The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the Canterbury Lifeline Utilities Group have collaborated to assemble documented infra- structure-related learnings from the recent Canterbury earthquakes and other natural hazard events over the last 15 years (i.e. since publication of Risks and Realities). The project was led by the Centre for Advanced Engineering (CAE) and was undertaken to promote knowledge sharing by facilitating access to diverse documents on natural hazard learnings, a matter of ongoing relevance and very considerable current interest.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand’s South Island induced widespread liquefaction phenomena across the Christchurch urban area on four occasions (4 Sept 2010; 22 Feb; 13 June; 23 Dec 2011), that resulted in widespread ejection of silt and fine sand. This impacted transport networks as well as infiltrated and contaminated the damaged storm water system, making rapid clean-up an immediate post-earthquake priority. In some places the ejecta was contaminated by raw sewage and was readily remobilised in dry windy conditions, creating a long-term health risk to the population. Thousands of residential properties were inundated with liquefaction ejecta, however residents typically lacked the capacity (time or resources) to clean-up without external assistance. The liquefaction silt clean-up response was co-ordinated by the Christchurch City Council and executed by a network of contractors and volunteer groups, including the ‘Farmy-Army’ and the ‘Student-Army’. The duration of clean-up time of residential properties and the road network was approximately 2 months for each of the 3 main liquefaction inducing earthquakes; despite each event producing different volumes of ejecta. Preliminary cost estimates indicate total clean-up costs will be over NZ$25 million. Over 500,000 tonnes of ejecta has been stockpiled at Burwood landfill since the beginning of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. The liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine grained sediment in urban areas.
A linear and non-linear model are developed to analyze the structural impact and response of two single degree of freedom structures, representing adjacent buildings or bridge sections. Different impact coefficients of restitution, normalized distances between structures and a range of different structural periods are considered. The probability of impact and the displacement changes that can result from these collisions are computed. The likelihood of an increase in displacement is quantified in a probabilistic sense. A full matrix of response simulations are performed to individually investigate and delineate the effects of inter-structure gap-ratio, period ratios, structural non-linearity and impact elasticity. Column inelasticity is incorporated through the use of a Ramberg-Osgood type hysteresis rule. The minimum normalized distance, or gap-ratio, required between two structures to ensure that the likelihood of increased displacement of more than 10% for either structure for 90% of the given earthquake ground motions is assessed as one of many possible design risk bounds. Increased gap ratio, defined as a percentage of spectral displacement, is shown to reduce the likelihood of impact, as well as close structural periods. Larger differences in the relative periods of the two structures were seen to significantly increase the likelihood of impact. Inclusion of column inelasticity and higher plasticity of impact reduce displacement increases from impact and thus possible further damage to the structures. Such information can be used as a guideline to manage undesirable effects of impact in design - a factor that has been observed to be very important during the recent Canterbury, New Zealand Earthquakes.
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.
