Between 2010 and 2011, Canterbury experienced a series of four large earthquake events with associated aftershocks which caused widespread damage to residential and commercial infrastructure. Fine grained and uncompacted alluvial soils, typical to the Canterbury outwash plains, were exposed to high peak ground acceleration (PGA) during these events. This rapid increase in PGA induced cyclic strain softening and liquefaction in the saturated, near surface alluvial soils. Extensive research into understanding the response of soils in Canterbury to dynamic loading has since occurred. The Earthquake Commission (EQC), the Ministry of Business and Employment (MBIE), and the Christchurch City Council (CCC) have quantified the potential hazards associated with future seismic events. Theses bodies have tested numerous ground improvement design methods, and subsequently are at the forefront of the Canterbury recovery and rebuild process. Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) has been proven as a viable ground improvement foundation method used to enhance in situ soils by increasing stiffness and positively altering in situ soil characteristics. However, current industry practice for confirming the effectiveness of the DSM method involves specific laboratory and absolute soil test methods associated with the mixed column element itself. Currently, the response of the soil around the columns to DSM installation is poorly understood. This research aims to understand and quantify the effects of DSM columns on near surface alluvial soils between the DSM columns though the implementation of standardised empirical soil test methods. These soil strength properties and ground improvement changes have been investigated using shear wave velocity (Vs), soil behaviour and density response methods. The results of the three different empirical tests indicated a consistent improvement within the ground around the DSM columns in sandier soils. By contrast, cohesive silty soils portrayed less of a consistent response to DSM, although still recorded increases. Generally, within the tests completed 50 mm from the column edge, the soil response indicated a deterioration to DSM. This is likely to be a result of the destruction of the soil fabric as the stress and strain of DSM is applied to the un‐mixed in situ soils. The results suggest that during the installation of DSM columns, a positive ground effect occurs in a similar way to other methods of ground improvement. However, further research, including additional testing following this empirical method, laboratory testing and finite 2D and 3D modelling, would be useful to quantify, in detail, how in situ soils respond and how practitioners should consider these test results in their designs. This thesis begins to evaluate how alluvial soils tend to respond to DSM. Conducting more testing on the research site, on other sites in Christchurch, and around the world, would provide a more complete data set to confirm the results of this research and enable further evaluation. Completing this additional research could help geotechnical DSM practitioners to use standardised empirical test methods to measure and confirm ground improvement rather than using existing test methods in future DSM projects. Further, demonstrating the effectiveness of empirical test methods in a DSM context is likely to enable more cost effective and efficient testing of DSM columns in future geotechnical projects.
Recently developed performance-based earthquake engineering framework, such as one provided by PEER (Deierlein et al. 2003), assist in the quantification in terms of performance such as casualty, monetary losses and downtime. This opens up the opportunity to identify cost-effective retrofit/rehabilitation strategies by comparing upfront costs associated with retrofit with the repair costs that can be expected over time. This loss assessment can be strengthened by learning from recent earthquakes, such as the 2010 Canterbury and 2016 Kaikoura earthquakes. In order to investigate which types of retrofit/rehabilitation strategies may be most cost-effective, a case study building was chosen for this research. The Pacific Tower, a 22-storey EBF apartment located within the Christchurch central business district (CBD), was damaged and repaired during the 2010 Canterbury earthquake series. As such, by taking hazard levels accordingly (i.e. to correspond to the Christchurch CBD), modelling and analysing the structure, and considering the vulnerability and repair costs of its different components, it is possible to predict the expected losses of the aforementioned building. Using this information, cost-effective retrofit/rehabilitation strategy can be determined. This research found that more often than not, it would be beneficial to improve the performance of valuable non-structural components, such as partitions. Although it is true that improving such elements will increase the initial costs, over time, the benefits gained from reduced losses should be expected to overcome the initial costs. Aftershocks do increase the predicted losses of a building even in lower intensities due to the fact that non-structural components can get damaged at such low intensities. By comparing losses computed with and without consideration of aftershocks for a range of historical earthquakes, it was found that the ratio between losses due to main shock with aftershocks to the losses due to the main shock only tended to increase with increasing main shock magnitude. This may be due to the fact that larger magnitude earthquakes tend to generate larger magnitude aftershocks and as those aftershocks happen within a region around the main shock, they are more likely to cause intense shaking and additional damage. In addition to this observation, it was observed that the most significant component of loss of the case study building was the non-structural partition walls.
The magnitude Mw7.8 ‘Kaikōura’ earthquake occurred shortly after midnight on 14 November 2016. This paper presents an overview of the geotechnical impacts on the South Island of New Zealand recorded during the postevent reconnaissance. Despite the large moment magnitude of this earthquake, relatively little liquefaction was observed across the South Island, with the only severe manifestation occurring in the young, loose alluvial deposits in the floodplains of the Wairau and Opaoa Rivers near Blenheim. The spatial extent and volume of liquefaction ejecta across South Island is significantly less than that observed in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, and the impact of its occurrence to the built environment was largely negligible on account of the severe manifestations occurring away from the areas of major development. Large localised lateral displacements occurred in Kaikōura around Lyell Creek. The soft fine-grained material in the upper portions of the soil profile and the free face at the creek channel were responsible for the accumulation of displacement during the ground shaking. These movements had severely impacted the houses which were built close (within the zone of large displacement) to Lyell Creek. The wastewater treatment facility located just north of Kaikōura also suffered tears in the liners of the oxidation ponds and distortions in the aeration system due to ground movements. Ground failures on the Amuri and Emu Plains (within the Waiau Valley) were small considering the large peak accelerations (in excess of 1g) experienced in the area. Minor to moderate lateral spreading and ejecta was observed at some bridge crossings in the area. However, most of the structural damage sustained by the bridges was a result of the inertial loading, and the damage resulting from geotechnical issues were secondary.
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010-2011 caused widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch. Observations from the CES highlight some sites were liquefaction was predicted by the simplified method but did not manifest. There are a number of reasons why the simplified method may over-predict liquefaction, one of these is the dynamic interaction between soil layers within a stratified deposit. Soil layer interaction occurs through two key mechanisms; modification of the ground motion due to seismic waves passing through deep liquefied layers, and the effect of pore water seepage from an area of high excess pore water pressure to the surrounding soil. In this way, soil layer interaction can significantly alter the liquefaction behaviour and surface manifestation of soils subject to seismic loading. This research aimed to develop an understanding of how soil layer interaction, in particular ground motion modification, affects the development of excess pore water pressures and liquefaction manifestation in a soil deposit subject to seismic loading. A 1-D soil column time history Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) was conducted to give an in depth assessment of the development of pore pressures in a number of soil deposits. For this analysis, ground motions, soil profiles and model parameters were required for the ESA. Deconvolution of ground motions recorded at the surface during the CES was used to develop some acceleration time histories to input at the base of the soil-column model. An analysis of 55 sites around Christchurch, where detailed site investigations have been carried out, was then conducted to identify some simplified soil profiles and soil characteristics. From this analysis, four soil profiles representative of different levels of liquefaction manifestation were developed. These were; two thick uniform and vertically continuous sandy deposits that were representative of sites were liquefaction manifested in both the Mw 7.1 September 2010 and the Mw 6.3 February 2011 earthquakes, and two vertically discontinuous profiles with interlayered liquefiable and non-liquefiable layers representative of sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either the September 2010 or the February 2011 events. Model parameters were then developed for these four representative soil profiles through calibration of the constitutive model in element test simulations. Simulations were run for each of the four profiles subject to three levels of loading intensity. The results were analysed for the effect of soil layer interaction. These were then compared to a simplified triggering analysis for the same four profiles to determine where the simplified method was accurate in predicting soil liquefaction (for the continuous sandy deposits) and were it was less accurate (the vertically discontinuous deposits where soil layer interaction was a factor).
