Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in Christchurch and surrounding suburbs during the recent Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (2010-2011) caused significant damage to structures and lifelines located in close proximity to streams and rivers. Simplified methods used in current engineering practice for predicting lateral ground displacements exhibit a high degree of epistemic uncertainty, but provide ‘order of magnitude’ estimates to appraise the hazard. We wish to compare model predictions to field measurements in order to assess the model’s capabilities and limitations with respect to Christchurch conditions. The analysis presented focuses on the widely-used empirical model of Youd et al. (2002), developed based on multi-linear regression (MLR) of case history data from lateral spreading occurrence in Japan and the US. Two issues arising from the application of this model to Christchurch were considered: • Small data set of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and soil gradation indices (fines content FC, and mean grain size, D50) required for input. We attempt to use widely available CPT data with site specific correlations to FC and D50. • Uncertainty associated with the model input parameters and their influence on predicted displacements. This has been investigated for a specific location through a sensitivity analysis.
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
The Canterbury earthquakes caused huge amounts of damage to Christchurch and the surrounding area and presented a very challenging situation for both insurers and claimants. While tourism has suffered significant losses as a result, particularly due to the subsequent decrease in visitor numbers, the Canterbury region was very fortunate to have high levels of insurance coverage. This report, based on data gathered from tourism operators on the ground in Canterbury, looks at how this sector has been affected by the quakes, claims patterns, and the behaviour and perceptions of tourism operators about insurance.
The Avon-Heathcote Estuary is of significant value to Christchurch due to its high productivity, biotic diversity, proximity to the city, and its cultural, recreational and aesthetic qualities. Nonetheless, it has been subjected to decades of degradation from sewage wastewater discharges and encroaching urban development. The result was a eutrophied estuary, high in nitrogen, affected by large blooms of nuisance macroalgae and covered by degraded sediments. In March 2010, treated wastewater was diverted from the estuary to a site 3 km offshore. This quickly reduced water nitrogen by 90% within the estuary and, within months, there was reduced production of macroalgae. However, a series of earthquakes beginning in September 2010 brought massive changes: tilting of the estuary, changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sediment and nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are an important buffer against eutrophication. Therefore, in tandem with the wastewater diversion, they could underpin much of the recovery of the estuary. Overall, the new sediments were less favourable for benthic microalgal growth and recolonisation, but were less contaminated than old sediments at highly eutrophic sites. Because the new sediments were less contaminated than the old sediments, they could help return the estuary to a noneutrophic state. However, if the new sediments, which are less favourable for microalgal growth, disperse over the old sediments at highly eutrophic sites, they could become contaminated and interfere with estuarine recovery. Therefore, recovery of microalgal communities and the estuary was expected to be generally long, but variable and site-specific, with the least eutrophic sites recovering quickly, and the most eutrophic sites taking years to return to a pre-earthquake and non-eutrophied state. changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sedimen tand nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are
None
Cultural heritage is a dynamic concept, incorporating the ideas and values of many different organisations and individuals; it is heavily dependent on the context of the item or site being conserved, and transforms something from an old article into a historically significant object. A formal definition of cultural heritage did not appear in the Antarctic Treaty System until 1995, however Antarctic heritage value has been applied to various sites and monuments since the inception of the Treaty, from Shackleton’s Nimrod Hut to a heavy tractor. This report examines a number of case studies to determine the various ways in which heritage items and sites can be managed – such as the removal of the South Pole Dome – as well as their conservation after natural disasters, for instance the Christchurch earthquakes.
The Canterbury earthquakes, which started with the 7.1 magnitude event on September 4, 2010, caused significant damage in the region. The September 4 earthquakes brought substantial damage to land, buildings, and infrastructure, while the 6.3 magnitude earthquake on February 22, 2011 (and its subsequent aftershocks), brought even greater property damage, but also significant loss of life in addition to the region. Thousands were injured, and 185 persons died. A national State of Emergency was declared and remained in effect until April 30, 2011. A significant number of people required immediate assistance and support to deal with loss, injury, trauma experiences, and property damages. Many had to find alternate accommodation as their houses were too damaged to stay in. Of those affected, many were already vulnerable, and others had been too traumatized by the events to effectively deal with the challenges they were faced with. A number of human service organizations in the region, from both government and non-government sectors, joined forces to be able to more effectively and efficiently help those in need. This was the start of what would become known as the Earthquake Support Coordination Service. The aim of this report is to present an evaluation of the Earthquake Support Coordination Service and its collaborative organization, based on documentation and interviews with key stakeholders of the service. The aim is also to evaluate the service based on perspectives gathered among the clients as well as the coordinators working in the service. The final aim is to offer a reflection on the service model, and on what factors enabled the service, as well as recommendations regarding aspects of the service which may require review, and aspects which may be useful in other contexts.
