I was just reading an article about damages from the recent New Zealand EQ. 
I saw the following quote which seemed to be a contradiction to the 
California EQ where soft ground cause liquefaction of the ground.

The quote is as follows: "Euan Smith, professor of Geophysics at Victoria 
University, speculated that the very soft soils of Christchurch had "acted 
like a shock absorber over a short period ... doing less damage to smaller 
buildings."

Is this just a matter of less water content in the soils?

Jerry 







I was just reading an article about damages from the recent New =
Zealand=20
EQ.  I saw the following quote which seemed to be a contradiction =
to the=20
California EQ where soft ground cause liquefaction of the ground.
 
The quote is as follows: "Euan Smith, professor of Geophysics at =
Victoria=20
University, speculated that the very soft soils of Christchurch had =
"acted like=20
a shock absorber over a short period ... doing less damage to smaller=20
buildings."
 
Is this just a matter of less water content in the soils?
 
Jerry