Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes Christchurch is undergoing extensive development on the periphery of the city. This has been driven in part by the large numbers of people who have lost their homes. Prior to the earthquakes, Christchurch was already experiencing placeless subdivisions and now these are being rolled out rapidly thanks to the efficiency of a formula that has been embraced by the Council, developers and the public alike. However, sprawling subdivisions have a number of issues including inefficient land use, limited housing types, high dependence on motor vehicles and low levels of resilience and no sense of place. Sense of place is of particular interest due to its glaring absence from new subdivisions and its growing importance in the literature. Research shows that sense of place has benefits to our feeling of belonging, well-being, and self-identity, particularly following a disaster. It improves the resilience and sustainability of our living environment and fosters a connection to the landscape thereby making us better placed to respond to future changes. Despite these benefits, current planning models such as new urbanism and transit-oriented design tend to give sense of place a low priority and as a result it can get lost. Given these issues, the focus of this research is “can landscape driven sense of place drive subdivision design without compromising on other urban planning criteria to produce subdivisions that address the issues of sprawl, as well as achieving the benefits associated with a strong sense of place that can improve our overall quality of life?” Answering this question required a thorough review of current urban planning and sense of place literature. This was used to critique existing subdivisions to gain a thorough understanding of the issues. The outcomes of this led to extensive design exploration which showed that, not only is it possible to design a subdivision with sense of place as the key driver but by doing this, the other urban planning criteria become easier to achieve.
Recent experiences from the Darfield and Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes have shown that the soft soil condition of saturated liquefiable sand has a profound effect on seismic response of buildings, bridges and other lifeline infrastructure. For detailed evaluation of seismic response three dimensional integrated analysis comprising structure, foundation and soil is required; such an integrated analysis is referred to as Soil Foundation Structure Interaction (SFSI) in literatures. SFSI is a three-dimensional problem because of three primary reasons: first, foundation systems are three-dimensional in form and geometry; second, ground motions are three-dimensional, producing complex multiaxial stresses in soils, foundations and structure; and third, soils in particular are sensitive to complex stress because of heterogeneity of soils leading to a highly anisotropic constitutive behaviour. In literatures the majority of seismic response analyses are limited to plane strain configuration because of lack of adequate constitutive models both for soils and structures, and computational limitation. Such two-dimensional analyses do not represent a complete view of the problem for the three reasons noted above. In this context, the present research aims to develop a three-dimensional mathematical formulation of an existing plane-strain elasto-plastic constitutive model of sand developed by Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1998b). This model has been specially formulated to simulate liquefaction behaviour of sand under ground motion induced earthquake loading, and has been well-validated and widely implemented in verifcation of shake table and centrifuge tests, as well as conventional ground response analysis and evaluation of case histories. The approach adopted herein is based entirely on the mathematical theory of plasticity and utilises some unique features of the bounding surface plasticity formalised by Dafalias (1986). The principal constitutive parameters, equations, assumptions and empiricism of the existing plane-strain model are adopted in their exact form in the three-dimensional version. Therefore, the original two-dimensional model can be considered as a true subset of the three-dimensional form; the original model can be retrieved when the tensorial quantities of the three dimensional version are reduced to that of the plane-strain configuration. Anisotropic Drucker-Prager type failure surface has been adopted for the three-dimensional version to accommodate triaxial stress path. Accordingly, a new mixed hardening rule based on Mroz’s approach of homogeneous surfaces (Mroz, 1967) has been introduced for the virgin loading surface. The three-dimensional version is validated against experimental data for cyclic torsional and triaxial stress paths.
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 March 2014.
Page 11 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 5 August 2014.
Page 12 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 28 October 2014.
Page 1 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 14 October 2014.
Page 5 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 29 July 2014.
Page 16 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 22 April 2014.
Page 12 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 11 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 13 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 15 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 8 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 6 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 7 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 4 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 2 September 2014.
Page 11 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 9 September 2014.
Page 9 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 9 September 2014.
Page 8 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 9 September 2014.
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 9 September 2014.
Page 3 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 9 September 2014.
Page 6 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 9 September 2014.
Page 12 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 March 2014.
Page 13 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 March 2014.
Page 9 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 March 2014.
Page 11 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 March 2014.
Page 3 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 22 April 2014.
Page 2 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 22 April 2014.
Page 1 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 1 April 2014.