option not only provides greater
protection to buildings but also to the surrounding land, services, and infrastructure. This is
particularly the case where the land improvement is applied on an area-wide basis (e.g.
large scale subdivisions) rather than localised land improvement beneath individual
buildings. However, this approach may not be applicable in all situations depending on the
nature and scale of the development.
Often a combination of the two approaches may be appropriate.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
25
Suggested further study
During this work we have noted additional work items which GDC may consider undertaking to
better refine and build on this study.
8.1
Development of geotechnical assessment criteria for land

vulnerability categories
The scope of this study does not allow for preparing detailed, prescriptive recommendations or
criteria identifying the extent of geotechnical investigations and liquefaction analysis required for
each land category for resource or building consent purposes. We recommend this work be
undertaken. Further detail on recommended geotechnical investigations and liquefaction analysis
criteria could be prepared for GDC if required.
8.2
Lateral spread consideration
Lateral spreading is the displacement of the ground horizontally with shaking. Associated vertical
displacement can also occur. Lateral spreading can occur on sloping or unrestrained ground
(ground adjoining a river, foreshore, drainage channel or other free face) as a result of the
strength loss of the underlying liquefied soil layers on very gently sloping land (less than 1 in 100).
Lateral spreading of a number of metres can occur immediately adjoining a free face, and large
cracks (up to 0.5m wide) can appear at a distance of up to 200m from a free face. Topographic relevelling can also occur.
Lateral or topographic re-levelling has not been considered as part of this study but has been
identified as a risk within the current study area and was observed in the 2007 Gisborne
Earthquake. Further studies could use the database of investigation information collected in this
study along with topographic information to assess the risk of lateral spread across the study
area.
8.3
Groundwater model refinement
Liquefaction vulnerability is very sensitive to the depth of the groundwater level. Groundwater
information available for this study is limited to levels captured on the existing ground
investigations at the time the investigation was undertaken. A more robust groundwater model
could be developed for the study area with the existing groundwater information already
captured. Ideally this would also include installing and monitoring a number of piezometers across
the study area to capture ground water level data. Sea level rise and climate change effects could
also be considered.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
26
Conclusions
Gisborne is exposed to significant potential seismic shaking and some parts of the region are
vulnerable to liquefaction induced damage. This study provides GDC with a sub-regional
assessment of liquefaction vulnerability which will assist GDC to better understand the hazard and
appropriate responses, including determining appropriate levels of site specific geotechnical
investigations and assessment. Suitable site specific assessment of potential liquefaction damage
resulting from seismic shaking should enable Council to implement appropriate building controls
to develop greater resilience to liquefaction damage in the Gisborne community. Appropriate
Land-use controls should also be developed.
The study relies on various information sources including an assessment of over 1,200 existing
geotechnical investigations. The liquefaction hazard has been mapped into three land
vulnerability categories (low, moderate and high) based on the assessed liquefaction vulnerability
across the study area as shown on Figure 5-2. This report also makes preliminary
recommendations as to appropriate levels of geotechnical assessment for each land vulnerability
category.
The following key conclusions have been drawn:
1
A liquefaction hazard map has been developed using various sources of information and
analyses to inform engineering judgement
The hazard map shows the relative liquefaction vulnerability at 1 in 500 year levels of
earthquake shaking. Different levels of earthquake shaking will produce a different map of
liquefaction vulnerability
The hazard map provides GDC with a sub-regional assessment of liquefaction vulnerability
as a basis for determining appropriate levels of site specific geotechnical investigations and
assessment
The liquefaction hazard map does not include vulnerability to lateral spreading
4
5
The geotechnical assessment recommendations made are intended for residential and
small commercial development only. We would expect lifeline infrastructure, important
buildings (e.g. hospitals and other public buildings), large commercial and large scale
subdivisions to be subject to a high level of site specific geotechnical investigations and
assessment
The liquefaction assessment carried out has been mapped at a sub-regional scale and is not
to be viewed at scales more detailed than 1:10 000 in urban areas and 1:25 000 in rural
areas. Accordingly, the map should not be used as a replacement for a site-specific
liquefaction assessment of a property.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
27
10
Limitations
The liquefaction hazard map has been developed primarily based on information obtained from
analysis of existing geotechnical investigation data and LiDAR topography mapped onto a digital
aerial photograph base. The information presented is only an indication of what we consider to be
the potential for liquefaction induced land damage at the ground surface for 500 year return
period levels of shaking. We note that site specific assessments should also consider effects at
other appropriate return periods of shaking.
Liquefaction damage at the ground surface can be very sensitive to groundwater level. We
specifically note that soils across the study area are highly variable and the groundwater
information available for this study is limited to levels captured at the time a given investigation
was undertaken. There are areas within this study which will have significant seasonal fluctuation
in the groundwater level. Accordingly, the map should not be used as a replacement for a sitespecific liquefaction assessment of a property. Appropriate geotechnical investigation and
assessment at a property-scale which considers the site topography, geology, soil strength and
stiffness characteristics and depth to groundwater may in many cases indicate that the site can be
classified differently from that shown on the vulnerability map. It must also be appreciated that a
site can range from low vulnerability though to high vulnerability depending upon the property
size, topography and underlying geology.
Properties that straddle two categories shown on the map should be investigated based on the
higher geotechnical assessment level category.
We note that the hazard map prepared shows likely vulnerability to liquefaction induced land
damage at the ground surface. Liquefaction is one of a number of forms of earthquake related
ground damage including: landslips, rockfall, ground cracking, lateral spread and mud volcanos
which are outside the scope of this study.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
29
12
Bibliography
Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures.
Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modelling, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, 134p.
Brown, L.J., 1995. Holocene shoreline depositional processes at Poverty Bay, a tectonically active
area, northeastern North Island, New Zealand. Quat. Int. 26, 2133.
Fairless, G.J.; Berrill, J.B. 1984: Liquefaction during historic earthquakes in New Zealand. Bulletin
of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 17: 280-291.
Francois-Holden, C., Bannister, S., Beavan, J., Cousins, J., Field, B., McCaffrey, R., McVerry, G.,
Reyners, M., Ristau, J., Samsonov, S., Wallace, L., 2008. The Mw 6.6 Gisborne Earthquake of 2007:
Preliminary Records and General Source Characterisation. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering 41(4), 266-277.
Gomez, Basil, Dennis N. Eden, David H. Peacock, and Edward J. Pinkney. Floodplain Construction
by Recent, Rapid Vertical Accretion: Waipaoa River, New Zealand. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 23, no. 5 (1998): 40513.
Holzer T.L., 2008. Probabilistic liquefaction hazard mapping. Geotechnical Special Publication.
(181).
MBIE. (2012). Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. Ministry
of Business, Innovation and Employment. December 2012.
Mazengarb, C.: Speden, I.G. (compilers) 2000. Geology of the Raukumara area. Institute of
Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250 000 geological map 6. 1 sheet and 60 p. Lower Hutt, New
Zealand: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd.
NZS 1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions Earthquake Actions. Section 3 Site Hazard Spectra,
Standards New Zealand.
Pondard, N.; 2012. Review and update of earthquake return periods for the Gisborne region, GNS
Science Consultancy Report CR 2012/71. 22p.
Pullar, W.A., Penhale, H.R., 1970. Periods of recent in lling of the Gisborne plains basin. N. Z. J.
Sci. 13, 410434.
Russell, J., Van Ballegooy, S., Rogers, N., Jacka, M.E., 2015. The Effect of Subsidence on
Liquefaction Vulnerability Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.
Proceedings of the 12th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics.
Stirling, M.W., McVerry, G.H., Gerstenberger, M., Litchfield, N.J., Van Dissen, R., Berryman, K.R.,
Langridge, R.M., Nicol, A., Smith, W.D., Villamor, P., Wallace, L., Clark, K., Reyners, M., Barnes, P.,
Lamarche, G., Nodder, S., Pettinga, J., Bradley, B., Buxton, R., Rhoades, D., Jacobs, K. 2012.
National Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand: 2010 Update. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 102(4), 1514-1542.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd., 2013. Liquefaction Vulnerability Study. Report to Earthquake Commission,
Tonkin & Taylor ref. 52020.0200/v1.0, prepared by S. van Ballegooy and P. Malan, available at
https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com.
Van Ballegooy, S., Malan, P., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M.E., Cubrinovski, M., Bray, J.D., ORourke, T.,
Crawford, S., Cowan, H., 2014b. Assessment of Liquefaction-Induced Land Damage for Residential
Christchurch. Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 30(1), 31 55.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
30
Van Ballegooy, S., Boulanger, R. W., Wentz, R., 2015a. Evaluation of a CPT-based Liquefaction
Procedure at Regional Scale. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Special Issue:
Liquefaction in New Zealand and Japan. in review
Van Ballegooy, S., Green, R., Lees, J., Wentz, F., Maurer, B., 2015b. Assessment of Various CPT
Based Liquefaction Severity Index Frameworks Relative to the Ishihara (1985) H1 H2 Boundary
Curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Special Issue: Liquefaction in New Zealand and
Japan. in review
Van Ballegooy, S., Lacrosse, V., Simpson, J., and Malan, P., 2015c. Comparison of CPT-based
Simplified Liquefaction Assessment Methodologies based on the Canterbury Dataset. Proceedings
of the 12th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics.
Wolinsky, M.A., Swenson, J.B., Litchfield, N., and McNinch, J.E., 2010. Coastal progradation and
sediment partitioning in the Holocene Waipaoa Sedimentary System, New Zealand. Marine
Geology, 270(1): 94-107.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

May 2015
Job No: 30214.v1
Appendix A
A1
Seismic Hazards - Liquefaction
Liquefaction is where loose soils below the groundwater level lose strength and stiffness in
response to an applied cyclic force, like earthquake shaking. Liquefaction can cause damage to
land, buildings and infrastructure. Only some soil types are susceptible to liquefaction and only
some earthquakes are strong enough to cause liquefaction. Geotechnical investigations and
assessment can estimate the likelihood and consequence making up the risk of liquefaction for a
specific site.
A1.1 Process
The process of liquefaction is described by Figure A1 and the commentary below.
Figure A1:
Liquefaction process
During Shaking
The support of the overlying ground is transferred from the soil grains to the water between the
soil grains. The result is a large increase in water pressure and a loss of soil shear strength (i.e. it
becomes like a viscous liquid).
After Shaking
The high water pressures result in water and soil escaping to the surface as sand boils (See Section
A1.4.1). The soil grains re-orientate into a denser configuration. This densification in conjunction
with the expulsion of soil and water to the surface, usually resulting in differential settlement.
A1.2
Susceptible Soils
Liquefaction only occurs in some soil. Liquefaction susceptible soils are typically:
Sands and non-plastic silts are most susceptible to liquefaction
Gravels can liquefy if they have a low permeability matrix or confining layers top and
bottom
Clays are too cohesive to liquefy
The distinction between silts that are liquefiable or not are described as either being:
Sand-like behaviour and therefore susceptible to liquefaction
Clay-like behaviour and therefore not susceptible to liquefaction
Job No: 30214.v1

May 2015
The NZ Geotechnical Society Guideline for the identification, assessment and mitigation of
liquefaction hazards (NZGS, 2010) provides further criteria for the assessment of liquefaction
susceptible soils. Particular guidance is provided for fine grained soils (silts etc).
A1.3 Triggering
The intensity and duration of earthquake shaking required to cause (trigger) liquefaction of
susceptible soil (Refer Section A1.2) varies depending on the density and fines content of the soil.
The likelihood (return period) of earthquake shaking to trigger liquefaction is assessed by
considering:
The local seismic hazard. The likelihood (return period) of earthquakes of various duration
(magnitude) and intensity (peak ground acceleration, PGA)
Field penetration test (CPT and SPT) and fines content results for the soil, and available
empirical relationships between these results and the magnitude and PGA to trigger liquefaction.
A1.4
Liquefaction Effects
There is a number of liquefaction effects each of which affect buildings and infrastructure
differently. The risk of earthquake induced damage can be accepted, mitigated or avoided.
A1.4.1
Surface Ejection of Soil and Water (Sand Boils)
Liquefied soils often release their water pressures to the surface. This is particularly evident
where the crust of non-liquefying soil is relatively thin. This can result in water and soil being
ejected to the surface. These are observed as sand boils or mini volcanos. This flow of water and
soil to the surface can damage floor slabs, pavements and services. Of the effects of liquefaction
sand boils is typically the most damaging to residential developments. It results in; uneven
subsidence of the ground surface, and damage to buildings, paved surfaces and infrastructure.
Figure A2: Surface ejection of soil and water as sand boils (Christchurch 2011)
A1.4.2
Buoyancy
Liquefaction raised ground water pressures cause buoyancy forces on structures and services.
These forces along with the reduced strength of liquefied soils can lead to uplift of pipes,
manholes, chambers and swimming pools extending below the groundwater level.
Figure A3: Manhole uplifted due to buoyancy (Christchurch 2011)
A1.4.3
Bearing Capacity Failure
Liquefaction causes a loss of soil strength and stiffness resulting in reduced support (bearing
capacity) to shallow foundations. This can result in subsidence of both shallow and deep
foundations if the liquefiable layer is directly beneath the foundation.
A1.4.4
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the displacement of the ground horizontally with shaking. Associated vertical
displacement can also occur. Lateral spreading can occur on sloping or unrestrained ground
(ground adjoining a river, foreshore or other free face). It is as a result of ground sliding on a
liquefied layer during and possibly after (flow failure) the shaking. Sloping ground only needs to
be very gentle for lateral spreading to occur. Lateral spreading of a number of meters can occur
immediately adjoining a free face, and can be a number of tens of millimetres at 100m distance.
However, in Christchurch where there was gently sloping ground back from the free face,
displacements of 100s of millimetres at 100 metres back from the free face were observed.
Job No: 30214.v1

May 2015
Figure A4: Lateral spreading showing horizontal and vertical displacement of land causing damage to
structures. Image is of damage to Kobe Port preserved in the Kobe Port Memorial park following the
1995 earthquake (http://www.kevinbertman.co.uk/japan/earthquake.shtml)
A1.4.5
Settlement
As discussed in Section A1.1, settlement can occur from densification of the liquefied soil layer
and from expulsion of water and soil to the surface. Settlements of the ground surface are broken
down in to two components:
Total settlement General overall settlement of the area
Differential settlement The difference in settlement between points within the area
Settlement of a few hundred millimetres can occur depending on the thickness, depth
and density, of the liquefied layer. Settlement can cause damage to buildings and infrastructure.
In Christchurch damage as a result of settlement was relatively small compared to that attributed
to sand boils (refer A1.4.1) and loss of support to foundations (refer A1.4.3).
Appendix B
Liquefaction hazard assessment methodology

and CPT triggering analysis output
Job No: 30214.v1

May 2015
B1
Investigation data has been assessed using a matrix developed to prioritise the more damaging
surface effects of thicker layers of liquefying soil at shallow depths. The matrix shown in Figure B1
assigns a consequence rating to each investigation point based on the location and thickness of
the liquefiable soil layers identified during the review of the existing investigation logs. The
thickness of the liquefiable layer is recorded as a percentage of liquefiable material within the
relevant location layer as shown in Figure B1. For example, a liquefiable soil layer 500mm thick
at 0.5m deep represents 50% of the relevant 0-1m location layer and therefore has a
consequence rating of 80.
As the consequence rating increases, so does the risk of liquefaction induced land damage at the
ground surface (differential settlements and sand boils etc). The matrix applies rating
increments (2 to 10) in a manner which weights the consequence rating values given by the
matrix to be higher for thicker liquefiable soil layers located at shallow depths. The consequence
rating for a borehole identified to have multiple layers of liquefiable material is the sum of the
values determined for each layer from the matrix. For example, following the matrix shown in
Figure B1, if a borehole with three liquefiable soil layers each 500mm thick at 0.5m, 2m and 4m
below the ground surface has a consequence rating of 172 (50% at 0-1m, 25% at 2-4m and 12.5%
at 4-8m =100+48+24=172). This example is presented graphically in Figure B2.
Thickness
Less than
5%
Less than
10%
Less than
20%
Less than
50%
Less than
100%
Location
Rating
10
0-1m
10
20
40
60
80
100
1-2m
16
32
48
64
80
2-4m
12
24
36
48
60
4-8m
16
24
32
40
>8m
12
16
20
Figure B1: The assessment matrix used for the study

Thickness
rating
Location
rating
Consequence
rating
10
10
100
48
24
Total
172
Figure B2: Diagram showing the decreasing consequence rating for deeper liquefiable soil layers
Consequence rating value ranges have been determined for the land vulnerability categories (and
the associated LSN ranges) discussed in Section 5.3 of this report and are shown in Table B1.
These ranges were assigned based on a comparison of the calculated consequence rating values
with the calculated LSN values for existing CPT investigations. Consequence ratings for all
investigation points were mapped and reviewed to ensure that they generally correlate well with
our appreciation of liquefaction vulnerability across Gisborne based on our experience having
undertaken a number of geotechnical investigations and liquefaction assessments in the area and
observations following the 2007 Gisborne earthquake.
Table B1: Liquefaction vulnerability parameter ranges for varying levels of land damage
Published LSN range
Simplified land damage

observation category
Consequence Rating
range
Land vulnerability
category for Gisborne
0-15
None to minor
0-60
Low (yellow)
16-25
Minor to moderate
61-140
Moderate (orange)
26+
Moderate to severe
141 -300
High (red)
B2
Quantitative assessment using existing CPT data
Quantitative analysis of CPT data within the study area was undertaken to calculate
internationally recognised liquefaction vulnerability indicators. A CPT based liquefaction triggering
analysis was undertaken in accordance with the method outlined in Boulanger and Idriss, (2014)
which calculates a Factor of Safety (FoS) of triggering of liquefaction for each layer of a CPT data
point. Analyses were undertaken for each CPT location for a range of peak ground accelerations
including Ultimate Limit State (ULS, 0.4g) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS, 0.1g) at an
earthquake magnitude of 7.5. Analyses were also undertaken for 0.2g, 0.3g and 0.5g loadings.
Liquefaction vulnerability indicators calculated in the above analyses included calculated
settlements (SVID), the cumulative thickness of liquefiable material (CTL) and the Liquefaction
Severity Number (LSN). The CTL parameter represents the sum of the thickness of all layers within
the CPT that have a calculated FoS < 1.0 (i.e. they are likely to liquefy at the given level of
shaking). LSN represents the more damaging effects of shallow liquefaction as it incorporates a
depth weighted function. A typical CPT liquefaction triggering analysis output follows and includes
Liquefaction Assessment Notes which give additional detail about the analyses undertaken.
Job No: 30214.v1

May 2015
(Assumed pre-drill values)

CPT Name
INPUT
CPT1p
Database ID Investigation Date Event and PGA

52068
19/10/2010 User Specified
Exceedance Probability S - Calculated Settlement (mm)

OUTPUT
Magnitude PGA
(g)
7.5
CTL - Cumulative Thickness of

Liquefaction (m)
GWD
(m)
0.4
Trigger Method Settlement Method
1.4 BI2014
LPI - Liquefaction Potential Index
Pre-drill Depth
(m)
Qc (MPa)
N1P)
Fs (MPa)
ZRB
0.01
18
LSN - Liquefaction Severity Number
CT - Crust Thickness (m) LPI Ishihara
15%
44
10
1.5
50%
41
1.8
1.5
85%
37
1.5
6.2
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION
Gisborne City Council
Environmental and Engineering

consultants
Gisborne Liquefaction Mapping
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
CPT Liquefaction Analysis
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
1 of 7 pages
1. Sensitive, fine grained
6. Sands - clean sand to silty sand
2. Organic soils - peats
7. Gravelly sand to dense sand
3. Clays - silty clay to clay
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand *
4. Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay
9. Very stiff, fine grained *
5. Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt

*Heavily overconsolidated or cemented
CPT-based soil behavior type classification chart by Robertson (1990)
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION

consultants
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
2 of 7 pages
(Assumed pre-drill
values)
CPT Name
CPT1p
ID
Investigation
Date
52068
Event and PGA
19/10/2010 User Specified
Magnitude PGA (g)

7.5
GWD (m)
0.4 Varies
Trigger Method Settlement Method Pre-drill Depth (m) Qc (MPa)

BI2014
ZRB
Fs (MPa)
2
N1P)
0.01
18
Thicker lines represent the 50% probability of exceedence case and the thinner lines to the left and right of the thicker lines represent the 85% and 15% probability of exceedance cases respectively.
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION

consultants
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
3 of 7 pages
The inputs listed in Table 1.1-1 below have been adopted for the liquefaction analysis.
Table 1.1-1 Summary of inputs for liquefaction analysis
CPT ID
52068
CPT Name
CPT1p
PGA
a= 0.4g
Magnitude
Mw= 7.5
Depth to groundwater
1.4m
Predrill depth
0m
Assumed predrill tip resistance and skin friction
Qc= 2MPa & Fs= 0.01MPa
Trigger method
Boulanger & Idriss (2014)
Settlement method
ZRB
Probability of Liquefaction
PL%= 0%
CFC
Total depth of CPT
15
Maximum depth of analysis

RL
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION

consultants
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
4 of 7 pages
Liquefaction Assessment Notes

1.1 Liquefaction triggering analysis (Boulanger & Idriss, 2014)
This CPT based triggering analysis calculates a factor of safety (FOS) against liquefaction for each CPT data point. The factor of safety comparison uses the principles of the simplified procedure developed by Seed & Idriss (1971), as set out
in the Boulanger & Idriss (2014) publication, was used for this analysis. The simplified procedure compares the seismic demand imposed by an earthquake (referred to as the Cyclic Stress Ratio, or CSR) with the resistance of the soil to
liquefaction (referred to as the Cyclic Resistance Ration, or CRR).
The CSR varies with depth and is calculated as a function of the peak ground acceleration and earthquake magnitude. The CRR is a function of the normalised tip resistance of the CPT, corrected for fines content. The fines content in this
calculation is based either on laboratory test results, or the apparent fines content assessed by Boulanger & Idriss (2014).
The CPT can be used to assess the behaviour of the soil, and whether it responds as a fine grained or coarse grained material. Robertson & Wride (1998) presented formulae to calculate a single index, the Ic, to represent the behaviour of the
soils. The higher the Ic, the more fine grained the material behaviour is. The Ic is based on the normalised cone tip resistance and skin friction. For this calculation, the normalised values are based on the iterated results presented by
Robertson & Wride (1998). Where the calculated Ic exceeds 2.6 the soil is assessed to be too fine grained to liquefy.
1.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in the liquefaction analyses:
1.
The material is a standard material consistent with the empirical liquefaction databases. In other words, material is not welded, cemented or pumiceous in a manner that affects the penetration test results.
2.
The pore pressure profile is hydrostatic unless specified in Table 1.1-1
1.3 Calculated volumetric strain and settlements (Zhang, Robertson & Brachman)
Soils that have liquefaction potential densify if subjected to cyclic shearing. This calculated volumetric densification has been investigated by Ishihara & Yoshimine (1992) and Zhang et al. (2002). Ishihara & Yoshimine (1992) presented a series
of curves that calculate the volumetric densification of sand samples based on their relative density and factor of safety against liquefaction. The curves are based on samples of sand tested in a laboratory at different densities and undergoing
cycles of shear strains. The factor of safety is based on the simplified method originally presented by Seed and Idriss (1971). The curves were updated by Zhang et al. (2002) and included the normalisation of CPT values in the correlations.
The outputs of the calculation are volumetric strains, which can be integrated through layers of potentially liquefiable materials to estimate settlements of the ground.
1.4 Calculated liquefaction vulnerability indicators
1.4.1 Crust thickness
This is the thickness of the non-liquefiable crust at the top of the CPT. It is at least the depth to saturated soil beneath the groundwater table, and can be deeper.
1.4.2 Cumulative Thickness of Liquefaction (CTL)
This parameter represents the sum of all layers within the CPT that have a calculated FoS < 1.0
1.4.3 Calculated settlement
The settlements have been calculated by integrating the calculated volumetric strains with depth. The volumetric strains are calculated using the Boulanger & Idriss (2014) and with the normalised CPT tip resistance based on Zhang, Robertson
& Brachman (2002) (ZRB) (Recommended):
Note that the calculated settlements often do not correlate well with observed settlements but are better understood as a proxy for the likelihood of damage at the ground surface. As the calculated settlement increases, so does the risk of adverse effects at the ground
surface.
1.4.4 Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI)
The vulnerability of sites to liquefaction was considered by Iwasaki et al. (1978) and Iwasaki et al. (1982). Iwasakis Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) is presented as a measure of the vulnerability of sites to liquefaction effects. The LPI is defined as:
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION

consultants
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
5 of 7 pages
Where W(z) = 10 0.5z, F1 = 1-FOS for FOS<1.0, F1 = 0 for FOS>1.0 and z is the depth below the ground surface. FS is the factor of safety calculated using the Boulanger & Idriss (2014) method.
The paper notes that the LPI values range from 0 to 100, with the following published indicators of liquefaction induced damage:
LPI range
Damage
LPI = 0
Liquefaction risk is very low
/3,/LTXHIDFWLRQULVNLVORZ
/3,/LTXHIDFWLRQULVNLVKLJK
LPI >15
Liquefaction risk is very high
Some researchers have subsequently updated the calculation and interpretation based on field mapping during earthquakes.
1.4.5 Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN)
The Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) represents the more damaging effects of shallow liquefaction on residential land and foundations. The formula used to calculate LSN is presented below. LSN considers volumetric densification strain within layers as a proxy for
severity of liquefaction.
Where v is the calculated volumetric densification strain using Boulanger & Idriss (2014), and z is the depth to the layer of interest.
As the LSN increases, so does the risk of severe effects on the land and residential dwelling. In general, the following levels are reasonable for a typical groundwater table and using Boulanger & Idriss (2014) triggering:
LSN
Effects
0-5
Negligible to Minor, no major effects expected
5-20
Minor, generally consistent with acceptable performance under SLS conditions (i.e. little settlement or permanent dwelling damage). Ejection of material can be expected at the ground surface, but likely to be localised in nature.
20-40
Moderate, liquefaction evidence possible and lateral spreading possible if free faces present. Generally consistent with acceptable performance under ULS conditions (i.e. settlement)
>40
Severe, high risk of substantial damage to the site and/or dwelling
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION

consultants
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
6 of 7 pages
2.0 References
Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential: Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, v. 93, no. SM9, 1249-1273
Robertson, P.K. & Wride, C.E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35:442 459
Ishihara, K. & Yoshimine, M. (1992). Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, 32 (1), 173188
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K.-i. and Yasuda, S. (1978). A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan, in Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, pp. 885896.
Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T. & Tokida, K. (1982). Simplified Procedures for Assessing Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes Proc. Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Southampton, 925-939
Boulanger, R.W. & Idriss, I.M. (2014). CPT and SPT Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, University of California
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K. & Brachman, R. W. I. (2002). Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, 116880
Some other useful publications:
Bray J.D. & Sancio, R.B. (2006). Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132(9), 1165-1177
Department of Building and Housing (2011) Revised guidance on repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence, November 2011
Department of Building and Housing (2012) Interim guidance for repairing and rebuilding foundations in Technical Category 3, Appendix C to the Guidance Document. 27 April 2012
Earthquake Commission Act 1993
Youd, T.L. & Garris, C.T. (1995). Liquefaction-induced ground surface disruption ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 121 (11), 805 809
CLIENT, PROJECT
Tonkin & Taylor
LOCATION

consultants
Gisborne
JOB NUMBER
TITLE
V1.3
30214
DATE
13/03/2015
ANALYSED
VL
CHECKED
PAGE
7 of 7 pages
Appendix C
Typical photographs of land damage
LSN Ranges 0 - 10 Moderate to severe
Typical photographs of none to minor land damage
2.1
None to minor land damage
Even lawns and undamaged pavers
Undamaged asphalt driveway
Undamaged concrete driveway and kerbing
Aerial shot of Broomfield area showing no liquefaction ejecta on the roads or Broomfield Common
View of Aston Drive with little damages
View of Centaurus Road with little damage
2.2
Flat lawn
Slightly undulating lawn and driveway
Slightly undulating lawn
Undulating lawn
Undulating lawn
Aerial photo of North New Brighton showing

little damage
2.3
Typical photographs of minor to moderate land damage
3.1
Minor to moderate land damage
Undulating lawns and liquefaction ejecta
Piles of sand along the footpath
Undulations on road with ponding water
Liquefaction ejecta pile on road
Isolated area of liquefaction ejecta on lawn
Isolated area of liquefaction ejecta on lawn
3.2
Liquefaction ejecta around washing line pole
Liquefaction ejecta on lawn
Foundation damage
Undulating paving slabs
Foundation damage
3.3
Foundation damage
Liquefaction ejecta in planter
Liquefaction ejecta in planter with undulating pavers
Foundation damage
3.4
Liquefaction ejecta at a New Brighton Road junction
erial photo of liquefaction ejecta at Cashmere

A
High School
Isolated area of liquefaction ejecta
3.5
Damage to asphalt
Liquefaction ejecta in piles on road
Undulating paving bricks
Isolated area of liquefaction ejecta
Foundation damage
3.6
Foundation damage
Liquefaction ejecta in many places on lawn
Large area of liquefaction ejecta on lawn
Foundation and brickwork damage
Liquefaction ejecta and brickwork damage
3.7
Liquefaction ejecta in many areas on lawn
Undulations in lawn
Liquefaction ejecta covering driveway
Undulations in paving area
Undulations in lawn, liquefaction ejecta removed
3.8
Foundation damage
Liquefaction ejecta alongside culvert
Foundation damage
Liquefaction ejecta, dwelling tilting
Liquefaction ejecta, dwelling tilting
3.9
Typical photographs of moderate to severe land damage
4.1
Moderate to severe land damage
Large patch of liquefaction ejecta
Foundation damage
Liquefaction ejecta piles along Androssan Street
Liquefaction ejecta piles along Avonside Drive
Liquefaction ejecta around property
Foundation damage
4.2
Aerial photo showing liquefaction ejecta on

Seabreeze Close
Liquefaction ejecta in turning circle of Seabreeze Close
utside of dwelling showing level liquefaction ejecta

O
reached on brickwork and windows
Large amounts of liquefaction ejecta
Large amounts of liquefaction ejecta and tilting dwelling
Large amounts of liquefaction ejecta around property
4.3
Large amounts of liquefaction ejecta inside dwelling
Close up photo of road damage seen in aerial photo

of Woolston
s) Foundation damage, tilting dwelling
4.4
Job No: 30214.v1

May 2015

Liquefaction Vulnerability Map for Gisborne

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Liquefaction Vulnerability Map for Gisborne

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT

Gisborne District Council

105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, Auckland 1023 p. +64

355 6000 www.tonkin.co.nz

Taylor Ltd (FILE)

Geology, geomorphology and groundwater

Sub-regional liquefaction vulnerability assessment

Liquefaction hazard assessment methodology and CPT triggering analysis

Typical photographs of land damage

Job No: 30214.v1

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

No observed cracks, undulations/deformations at

Minor cracking (typically <50mm), buckling and

Moderate to large cracks with horizontal and vertical

Typical land damage and consequent building

1. For 500 year return period levels of earthquake shaking

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Geology, geomorphology and groundwater

Poverty Bay Flats

Sponge Bay and Wainui

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Hawke's Bay earthquake (Napier)

March and May 1947

Central Hawkes Bay

Offshore Poverty Bay

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Recent liquefaction observations (2007 Gisborne Earthquake)

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Sub-regional liquefaction vulnerability assessment

The sub-regional liquefaction hazard assessment undertaken has drawn on a number of

Existing ground investigation data

Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT)

Handauger boreholes and Scala penetrometer tests

Figure 5-1: Map showing the locations of the existing investigations

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Resistance of a soil to liquefaction is dependent on a combination of various soil properties and

Review of existing ground investigation data

Loose to medium dense

Fully saturated (i.e. typically below the ground water table)

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Liquefaction analyses using existing CPT data

Liquefaction severity number (LSN)

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Simplified land damage

Land vulnerability category

1. For 500 year return period levels of earthquake shaking

Typical land damage observations and photographs

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Typical land damage observations

No observed cracks, undulations/deformations at the ground surface

Minor cracking (typically <50mm), buckling and undulations at the

Moderate to large cracks with horizontal and vertical displacement

Liquefaction hazard mapping

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

No observed cracks, undulations/deformations at

Minor cracking (typically <50mm), buckling and

Moderate to large cracks with horizontal and vertical