New Zealand's devastating Canterbury earthquakes provided an opportunity to examine the efficacy of existing regulations and policies relevant to seismic strengthening of vulnerable buildings. The mixed-methods approach adopted, comprising both qualitative and quantitative approaches, revealed that some of the provisions in these regulations pose as constraints to appropriate strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. Those provisions include the current seismic design philosophy, lack of mandatory disclosure of seismic risks and ineffective timeframes for strengthening vulnerable buildings. Recommendations arising from these research findings and implications for pre-disaster mitigation for future earthquake and Canterbury's post-disaster reconstruction suggest: (1) a reappraisal of the requirements for earthquake engineering design and construction, (2) a review and realignment of all regulatory frameworks relevant to earthquake risk mitigation, and (3) the need to develop a national programme necessary to achieve consistent mitigation efforts across the country. These recommendations are important in order to present a robust framework where New Zealand communities such as Christchurch can gradually recover after a major earthquake disaster, while planning for pre-disaster mitigation against future earthquakes. AM - Accepted Manuscript
Territorial authorities in New Zealand are responding to regulatory and market forces in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to assess and retrofit buildings determined to be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Pending legislation may shorten the permissible timeframes on such seismic improvement programmes, but Auckland Council’s Property Department is already engaging in a proactive effort to assess its portfolio of approximately 3500 buildings, prioritise these assets for retrofit, and forecast construction costs for improvements. Within the programme structure, the following varied and often competing factors must be accommodated: * The council’s legal, fiscal, and ethical obligations to the people of Auckland per building regulations, health and safety protocols, and economic growth and urban development planning strategies; * The council’s functional priorities for service delivery; * Varied and numerous stakeholders across the largest territorial region in New Zealand in both population and landmass; * Heritage preservation and community and cultural values; and * Auckland’s prominent economic role in New Zealand’s economy which requires Auckland’s continued economic production post-disaster. Identifying those buildings most at risk to an earthquake in such a large and varied portfolio has warranted a rapid field assessment programme supplemented by strategically chosen detailed assessments. Furthermore, Auckland Council will benefit greatly in time and resources by choosing retrofit solutions, techniques, and technologies applicable to a large number of buildings with similar configurations and materials. From a research perspective, the number and variety of buildings within the council’s property portfolio will provide valuable data for risk modellers on building typologies in Auckland, which are expected to be fairly representative of the New Zealand building stock as a whole.
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.
Coastal and river environments are exposed to a number of natural hazards that have the potential to negatively affect both human and natural environments. The purpose of this research is to explain that significant vulnerabilities to seismic hazards exist within coastal and river environments and that coasts and rivers, past and present, have played as significant a role as seismic, engineering or socio-economic factors in determining the impacts and recovery patterns of a city following a seismic hazard event. An interdisciplinary approach was used to investigate the vulnerability of coastal and river areas in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, which began on the 4th of September 2010. This information was used to identify the characteristics of coasts and rivers that make them more susceptible to earthquake induced hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading, flooding, landslides and rock falls. The findings of this research are applicable to similar coastal and river environments elsewhere in the world where seismic hazards are also of significant concern. An interdisciplinary approach was used to document and analyse the coastal and river related effects of the Canterbury earthquake sequence on Christchurch city in order to derive transferable lessons that can be used to design less vulnerable urban communities and help to predict seismic vulnerabilities in other New Zealand and international urban coastal and river environments for the future. Methods used to document past and present features and earthquake impacts on coasts and rivers in Christchurch included using maps derived from Geographical Information Systems (GIS), photographs, analysis of interviews from coastal, river and engineering experts, and analysis of secondary data on seismicity, liquefaction potential, geology, and planning statutes. The Canterbury earthquake sequence had a significant effect on Christchurch, particularly around rivers and the coast. This was due to the susceptibility of rivers to lateral spreading and the susceptibility of the eastern Christchurch and estuarine environments to liquefaction. The collapse of river banks and the extensive cracking, tilting and subsidence that accompanied liquefaction, lateral spreading and rock falls caused damage to homes, roads, bridges and lifelines. This consequently blocked transportation routes, interrupted electricity and water lines, and damaged structures built in their path. This study found that there are a number of physical features of coastal and river environments from the past and the present that have induced vulnerabilities to earthquake hazards. The types of sediments found beneath eastern Christchurch are unconsolidated fine sands, silts, peats and gravels. Together with the high water tables located beneath the city, these deposits made the area particularly susceptible to liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, when an earthquake of sufficient size shook the ground. It was both past and present coastal and river processes that deposited the types of sediments that are easily liquefied during an earthquake. Eastern Christchurch was once a coastal and marine environment 6000 years ago when the shoreline reached about 6 km inland of its present day location, which deposited fine sand and silts over this area. The region was also exposed to large braided rivers and smaller spring fed rivers, both of which have laid down further fine sediments over the following thousands of years. A significant finding of this study is the recognition that the Canterbury earthquake sequence has exacerbated existing coastal and river hazards and that assessments and monitoring of these changes will be an important component of Christchurch’s future resilience to natural hazards. In addition, patterns of recovery following the Canterbury earthquakes are highlighted to show that coasts and rivers are again vulnerable to earthquakes through their ability to recovery. This city’s capacity to incorporate resilience into the recovery efforts is also highlighted in this study. Coastal and river areas have underlying physical characteristics that make them increasingly vulnerable to the effects of earthquake hazards, which have not typically been perceived as a ‘coastal’ or ‘river’ hazard. These findings enhance scientific and management understanding of the effects that earthquakes can have on coastal and river environments, an area of research that has had modest consideration to date. This understanding is important from a coastal and river hazard management perspective as concerns for increased human development around coastlines and river margins, with a high seismic risk, continue to grow.
