The Acheron rock avalanche is located in the Red Hill valley almost 80 km west of Christchurch and is one of 42 greywacke-derived rock avalanches identified in the central Southern Alps. It overlies the Holocene active Porters Pass Fault; a component of the Porters Pass-Amberley Fault Zone which extends from the Rakaia River to beyond the Waimakariri River. The Porters Pass Fault is a dextral strike-slip fault system viewed as a series of discontinuous fault scarps. The location of the fault trace beneath the deposit suggests it may represent a possible source of seismic shaking resulting in the formation of the Acheron rock avalanche. The rock mass composition of the rock avalanche source scar is Torlesse Supergroup greywacke consisting of massive sandstone and thinly bedded mudstone sequences dipping steeply north into the centre of the source basin. A stability analysis identified potential instability along shallow north dipping planar defects, and steep south dipping toppling failure planes. The interaction of the defects with bedding is considered to have formed conditions for potential instability most likely triggered by a seismic event. The dTositional area of the rock avalanche covers 7.2 x 105 m2 with an estimated volume of 9 x 10 m3 The mobilised rock mass volume was calculated at 7.5 x 106 m3• Run out of the debris from the top of the source scar to the distal limit reached 3500m, descending over a vertical fall of almost 700m with an estimated Fahrboschung of 0.2. The run out of the rock avalanche displayed moderate to high mobility, travelling at an estimated maximum velocity of 140-160 km/hour. The rapid emplacement of the deposit is confirmed by highly fragmented internal composition and burial of forest vegetation New radiocarbon ages from buried wood retrieved from the base of Acheron rock avalanche deposit represents an emplacement age closely post-dating (Wk 12094) 1152 ± 51 years B.P. This differs significantly from a previous radiocarbon age of (NZ547) 500 ± 69 years B.P. and modal lichenometry and weathering-rind thickness ages of approximately 460 ± 10 yrs and 490 ± 50 years B.P. The new age shows no resemblance to an earthquake event around 700- 500 years B.P. on the Porters Pass-Amberley Fault Zone. The DAN run out simulation using a friction model rheology successfully replicated the long run out and velocity of the Acheron rock avalanche using a frictron angle of 27° and high earth pressure coefficients of 5.5, 5.2, and 5.9. The elevated earth pressure coefficients represent dispersive pressures derived from dynamic fragmentation of the debris within the mobile rock avalanche, supporting the hypothesis of Davies and McSaveney (2002). The DAN model has potential applications for areas prone to large-scale instability in the elevated slopes and steep waterways of the Southern Alps. A paleoseismic investigation of a newly identified scarp of the Porters Pass Fault partially buried by the rock avalanche was conducted to identify any evidence of a coseismic relationship to the Acheron rock avalanche. This identified three-four fault traces striking at 078°, and a sag pond displaying a sequence of overbank deposits containing two buried soils representing an earthquake event horizon. A 40cm vertical offset of the ponded sediment and lower buried soil horizqn was recorded, which was dated to (Wk 13112 charcoal in palosol) 653 ± 54 years B.P. and (Wk 13034 palosol) 661 ± 34 years B.P. The evidence indicates a fault rupture occurred along the Porters Pass Fault, west of Porters Pass most likely extending to the Red Lakes terraces, post-dating 700 years B.P., resulting in 40cm of vertical displacement and an unknown component of dextral strike slip movement. This event post dates the event one (1000 ± 100 years B.P) at Porters Pass previously considered to represent the most recent rupture along the fault line. This points to a probable source for resetting of the modal weathering-rind thicknesses and lichen size populations in the Red Hill valley and possibly the Red Lakes terraces. These results suggest careful consideration must be given to the geomorphic and paleoseismic history of a specific site when applying surface dating techniques and furthermore the origin of dates used in literature and their useful range should be verified. An event at 700-500 years B.P did not trigger the Acheron rock avalanche as previously assumed supporting Howard's conclusions. The lack of similar aged rupture evidence in either of the Porters Pass and Coleridge trenches supports Howard's hypothesis of segmentation of the Porters Pass Fault; where rupture occurs along one fault segment but not along another. The new rock avalanche age closely post-dating 1200-1100 years B.P. resembles the poorly constrained event one rupture age of 1700-800 years B.P for the Porters Pass Fault and the tighter constrained Round Top event of 1010 ± 50 years B.P. on the Alpine Fault. Eight other rock avalanche deposits spread across the central Southern Alps also resemble the new ages however are unable to be assigned specific earthquake events due to the large associated error bars of± 270 years. This clustering of ages does represent compelling lines of evidence for large magnitude earthquake events occurring over the central Southern Alps. The presence of a rock avalanche deposit does not signify an earthquake based on the historical evidence in the Southern Alps however clustering of ages does suggest that large Mw >7 earthquakes occurred across the Southern Alps between 1200-900 years BP.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls involve the use of geosynthetic reinforcement (polymer material) within the retained backfill, forming a reinforced soil block where transmission of overturning and sliding forces on the wall to the backfill occurs. Key advantages of GRS systems include the reduced need for large foundations, cost reduction (up to 50%), lower environmental costs, faster construction and significantly improved seismic performance as observed in previous earthquakes. Design methods in New Zealand have not been well established and as a result, GRS structures do not have a uniform level of seismic and static resistance; hence involve different risks of failure. Further research is required to better understand the seismic behaviour of GRS structures to advance design practices. The experimental study of this research involved a series of twelve 1-g shake table tests on reduced-scale (1:5) GRS wall models using the University of Canterbury shake-table. The seismic excitation of the models was unidirectional sinusoidal input motion with a predominant frequency of 5Hz and 10s duration. Seismic excitation of the model commenced at an acceleration amplitude level of 0.1g and was incrementally increased by 0.1g in subsequent excitation levels up to failure (excessive displacement of the wall panel). The wall models were 900mm high with a full-height rigid facing panel and five layers of Microgird reinforcement (reinforcement spacing of 150mm). The wall panel toe was founded on a rigid foundation and was free to slide. The backfill deposit was constructed from dry Albany sand to a backfill relative density, Dr = 85% or 50% through model vibration. The influence of GRS wall parameters such as reinforcement length and layout, backfill density and application of a 3kPa surcharge on the backfill surface was investigated in the testing sequence. Through extensive instrumentation of the wall models, the wall facing displacements, backfill accelerations, earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at the varying levels of model excitation. Additionally, backfill deformation was also measured through high-speed imaging and Geotechnical Particle Image Velocimetry (GeoPIV) analysis. The GeoPIV analysis enabled the identification of the evolution of shear strains and volumetric strains within the backfill at low strain levels before failure of the wall thus allowing interpretations to be made regarding the strain development and shear band progression within the retained backfill. Rotation about the wall toe was the predominant failure mechanism in all excitation level with sliding only significant in the last two excitation levels, resulting in a bi-linear displacement acceleration curve. An increase in acceleration amplification with increasing excitation was observed with amplification factors of up to 1.5 recorded. Maximum seismic and static horizontal earth pressures were recorded at failure and were recorded at the wall toe. The highest reinforcement load was recorded at the lowest (deepest in the backfill) reinforcement layer with a decrease in peak load observed at failure, possibly due to pullout failure of the reinforcement layer. Conversely, peak reinforcement load was recorded at failure for the top reinforcement layer. The staggered reinforcement models exhibited greater wall stability than the uniform reinforcement models of L/H=0.75. However, similar critical accelerations were determined for the two wall models due to the coarseness of excitation level increments of 0.1g. The extended top reinforcements were found to restrict the rotational component of displacement and prevented the development of a preliminary shear band at the middle reinforcement layer, contributing positively to wall stability. Lower acceleration amplification factors were determined for the longer uniform reinforcement length models due to reduced model deformation. A greater distribution of reinforcement load towards the top two extended reinforcement layers was also observed in the staggered wall models. An increase in model backfill density was observed to result in greater wall stability than an increase in uniform reinforcement length. Greater acceleration amplification was observed in looser backfill models due to their lower model stiffness. Due to greater confinement of the reinforcement layers, greater reinforcement loads were developed in higher density wall models with less wall movement required to engage the reinforcement layers and mobilise their resistance. The application of surcharge on the backfill was observed to initially increase the wall stability due to greater normal stresses within the backfill but at greater excitation levels, the surcharge contribution to wall destabilising inertial forces outweighs its contribution to wall stability. As a result, no clear influence of surcharge on the critical acceleration of the wall models was observed. Lower acceleration amplification factors were observed for the surcharged models as the surcharge acts as a damper during excitation. The application of the surcharge also increases the magnitude of reinforcement load developed due to greater confinement and increased wall destabilising forces. The rotation of the wall panel resulted in the progressive development of shears surface with depth that extended from the backfill surface to the ends of the reinforcement (edge of the reinforced soil block). The resultant failure plane would have extended from the backfill surface to the lowest reinforcement layer before developing at the toe of the wall, forming a two-wedge failure mechanism. This is confirmed by development of failure planes at the lowest reinforcement layer (deepest with the backfill) and at the wall toe observed at the critical acceleration level. Key observations of the effect of different wall parameters from the GeoPIV results are found to be in good agreement with conclusions developed from the other forms of instrumentation. Further research is required to achieve the goal of developing seismic guidelines for GRS walls in geotechnical structures in New Zealand. This includes developing and testing wall models with a different facing type (segmental or wrap-around facing), load cell instrumentation of all reinforcement layers, dynamic loading on the wall panel and the use of local soils as the backfill material. Lastly, the limitations of the experimental procedure and wall models should be understood.
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
Documenting earthquake-induced ground deformation is significant to assess the characteristics of past and contemporary earthquakes and provide insight into seismic hazard. This study uses airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and conducts multi-disciplinary field techniques to document the surface rupture morphology and evaluate the paleoseismicity and seismic hazard parameters of the Hurunui segment of the Hope Fault in the northern South Island of New Zealand. It also documents and evaluates seismically induced features and ground motion characteristics of the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes in the Port Hills, south of Christchurch. These two studies are linked in that they investigate the near-field coseismic features of large (Mw ~7.1) earthquakes in New Zealand and produce data for evaluating seismic hazards of future earthquakes. In the northern South Island of New Zealand, the Australian-Pacific plate boundary is characterised by strike-slip deformation across the Marlborough Fault System (MFS). The ENE-striking Hope Fault (length: ~230 km) is the youngest and southernmost fault in the MFS, and the second fastest slipping fault in New Zealand. The Hope Fault is a major source of seismic hazard in New Zealand and has ruptured (in-part) historically in the Mw 7.1 1888 Amuri earthquake. In the west, the Hurunui segment of the Hope Fault is covered by beech forest. Hence, its seismic hazard parameters and paleoearthquake chronology were poorly constrained and it was unknown whether the 1888 earthquake ruptured this segment or not and if so, to what extent. Utilising LiDAR and field data, a 29 km-long section of the Hurunui segment of the Hope Fault is mapped. LiDAR-mapping clearly reveals the principal slip zone (PSZ) of the fault and a suite of previously unrecognised structures that form the fault deformation zone (FDZ). FDZ width measurements from 415 locations reveal a spatially-variable, active FDZ up to ~500 m wide with an average width of 200 m. Kinematic analysis of the fault structures shows that the Hurunui segment strikes between 070° and 075° and is optimally oriented for dextral strike-slip within the regional stress field. This implies that the wide FDZ observed is unlikely to result from large-scale fault mis-orientation with respect to regional stresses. The analysis of FDZ width indicates that it increases with increased hanging wall topography and increased topographic relief suggesting that along-strike topographic perturbations to fault geometry and stress states increase fault zone complexity and width. FDZ width also increases where the tips of adjacent PSZ strands locally vary in strike, and where the thickness of alluvial deposits overlying bedrock increases. LiDAR- and photogrammetrically-derived topographic mapping indicates that the boundary between the Hurunui and Hope River segments is characterised by a ~850-m-wide right stepover and a 9º-14° fault bend. Paleoseismic trenching at Hope Shelter site reveals that 6 earthquakes occurred at A.D. 1888, 1740-1840, 1479-1623, 819-1092, 439-551, and 373- 419. These rupture events have a mean recurrence interval of ~298 ± 88 yr and inter-event times ranging from 98 to 595 yrs. The variation in the inter-event times is explained by (1) coalescing rupture overlap from the adjacent Hope River segment on to the Hurunui segment at the study site, (2) temporal clustering of large earthquakes on the Hurunui segment, and/or (3) ‘missing’ rupture events. It appears that the first two options are more plausible to explain the earthquake chronologies and rupture behaviour on the Hurunui segment, given the detailed nature of the geologic and chronologic investigations. This study provides first evidence for coseismic multi-segment ruptures on the Hope Fault by identifying a rupture length of 44-70 km for the 1888 earthquake, which was not confined to the Hope River segment (primary source for the 1888 earthquake). LiDAR data is also used to identify and measure dextral displacements and scarp heights from the PSZ and structures within the FDZ along the Hurunui segment. Reconstruction of large dextrally-offset geomorphic features shows that the vertical component of slip accounts for only ~1% of the horizontal displacements and confirms that the fault is predominantly strike-slip. A strong correlation exists between the dextral displacements and elevations of geomorphic features suggesting the possibility of age correlation between the geomorphic features. A mean single event displacement (SED) of 3.6 ± 0.7 m is determined from interpretation of sets of dextral displacements of ≤ 25 m. Using the available surface age data and the cumulative dextral displacements from Matagouri Flat, McKenzie Fan, Macs Knob and Hope River sites, and the mean SED, a mean slip rate of 12.2 ± 2.4 mm/yr, and a mean recurrence interval of ~320 ± 120 yr, and a potential earthquake magnitude of Mw 7.2 are determined for the Hurunui segment. This study suggests that the fault slip rate has been constant over the last ~15000 yr. Strong ground motions from the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake displaced boulders and caused ground damage on some ridge crests in the Port Hills. However, the 2011 Christchurch earthquake neither displaced boulders nor caused ground damage at the same ridge crests. Documentation of locations (~400 m a.s.l.), lateral displacements (8-970 cm), displacement direction (250° ± 20°) of displaced boulders, in addition to their hosting socket geometries (< 1 cm to 50 cm depth), the orientation of the ridges (000°-015°) indicate that boulders have been displaced in the direction of instrumentally recorded transient peak ground horizontal displacements nearby and that the seismic waves have been amplified at the study sites. The co-existence of displaced and non-displaced boulders at proximal sites suggests small-scale ground motion variability and/or varying boulder-ground dynamic interactions relating to shallow phenomena such as variability in soil depth, bedrock fracture density and/or microtopography on the bedrock-soil interface. Shorter shaking duration of the 2011 Christchurch event, differing frequency contents and different source characteristics were all factors that may have contributed to generating circumstances less favourable to boulder displacement in this earthquake. Investigating seismically induced features, fault behaviour, site effects on the rupture behaviour, and site response to the seismic waves provides insights into fault rupture hazards.
