Gravelly soils’ liquefaction has been documented since early 19th century with however the focus being sand-silts mixture – coarse documentation of this topic, that gravels do in fact liquefy was only acknowledged as an observation. With time, we have been impacted by earthquakes, EQ causing more damage to our property: life and environment-natural and built. In this realm of EQ related-damage the ground or soils in general act as buffer between the epicentre and the structures at a concerned site. Further, in this area, upon the eventual acknowledgement of liquefaction of soils as a problem, massive efforts were undertaken to understand its mechanics, what causes and thereby how to mitigate its ill-effects. Down that lane, gravelly soils’ liquefaction was another milestone covered in early 20th century, and thus regarded as a problematic subject. This being a fairly recent acknowledgement, efforts have initiated in this direction (or area of particle size under consideration-gravels>2mm), with this research outputs intended to complement that research for the betterment of our understanding of what’s happening and how shall we best address it, given the circumstances: socio (life) - environment (structures) - economic (cost or cost-“effectiveness’) and of course political (our “willingness” to want to address the problem). Case histories from at least 29 earthquakes worldwide have indicated that liquefaction can occur in gravelly soils (both in natural deposits and manmade reclamations) inducing large ground deformation and causing severe damage to civil infrastructures. However, the evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils remains to be a major challenge in geotechnical earthquake engineering. To date, laboratory tests aimed at evaluating the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils are still very limited, as compared to the large body of investigations carried out on assessing the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. While there is a general agreement that the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils can be as low as that of clean sands, previous studies suggested that the liquefaction behaviour of gravelly soils is significantly affected by two key factors, namely relative density (Dr) and gravel content (Gc). While it is clear that the liquefaction resistance of gravels increases with the increasing Dr, there are inconclusive and/or contradictory results regarding the effect of Gc on the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. Aimed at addressing this important topic, an investigation is being currently carried out by researchers at the University of Canterbury, UC. As a first step, a series of undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on selected sand-gravel mixtures (SGMs), and inter-grain state framework concepts such as the equivalent and skeleton void ratios were used to describe the joint effects of Gc and Dr on the liquefaction resistance of SGMs. Following such experimental effort, this study is aimed at providing new and useful insights, by developing a critical state-based method combined with the inter-grain state framework to uniquely describe the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. To do so, a series of monotonic drained triaxial tests will be carried out on selected SGMs. The outcomes of this study, combined with those obtained to date by UC researchers, will greatly contribute to the expansion of a worldwide assessment database, and also towards the development of a reliable liquefaction triggering procedure for characterising the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils, which is of paramount importance not only for the New Zealand context, but worldwide. This will make it possible for practising engineers to identify liquefiable gravelly soils in advance and make sound recommendations to minimise the impact of such hazards on land, and civil infrastructures.
The lateral capacity of a conventional CLT shear wall is often governed by the strength and stiffness of its connections, which do not significantly utilize the in-plane strength of the CLT. Therefore, CLT shear walls are not yet being used efficiently in the construction of mass timber buildings due to a lack of research on high-capacity connections and alternative wall configurations. In this study, cyclic experiments were completed on six full-scale, 5-ply cantilever CLT shear walls with high-capacity hold-downs using mixed angle screws and bolts. All specimens exhibited significantly higher strength and stiffness than previously tested conventional CLT shear walls in the literature. The base connections demonstrated ductile failure modes through yielding of the hold-down connections. Based on the experimental results, numerical models were calibrated to investigate the seismic behaviour of CLT shear walls for prototype buildings of 3 and 6-storeys in Christchurch, NZ. As an alternative to cantilever (single) shear walls, a type of coupled wall with steel link beams between adjacent CLT wall piers was investigated. Effective coupling requires the link beam-to-wall connections to have adequate strength to ensure ductile link beam responses and adequate stiffness to yield the link beams at a relatively low inter-storey drift level. To this end, three beam-to-wall connection types were developed and cyclically tested to investigate their behaviour and feasibility. Based on the test results of the critical connection, a 3-storey, 2/3-scale coupled CLT wall specimen with three steel link beams and mixed angle screwed hold-downs was cyclically tested to evaluate its performance and experimentally validate the system concept. The test results showed a relatively high lateral strength compared to conventional CLT shear walls, as well as a high system ductility ratio of 7.6. Failure of the system was characterised by combined bending and withdrawal of the screws in the mixed angle screw hold-downs, yielding and eventual inelastic buckling of the steel link beams, CLT toe crushing, and local CLT delamination. Following the initial test, the steel link beams, mixed angle screw hold-downs, and damaged CLT regions were repaired, then the wall specimen was re-tested. The repaired wall behaved similarly to the original test and exhibited slightly higher energy dissipation and peak strength, but marginally more rapid strength deterioration under cyclic loading. Several hybrid coupled CLT shear walls were numerically modelled and calibrated based on the results of the coupled wall experiments. Pushover analyses were conducted on a series of configurations to validate a capacity design method for the system and to investigate reasonable parameter values for use in the preliminary design of the system. Additionally, an iterative seismic design method was proposed and used to design sample buildings of 6, 8, and 10-storeys using both nonlinear pushover and nonlinear time history analyses to verify the prototype designs. Results of the sample building analyses demonstrated adequate seismic behaviour and the proposed design parameters were found to be appropriate. In summary, high-capacity CLT shear walls can be used for the resistance of earthquakes by using stronger base connections and coupled wall configurations. The large-scale experimental testing in this study has demonstrated that both cantilever and coupled CLT shear walls are feasible LLRSs which can provide significantly greater lateral strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation than conventional CLT shear wall configurations.
Landslides are significant hazards, especially in seismically-active mountainous regions, where shaking amplified by steep topography can result in widespread landsliding. These landslides present not only an acute hazard, but a chronic hazard that can last years-to-decades after the initial earthquake, causing recurring impacts. The Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake caused more than 20,000 landslides throughout North Canterbury and resulted in significant damage to nationally significant infrastructure in the coastal transport corridor (CTC), isolating Kaikōura from the rest of New Zealand. In the years following, ongoing landsliding triggered by intense rainfall exacerbated the impacts and slowed the recovery process. However, while there is significant research on co-seismic landslides and their initial impacts in New Zealand, little research has explored the evolution of co-seismic landslides and how this hazard changes over time. This research maps landslides annually between 2013 and 2021 to evaluate the changes in pre-earthquake, co-seismic and post-earthquake rates of landsliding to determine how landslide hazard has changed over this time. In particular, the research explores how the number, area, and spatial distribution of landslides has changed since the earthquake, and whether post-earthquake mitigation works have in any way affected the long-term landslide hazard. Mapping of landslides was undertaken using open-source, medium resolution Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 satellite imagery, with landslides identified visually and mapped as single polygons that capture both the source zone and deposit. Three study areas with differing levels of post-earthquake mitigation are compared: (i) the northern CTC, where the majority of mitigation was in the form of active debris removal; (ii) the southern CTC, where mitigation was primarily via passive protection measures; and (iii) Mount Fyffe, which has had no mitigation works since the earthquake. The results show that despite similar initial impacts during the earthquake, the rate of recovery in terms of landslide rates varies substantially across the three study areas. In Mount Fyffe, the number and area of landslides could take 45 and 22 years from 2021 respectively to return to pre-earthquake levels at the current rate. Comparatively, in the CTC, it could take just 5 years and 3-4 years from 2021 respectively. Notably, the fastest recovery in terms of landslide rates in the CTC was primarily located directly along the transport network, whereas what little recovery did occur in Mount Fyffe appeared to follow no particular pattern. Importantly, recovery rates in the northern CTC were notably higher than in the southern CTC, despite greater co-seismic impacts in the former. Combined, these results suggest the active, debris removal mitigation undertaken in the northern CTC may have had the effect of dramatically reducing the time for landslide rates to return to pre-earthquake levels. The role of slope angle and slope aspect were explored to evaluate if these observations could be driven by local differences in topography. The Mount Fyffe study area has higher slope angles than the CTC as a whole and landslides predominantly occurred on slightly steeper slopes than in the CTC. This may have contributed to the longer recovery times for landsliding in Mount Fyffe due to greater gravitational instability, however the observed variations are minor compared to the differences in recovery rates. In terms of slope aspect, landslides in Mount Fyffe preferentially occurred on north- and south-facing slopes whereas landslides in the CTC preferred the east- and south-facing slopes. The potential role of these differences in landslide recovery remains unclear but may be related to the propagation direction of the earthquake and the tracking direction of post-earthquake ex-tropical cyclones. Finally, landslides in the CTC are observed to be moving further away from the transport network and the number of landslides impacting the CTC decreased significantly since the earthquake. Nevertheless, the potential for further landslide reactivation remains. Therefore, despite the recovery in the CTC, it is clear that there is still risk of the transport network being impacted by further landsliding, at least for the next 3-5 yrs.
