Critical infrastructure networks are highly relied on by society such that any disruption to service can have major social and economic implications. Furthermore, these networks are becoming increasingly dependent on each other for normal operation such that an outage or asset failure in one system can easily propagate and cascade across others resulting in widespread disruptions in terms of both magnitude and spatial reach. It is the vulnerability of these networks to disruptions and the corresponding complexities in recovery processes which provide direction to this research. This thesis comprises studies contributing to two areas (i) the modelling of national scale in-terdependent infrastructure systems undergoing major disruptions, and (ii) the tracking and quantification of infrastructure network recovery trajectories following major disruptions. Firstly, methods are presented for identifying nationally significant systemic vulnerabilities and incorporating expert knowledge into the quantification of infrastructure interdependency mod-elling and simulation. With application to the interdependent infrastructures networks across New Zealand, the magnitudes and spatial extents of disruption are investigated. Results high-light the importance in considering interdependencies when assessing disruptive risks and vul-nerabilities in disaster planning applications and prioritising investment decisions for enhancing resilience of national networks. Infrastructure dependencies are further studied in the context of recovery from major disruptions through the analysis of curves measuring network functionality over time. Continued studies into the properties of recovery curves across a database of global natural disasters produce statistical models for predicting the trajectory and expected recovery times. Finally, the use of connectivity based metrics for quantifying infrastructure system functionality during recovery are considered with a case study application to the Christchurch Earthquake (February 22, 2011) wastewater network response.
The seismic performance of soil profiles with potentially liquefiable deposits is a complex phenomenon that requires a thorough understanding of the soil properties and ground motion characteristics. The limitations of simplified liquefaction assessment methods have prompted an increase in the use of non-linear dynamic analysis methods. Focusing on onedimensional site response of a soil column, this thesis validated a soil constitutive model using in-situ pore pressure measurements and then assessed the influence of input ground motion characteristics on soil column response using traditional and newly developed metrics. Pore pressure recordings during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in New Zealand were used to validate the PM4Sand constitutive model. Soil profile characterization was key to accurate prediction of excess pore pressure response and accounting for any densification during the CES. Response during multiple earthquakes was captured effectively and cross-layer interaction demonstrated the model capability to capture soil response at the system-level. Synthetic and observed ground motions from the Christchurch earthquake were applied to the validated soil column to quantify the performance of synthetic motions. New metrics were developed to facilitate a robust comparison to assess performance. The synthetic input motions demonstrated a slightly larger acceleration and excess pore pressure response compared to the observed input motions. The results suggest that the synthetic motions may accumulate higher excess pore pressure at a faster rate and with fewer number of cycles in the shear response. This research compares validated soil profile subject to spectrally-matched pulse and non-pulse motions, emphasizing the inclusion of pulse motions with distinctive characteristics in ground motion suites for non-linear dynamic analysis. However, spectral matching may lead to undesired alterations in pulse characteristics. Cumulative absolute velocity and significant duration significantly differed between these two groups compared to the other key characteristics and contributed considerably to the liquefaction response. Unlike the non-pulse motions, not all of the pulse motions triggered liquefaction, likely due to their shorter significant duration. Non-pulse motions developed a greater spatial extent of liquefaction triggering in the soil profile and extended to a greater depth.
