Anyone keeping a global tally of recent disasters is likely to be asking: What role will the hazards and disasters of coastal plains play in the lives and economies of 21st century humanity? In this article, we reflect on this question using examples of how different types of coastal land performed during the Christchurch and other earthquake events to examine the complex of coastal-tectonic hazards that are being constructed in the Tokyo megacity
Spatial variations in river facies exerted a strong influence on the distribution of liquefaction features observed in Christchurch during the 2010-11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). Liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground deformation was primarily concentrated near modern waterways and areas underlain by Holocene fluvial deposits with shallow water tables (< 1 to 2 m). In southern Christchurch, spatial variations of liquefaction and subsidence were documented in the suburbs within inner meander loops of the Heathcote River. Newly acquired geospatial data, geotechnical reports and eye-witness discussions are compiled to provide a detailed account of the surficial effects of CES liquefaction and ground deformation adjacent to the Heathcote River. LiDAR data and aerial photography are used to produce a new series of original figures which reveal the locations of recurrent liquefaction and subsidence. To investigate why variable liquefaction patterns occurred, the distribution of surface ejecta and associated ground damage is compared with near-surface sedimentologic, topographic, and geomorphic variability to seek relationships between the near-surface properties and observed ground damages. The most severe liquefaction was concentrated within a topographic low in the suburb of St Martins, an inner meander loop of the Heathcote River, with liquefaction only minor or absent in the surrounding areas. Subsurface investigations at two sites in St Martins enable documentation of fluvial stratigraphy, the expressions of liquefaction, and identification of pre-CES liquefaction features. Excavation to water table depths (~1.5 m below the surface) across sand boils reveals multiple generations of CES liquefaction dikes and sills that cross-cut Holocene fluvial and anthropogenic stratigraphy. Based on in situ geotechnical tests (CPT) indicating sediment with a factor of safety < 1, the majority of surface ejecta was sourced from well-sorted fine to medium sand at < 5 m depth, with the most damaging liquefaction corresponding with the location of a low-lying sandy paleochannel, a remnant river channel from the Holocene migration of the meander in St Martins. In the adjacent suburb of Beckenham, where migration of the Heathcote River has been laterally confined by topography associated with the volcanic lithologies of Banks Peninsula, severe liquefaction was absent with only minor sand boils occurring closest to the modern river channel. Auger sampling across the suburb revealed thick (>1 m) clay-rich overbank and back swamp sediments that produced a stratigraphy which likely confined the units susceptible to liquefaction and prevented widespread ejection of liquefied material. This analysis suggests river migration promotes the formation and preservation of fluvial deposits prone to liquefaction. Trenching revealed the strongest CES earthquakes with large vertical accelerations favoured sill formation and severe subsidence at highly susceptible locations corresponding with an abandoned channel. Less vulnerable sites containing deeper and thinner sand bodies only liquefied in the strongest and most proximal earthquakes forming minor localised liquefaction features. Liquefaction was less prominent and severe subsidence was absent where lateral confinement of a Heathcote meander has promoted the formation of fluvial stratum resistant to liquefaction. Correlating CES liquefaction with geomorphic interpretations of Christchurch’s Heathcote River highlights methods in which the performance of liquefaction susceptibility models can be improved. These include developing a reliable proxy for estimating soil conditions in meandering fluvial systems by interpreting the geology and geomorphology, derived from LiDAR data and modern river morphology, to improve the methods of accounting for the susceptibility of an area. Combining geomorphic interpretations with geotechnical data can be applied elsewhere to identify regional liquefaction susceptibilities, improve existing liquefaction susceptibility datasets, and predict future earthquake damage.
We’ll never know why the thirteen people whose corpses were discovered in Pompeii’s Garden of the Fugitives hadn’t fled the city with the majority of the population when Vesuvius turned deadly in AD79. But surely, thanks to 21st century technology, we know just about everything there is to know about the experiences of the people who went through the Canterbury Earthquakes. Or has the ubiquity of digital technology, combined with seemingly massive online information flows and archives, created a false sense that Canterbury’s earthquake stories, images and media are being secured for posterity? In this paper Paul Millar makes reference to issues experienced while creating the CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive (www.ceismic.org.nz) to argue that rather than having preserved all the information needed to fully inform recovery, the record of the Canterbury earthquakes’ impacts, and the subsequent response, is incomplete and unrepresentative. While CEISMIC has collected and curated over a quarter of a million earthquake-related items, Millar is deeply concerned about the material being lost. Like Pompeii, this disaster has its nameless, faceless, silenced victims; people whose stories must be heard, and whose issues must be addressed, if recovery is to be meaningful.
This thesis focuses attention on the ongoing effects of the earthquakes on children in Christchurch. It identifies the learning and behavioural difficulties evident in an increasing number of students and cautions the use of the word 'resilient' to describe children who may be just managing. This assumption has a significant impact on the wellbeing of many Christchurch children who, disaster literature warns, are likely to be under-served. This thesis suggests that, because of the scale of need, schools are the best place to introduce practices that will foster wellbeing. Mindfulness practices are identified as a potential tool for ameliorating the vulnerabilities experienced by children, while at the same time working to increase their capabilities. This thesis argues that, through mindful practices, children can learn to be more reflective of their emotions and respond in more considered ways to different situations. They can become more relational, having a greater understanding of others through a deeper understanding of themselves, and they can build resilience by developing the protective factors that promote more adaptive functioning. This thesis identifies the strong links between mindfulness and the holistic wellbeing concept of Te Whare Tapa Whã and a Mãori worldview. Strong links are also identified with the vision, values and key competencies of the New Zealand Curriculum and 21st Century learners. Both short and long term recommendations are made for the introduction of mindfulness practices in schools to enhance the wellbeing of children.
Despite their good performance in terms of their design objectives, many modern code-prescriptive buildings built in Christchurch, New Zealand had to be razed after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes because repairs were deemed too costly due to widespread sacrificial damage. Clearly a more effective design paradigm is needed to create more resilient structures. Rocking, post-tensioned connections with supplemental energy dissipation can contribute to a damage avoidance designs (DAD). However, few have achieved all three key design objectives of damage-resistant rocking, inherent recentering ability, and repeatable, damage-free energy dissipation for all cycles, which together offer a response which is independent of loading history. Results of experimental tests are presented for a near full-scale rocking beam-column sub-assemblage. A matrix of test results is presented for the system under varying levels of posttensioning, with and without supplemental dampers. Importantly, this parametric study delineates each contribution to response. Practical limitations on posttensioning are identified: a minimum to ensure static structural re-centering, and a maximum to ensure deformability without threadbar yielding. Good agreement between a mechanistic model and experimental results over all parameters and inputs indicates the model is robust and accurate for design. The overall results indicate that it is possible to create a DAD connection where the non-linear force-deformation response is loading history independent and repeatable over numerous loading cycles, without damage, creating the opportunity for the design and implementation of highly resilient structures.
Following the 22nd February 2011, Mw 6.2 earthquake located along a previously unknown fault beneath the Port Hills of Christchurch, surface cracking was identified in contour parallel locations within fill material at Quarry Road on the lower slopes of Mount Pleasant. GNS Science, in the role of advisor to the Christchurch City Council, concluded that these cracks were a part of a potential rotational mass movement (named zone 11A) within the fill and airfall loess material present. However, a lack of field evidence for slope instability and an absence of laboratory geotechnical data on which slope stability analysis was based, suggested this conclusion is potentially incorrect. It was hypothesised that ground cracking was in fact due to earthquake shaking, and not mass movement within the slope, thus forming the basis of this study. Three soil units were identified during surface and subsurface investigations at Quarry Road: fill derived from quarry operations in the adjacent St. Andrews Quarry (between 1893 and 1913), a buried topsoil, and underlying in-situ airfall loess. The fill material was identified by the presence of organic-rich topsoil “clods” that were irregular in both size (∼10 – 200 mm) and shape, with variable thicknesses of 1 – 10 m. Maximum thickness, as indicated by drill holes and geophysical survey lines, was identified below 6 Quarry Road and 7 The Brae where it is thought to infill a pre-existing gully formed in the underlying airfall loess. Bearing strength of the fill consistently exceeded 300 kPa ultimate below ∼500 mm depth. The buried topsoil was 200 – 300 mm thick, and normally displayed a lower bearing strength when encountered, but not below 300 kPa ultimate (3 – 11 blows per 100mm or ≥100 kPa allowable). In-situ airfall loess stood vertically in outcrop due to its characteristic high dry strength and also showed Scala penetrometer values of 6 – 20+ blows per 100 mm (450 – ≥1000 kPa ultimate). All soils were described as being moist to dry during subsurface investigations, with no groundwater table identified during any investigation into volcanic bedrock. In-situ moisture contents were established using bulk disturbed samples from hand augers and test pitting. Average moisture contents were low at 9% within the fill, 11 % within the buried topsoil, and 8% within the airfall loess: all were below the associated average plastic limit of 17, 15, and 16, respectively, determined during Atterberg limit analysis. Particle size distributions, identified using the sieve and pipette method, were similar between the three soil units with 11 – 20 % clay, 62 – 78 % silt, and 11 – 20 % fine sand. Using these results and the NZGS soil classification, the loess derived fill and in-situ airfall loess are termed SILT with some clay and sand, and the buried topsoil is SILT with minor clay and sand. Dispersivity of the units was found using the Emerson crumb test, which established that the fill can be non- to completely dispersive (score 0 – 4). The buried topsoil was always non-dispersive (score 0), and airfall loess completely dispersive (score 4). Values for cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (φ) of the three soil units were established using the direct shear box at field moisture contents. Results showed all soil units had high shear strengths at the moisture contents tested (c = 18 – 24 kPa and φ = 42 – 50°), with samples behaving in a brittle fashion. Moisture content was artificially increased to 16% within the buried topsoil, which reduced the shear strength (c = 10 kPa, φ = 18°) and allowed it to behave plastically. Observational information indicating stability at Quarry Road included: shallow, discontinuous, cracks that do not display vertical offset; no scarp features or compressional zones typical of landsliding; no tilted or deformed structures; no movement in inclinometers; no basal shear zone identified in logged core to 20 m depth; low field moisture contents; no groundwater table; and high soil strength using Scala penetrometers. Limit equilibrium analysis of the slope was conducted using Rocscience software Slide 5.0 to verify the slope stability identified by observational methods. Friction, cohesion, and density values determined during laboratory were input into the two slope models investigated. Results gave minimum static factor of safety values for translational (along buried topsoil) and rotational (in the fill) slides of 2.4 – 4.2. Sensitivity of the slope to reduced shear strength parameters was analysed using c = 10 kPa and φ = 18° for the translational buried topsoil plane, and a cohesion of 0 kPa within the fill for the rotational plane. The only situation that gave a factor of safety <1.0 was in nonengineered fill at 0.5 m depth. Pseudostatic analysis based on previous peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, and predicted PGAs for future Alpine Fault and Hope Fault earthquakes established minimum factor of safety values between 1.2 and 3.3. Yield acceleration PGAs were computed to be between 0.8g and 1.6g. Based on all information gathered, the cracking at Quarry Road is considered to be shallow deformation in response to earthquake shaking, and not due to deep-seated landsliding. It is recommended that the currently bare site be managed by smoothing the land, installing contour drainage, and bioremediation of the surface soils to reduce surface water infiltration and runoff. Extensive earthworks, including removal of the fill, are considered unnecessary. Any future replacement of housing would be subject to site-specific investigations, and careful foundation design based on those results.
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
