Christchurch has experienced a series of over 13,500 earthquakes between September 2010 and January 2012. Some children who have been exposed to earthquakes may experience post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD) including difficulty concentrating, feeling anxious, restlessness and confusion. Other children may be resilient to the effects of disaster. Western models of resilience relate to a child’s social support and their capacity to cope. The Māori model of wellbeing relates to whanau (family), wairua (spiritual connections), tinana (the physical body) and hinengaro (the mind and emotions). Children’s concepts of helping, caring and learning may provide insight into resilience without introducing the topic of earthquakes into the conversation, which in itself may provoke an episode of stress. Many researchers have studied the effects of earthquakes on children. However, few studies have examined positive outcomes and resilience or listened to the children’s voices. The objective of this study was to listen to the voices of children who experienced the Canterbury earthquake period in order to gain a deeper understanding of the ideas associated resilience. Individual interviews were conducted with 17 five-year-old participants during their first term of primary school. After the interviews, the teacher shared demographic information and reports on the children’s stress and coping. Six children were identified as New Zealand European and eleven children identified as New Zealand Māori. Children had different views of helping, caring and learning. Themes of resilience from Western and Kaupapa Māori models were identified in transcripts of the children's voices and drawings. Māori children voiced more themes of resilience associated with the Western model, and in the Tapa Whā model, Māori children's transcripts were more likely to be inclusive of all four components of well-being. How five-year-old children, having experienced an earthquake disaster during their preschool years, talk or draw pictures about helping, caring and learning can provide insight into resilience, especially in situations where it is not advisable to re-traumatise children by discussing the disaster event. Future research should interview parents/caregivers and whānau to gain further insights. Considering information from both a Western and a Tapa Whā perspective can also provide new insights into resilience in young children. A limitation of this study is that qualitative studies are not always free from a researcher’s interpretation and are, therefore, subjective.
This paper presents insights from recent advanced laboratory testing of undisturbed and reconstituted specimens of Christchurch silty-sands. The purpose of the testing was to establish the cyclic strength of silty-sands from sites in the Central Business District (CBD), where liquefaction was observed in 4 September 2010, 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011. Similar overall strengths were obtained from undisturbed and reconstituted tests prepared at similar densities, albeit with higher variability for the reconstituted specimens. Reconstituted specimens exhibited distinctly different response in terms of lower compressibility during initial loading cycles, and exhibited a more brittle response when large strains were mobilised, particularly for samples with high fines content. Given the lower variability in natural sample response and the possibility of age-related strength to be significant for sites not subjected to earthquakes, high quality undisturbed samples are recommended over the use of reconstituted specimens to establish the cyclic strength of natural sands.
Novel Gel-push sampling was employed to obtain high quality samples of Christchurch sands from the Central Business District, at sites where liquefaction was observed in 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011 earthquakes. The results of cyclic triaxial testing on selected undisturbed specimens of typical Christchurch sands are presented and compared to empirical procedures used by practitioners. This comparison suggests cyclic triaxial data may be conservative, and the Magnitude Scaling Factor used in empirical procedures may be unconservative for highly compressible soils during near source moderate to low magnitude events. Comparison to empirical triggering curves suggests the empirical method generally estimates the cyclic strength of Christchurch sands within a reasonable degree of accuracy as a screening evaluation tool for liquefaction hazard, however for sands with moderate to high fines content it may be significantly unconservative, highlighting the need for high quality sampling and testing on important projects where seismic performance is critical.
The capability of self-compacting concrete (SCC) in flowing through and filling in even the most congested areas makes it ideal for being used in congested reinforced concrete (RC) structural members such as beam-column joints (BCJ). However, members of tall multi-storey structures impose high capacity requirements where implementing normal-strength self-compacting concrete is not preferable. In the present study, a commercially reproducible high-strength self-compacting concrete (HSSCC), a conventionally vibrated high-strength concrete (CVHSC) and a normal strength conventionally vibrated concrete (CVC) were designed using locally available materials in Christchurch, New Zealand. Following the guidelines of the New Zealand concrete standards NZS3101, seven beam-column joints (BCJ) were designed. Factors such as the concrete type, grade of reinforcement, amount of joint shear stirrups, axial load, and direction of casting were considered variables. All BCJs were tested under a displacement-controlled quasi-static reversed cyclic regime. The cracking pattern at different load levels and the mode of failure were also recorded. In addition, the load, displacement, drift, ductility, joint shear deformations, and elongation of the plastic hinge zone were also measured during the experiment. It was found that not only none of the seismically important features were compromised by using HSSCC, but also the quality of material and ease of construction boosted the performance of the BCJs.
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 of 2010-2011, in particular the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, produced severe and widespread liquefaction in Christchurch and surrounding areas. The scale of the liquefaction was unprecedented, and caused extensive damage to a variety of man-made structures, including residential houses. Around 20,000 residential houses suffered serious damage as a direct result of the effects of liquefaction, and this resulted in approximately 7000 houses in the worst-hit areas being abandoned. Despite the good performance of light timber-framed houses under the inertial loads of the earthquake, these structures could not withstand the large loads and deformations associated with liquefaction, resulting in significant damage. The key structural component of houses subjected to liquefaction effects was found to be their foundations, as these are in direct contact with the ground. The performance of house foundations directly influenced the performance of the structure as a whole. Because of this, and due to the lack of research in this area, it was decided to investigate the performance of houses and in particular their foundations when subjected to the effects of liquefaction. The data from the inspections of approximately 500 houses conducted by a University of Canterbury summer research team following the 4th September 2010 earthquake in the worst-hit areas of Christchurch were analysed to determine the general performance of residential houses when subjected to high liquefaction loads. This was followed by the detailed inspection of around 170 houses with four different foundation types common to Christchurch and New Zealand: Concrete perimeter with short piers constructed to NZS3604, concrete slab-on-grade also to NZS3604, RibRaft slabs designed by Firth Industries and driven pile foundations. With a focus on foundations, floor levels and slopes were measured, and the damage to all areas of the house and property were recorded. Seven invasive inspections were also conducted on houses being demolished, to examine in more detail the deformation modes and the causes of damage in severely affected houses. The simplified modelling of concrete perimeter sections subjected to a variety of liquefaction-related scenarios was also performed, to examine the comparative performance of foundations built in different periods, and the loads generated under various bearing loss and lateral spreading cases. It was found that the level of foundation damage is directly related to the level of liquefaction experienced, and that foundation damage and liquefaction severity in turn influence the performance of the superstructure. Concrete perimeter foundations were found to have performed most poorly, suffering high local floor slopes and being likely to require foundation repairs even when liquefaction was low enough that no surface ejecta was seen. This was due to their weak, flexible foundation structure, which cannot withstand liquefaction loads without deforming. The vulnerability of concrete perimeter foundations was confirmed through modelling. Slab-on-grade foundations performed better, and were unlikely to require repairs at low levels of liquefaction. Ribraft and piled foundations performed the best, with repairs unlikely up to moderate levels of liquefaction. However, all foundation types were susceptible to significant damage at higher levels of liquefaction, with maximum differential settlements of 474mm, 202mm, 182mm and 250mm found for concrete perimeter, slab-on-grade, ribraft and piled foundations respectively when subjected to significant lateral spreading, the most severe loading scenario caused by liquefaction. It was found through the analysis of the data that the type of exterior wall cladding, either heavy or light, and the number of storeys, did not affect the performance of foundations. This was also shown through modelling for concrete perimeter foundations, and is due to the increased foundation strengths provided for heavily cladded and two-storey houses. Heavy roof claddings were found to increase the demands on foundations, worsening their performance. Pre-1930 concrete perimeter foundations were also found to be very vulnerable to damage under liquefaction loads, due to their weak and brittle construction.
