This thesis is concerned with springs that appeared in the Hillsborough, Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, and which have continued to discharge groundwater to the surface to the present time. Investigations have evolved, measurements of discharge at selected sites, limited chemical data on anions and isotope analysis. The springs are associated with earthquake generated fissures (extensional) and compression zones, mostly in loess-colluvium soils of the valley floor and lower slopes. Extensive peat swamps are present in the Hillsborough valley, with a groundwater table at ~1m below ground. The first appearance of the ‘new’ springs took place following the Mw 7.1 Darfield Earthquake on 4 September 2010, and discharges increased both in volume and extent of the Christchurch Mw 6.3 Earthquake of 22 February 2011. Five monitored sites show flow rates in the range of 4.2-14.4L/min, which have remained effectively constant for the duration of the study (2014-2015). Water chemistry analysis shows that the groundwater discharges are sourced primarily from volcanic bedrocks which underlies the valley at depths ≤50m below ground level. Isotope values confirm similarities with bedrock-sourced groundwater, and the short term (hours-days) influence of extreme rainfall events. Cyclone Lusi (2013-2014) affects were monitored and showed recovery of the bedrock derived water signature within 72 hours. Close to the mouth of the valley sediments interfinger with Waimakiriri River derived alluvium bearing a distinct and different isotope signature. Some mixing is evident at certain locations, but it is not clear if there is any influence from the Huntsbury reservoir which failed in the Port Hills Earthquake (22 February 2011) and stored groundwater from the Christchurch artesian aquifer system (Riccarton Gravel).
Data from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess and advance the current state of practice for evaluating liquefaction triggering. Towards this end, select case histories from the CES are used herein to assess the predictive capabilities of three alternative CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures: Robertson and Wride (1998); Moss et al. (2006); and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). Additionally, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) framework for predicting the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is also used to assess the predictive capabilities of the liquefaction evaluation procedures. Although it is not without limitations, use of the LPI framework for this purpose circumvents the need for selecting “critical” layers and their representative properties for study sites, which inherently involves subjectivity and thus has been a point of contention among researchers. It was found that while all the assessed liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures performed well for the parameter ranges of the sites analyzed, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) yielded predictions that are more consistent with field observations than the other procedures. However, use of the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure in conjunction with a Christchurch-specific correlation to estimate fines content showed a decreased performance relative to using a generic fines content correlation. As a result, the fines correction for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure needs further study.
In practice, several competing liquefaction evaluation procedures (LEPs) are used to compute factors of safety against soil liquefaction, often for use within a liquefaction potential index (LPI) framework to assess liquefaction hazard. At present, the influence of the selected LEP on the accuracy of LPI hazard assessment is unknown, and the need for LEP-specific calibrations of the LPI hazard scale has never been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of three CPT-based LEPs from the literature, operating within the LPI framework, for predicting the severity of liquefaction manifestation. Utilising more than 7000 liquefaction case studies from the 2010–2011 Canterbury (NZ) earthquake sequence, this study found that: (a) the relationship between liquefaction manifestation severity and computed LPI values is LEP-specific; (b) using a calibrated, LEP-specific hazard scale, the performance of the LPI models is essentially equivalent; and (c) the existing LPI framework has inherent limitations, resulting in inconsistent severity predictions against field observations for certain soil profiles, regardless of which LEP is used. It is unlikely that revisions of the LEPs will completely resolve these erroneous assessments. Rather, a revised index which more adequately accounts for the mechanics of liquefaction manifestation is needed.
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
Elevated levels of trace elements in the environment are of great concern because of their persistence, and their high potential to harm living organisms. The exposure of aquatic biota to trace elements can lead to bioaccumulation, and toxicity can result. Furthermore, the transfer of these elements through food chains can result in exposure to human consumers. Sea-fill or coastal fill sites are among the major anthropogenic sources of trace elements to the surrounding marine environment. For example, in the Maldives, Thilafushi Island is a sea-fill site consisting of assorted municipal solid waste, with multiple potential sources of trace elements. However, there is limited data on environmental trace element levels in the Maldives, and although seafood is harvested from close to this site, there is no existing data regarding trace element levels in Maldivian diets. Following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2011,
This paper presents an overview of the soil profile characteristics at strong motion station (SMS) locations in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD) based on recently completed geotechnical site investigations. Given the variability of Christchurch soils, detailed investigations were needed in close vicinity to each SMS. In this regard, CPT, SPT and borehole data, and shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles from surface wave dispersion data in close vicinity to the SMSs have been used to develop detailed representative soil profiles at each site and to determine site classes according to the New Zealand standard NZS1170.5. A disparity between the NZS1170.5 site classes based on Vs and SPT N60 investigation techniques is highlighted, and additional studies are needed to harmonize site classification based on these techniques. The short period mode of vibration of soft deposits above gravels, which are found throughout Christchurch, are compared to the long period mode of vibration of the entire soil profile to bedrock. These two distinct modes of vibration require further investigation to determine their impact on the site response. According to current American and European approaches to seismic site classification, all SMSs were classified as problematic soil sites due to the presence of liquefiable strata, soils which are not directly accounted for by the NZS1170.5 approach.
