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.
Christchurch City Council (Council) is undertaking the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in order to assess the effects of the earthquakes on flood risk to Christchurch. In the course of these investigations it has become better understood that floodplain management should be considered in a multi natural hazards context. Council have therefore engaged the Jacobs, Beca, University of Canterbury, and HR Wallingford project team to investigate the multihazards in eastern areas of Christchurch and develop flood management options which also consider other natural hazards in that context (i.e. how other hazards contribute to flooding both through temporal and spatial coincidence). The study has three stages: Stage 1 Gap Analysis – assessment of information known, identification of gaps and studies required to fill the gaps. Stage 2 Hazard Studies – a gap filling stage with the studies identified in Stage 1. Stage 3 Collating, Optioneering and Reporting – development of options to manage flood risk. This present report is to document findings of Stage 1 and recommends the studies that should be completed for Stage 2. It has also been important to consider how Stage 3 would be delivered and the gaps are prioritised to provide for this. The level of information available and hazards to consider is extensive; requiring this report to be made up of five parts each identifying individual gaps. A process of identifying information for individual hazards in Christchurch has been undertaken and documented (Part 1) followed by assessing the spatial co-location (Part 2) and probabilistic presence of multi hazards using available information. Part 3 considers multi hazard presence both as a temporal coincidence (e.g. an earthquake and flood occurring at one time) and as a cascade sequence (e.g. earthquake followed by a flood at some point in the future). Council have already undertaken a number of options studies for managing flood risk and these are documented in Part 4. Finally Part 5 provides the Gap Analysis Summary and Recommendations to Council. The key findings of Stage 1 gap analysis are: - The spatial analysis showed eastern Christchurch has a large number of hazards present with only 20% of the study area not being affected by any of the hazards mapped. Over 20% of the study area is exposed to four or more hazards at the frequencies and data available. - The majority of the Residential Red Zone is strongly exposed to multiple hazards, with 86% of the area being exposed to 4 or more hazards, and 24% being exposed to 6 or more hazards. - A wide number of gaps are present; however, prioritisation needs to consider the level of benefit and risks associated with not undertaking the studies. In light of this 10 studies ranging in scale are recommended to be done for the project team to complete the present scope of Stage 3. - Stage 3 will need to consider a number of engineering options to address hazards and compare with policy options; however, Council have not established a consistent policy on managed retreat that can be applied for equal comparison; without which substantial assumptions are required. We recommend Council undertake a study to define a managed retreat framework as an option for the city. - In undertaking Stage 1 with floodplain management as the focal point in a multi hazards context we have identified that Stage 3 requires consideration of options in the context of economics, implementation and residual risk. Presently the scope of work will provide a level of definition for floodplain options; however, this will not be at equal levels of detail for other hazard management options. Therefore, we recommend Council considers undertaking other studies with those key hazards (e.g. Coastal Hazards) as a focal point and identifies the engineering options to address such hazards. Doing so will provide equal levels of information for Council to make an informed and defendable decision on which options are progressed following Stage 3.
