In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch was shaken by a series of strong earthquakes including the MW7.1 4 September 2010, Mw 6.2 22 February 2011, MW6.2 13 June 2011 and MW6.0 23 December 2011 earthquakes. These earthquakes produced very strong ground motions throughout the city and surrounding areas that resulted in soil liquefaction and lateral spreading causing substantial damage to buildings, infrastructure and the community. The stopbank network along the Kaiapoi and Avon River suffered extensive damage with repairs projected to take several years to complete. This presented an opportunity to undertake a case-study on a regional scale of the effects of liquefaction on a stopbank system. Ultimately, this information can be used to determine simple performance-based concepts that can be applied in practice to improve the resilience of river protection works. The research presented in this thesis draws from data collected following the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011 earthquakes. The stopbank damage is categorised into seven key deformation modes that were interpreted from aerial photographs, consultant reports, damage photographs and site visits. Each deformation mode provides an assessment of the observed mechanism of failure behind liquefaction-induced stopbank damage and the factors that influence a particular style of deformation. The deformation modes have been used to create a severity classification for the whole stopbank system, being ‘no or low damage’ and ‘major or severe damage’, in order to discriminate the indicators and factors that contribute to ‘major to severe damage’ from the factors that contribute to all levels of damage a number of calculated, land damage, stopbank damage and geomorphological parameters were analysed and compared at 178 locations along the Kaiapoi and Avon River stopbank systems. A critical liquefiable layer was present at every location with relatively consistent geotechnical parameters (cone resistance (qc), soil behaviour type (Ic) and Factor of Safety (FoS)) across the study site. In 95% of the cases the critical layer occurred within two times the Height of the Free Face (HFF,). A statistical analysis of the geotechnical factors relating to the critical layer was undertaken in order to find correlations between specific deformation modes and geotechnical factors. It was found that each individual deformation mode involves a complex interplay of factors that are difficult to represent through correlative analysis. There was, however, sufficient data to derive the key factors that have affected the severity of deformation. It was concluded that stopbank damage is directly related to the presence of liquefaction in the ground materials beneath the stopbanks, but is not critical in determining the type or severity of damage, instead it is merely the triggering mechanism. Once liquefaction is triggered it is the gravity-induced deformation that causes the damage rather than the shaking duration. Lateral spreading and specifically the depositional setting was found to be the key aspect in determining the severity and type of deformation along the stopbank system. The presence or absence of abandoned or old river channels and point bar deposits was found to significantly influence the severity and type of deformation. A review of digital elevation models and old maps along the Kaiapoi River found that all of the ‘major to severe’ damage observed occurred within or directly adjacent to an abandoned river channel. Whilst a review of the geomorphology along the Avon River showed that every location within a point bar deposit suffered some form of damage, due to the depositional environment creating a deposit highly susceptible to liquefaction.
The Mw 6.2 February 22nd 2011 Christchurch earthquake (and others in the 2010-2011 Canterbury sequence) provided a unique opportunity to study the devastating effects of earthquakes first-hand and learn from them for future engineering applications. All major events in the Canterbury earthquake sequence caused widespread liquefaction throughout Christchurch’s eastern suburbs, particularly extensive and severe during the February 22nd event. Along large stretches of the Avon River banks (and to a lesser extent along the Heathcote) significant lateral spreading occurred, affecting bridges and the infrastructure they support. The first stage of this research involved conducting detailed field reconnaissance to document liquefaction and lateral spreading-induced damage to several case study bridges along the Avon River. The case study bridges cover a range of ages and construction types but all are reinforced concrete structures which have relatively short, stiff decks. These factors combined led to a characteristic deformation mechanism involving deck-pinning and abutment back-rotation with consequent damage to the abutment piles and slumping of the approaches. The second stage of the research involved using pseudo-static analysis, a simplified seismic modelling tool, to analyse two of the bridges. An advantage of pseudo-static analysis over more complicated modelling methods is that it uses conventional geotechnical data in its inputs, such as SPT blowcount and CPT cone resistance and local friction. Pseudo-static analysis can also be applied without excessive computational power or specialised knowledge, yet it has been shown to capture the basic mechanisms of pile behaviour. Single pile and whole bridge models were constructed for each bridge, and both cyclic and lateral spreading phases of loading were investigated. Parametric studies were carried out which varied the values of key parameters to identify their influence on pile response, and computed displacements and damages were compared with observations made in the field. It was shown that pseudo-static analysis was able to capture the characteristic damage mechanisms observed in the field, however the treatment of key parameters affecting pile response is of primary importance. Recommendations were made concerning the treatment of these governing parameters controlling pile response. In this way the future application of pseudo-static analysis as a tool for analysing and designing bridge pile foundations in liquefying and laterally spreading soils is enhanced.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls involve the use of geosynthetic reinforcement (polymer material) within the retained backfill, forming a reinforced soil block where transmission of overturning and sliding forces on the wall to the backfill occurs. Key advantages of GRS systems include the reduced need for large foundations, cost reduction (up to 50%), lower environmental costs, faster construction and significantly improved seismic performance as observed in previous earthquakes. Design methods in New Zealand have not been well established and as a result, GRS structures do not have a uniform level of seismic and static resistance; hence involve different risks of failure. Further research is required to better understand the seismic behaviour of GRS structures to advance design practices. The experimental study of this research involved a series of twelve 1-g shake table tests on reduced-scale (1:5) GRS wall models using the University of Canterbury shake-table. The seismic excitation of the models was unidirectional sinusoidal input motion with a predominant frequency of 5Hz and 10s duration. Seismic excitation of the model commenced at an acceleration amplitude level of 0.1g and was incrementally increased by 0.1g in subsequent excitation levels up to failure (excessive displacement of the wall panel). The wall models were 900mm high with a full-height rigid facing panel and five layers of Microgird reinforcement (reinforcement spacing of 150mm). The wall panel toe was founded on a rigid foundation and was free to slide. The backfill deposit was constructed from dry Albany sand to a backfill relative density, Dr = 85% or 50% through model vibration. The influence of GRS wall parameters such as reinforcement length and layout, backfill density and application of a 3kPa surcharge on the backfill surface was investigated in the testing sequence. Through extensive instrumentation of the wall models, the wall facing displacements, backfill accelerations, earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at the varying levels of model excitation. Additionally, backfill deformation was also measured through high-speed imaging and Geotechnical Particle Image Velocimetry (GeoPIV) analysis. The GeoPIV analysis enabled the identification of the evolution of shear strains and volumetric strains within the backfill at low strain levels before failure of the wall thus allowing interpretations to be made regarding the strain development and shear band progression within the retained backfill. Rotation about the wall toe was the predominant failure mechanism in all excitation level with sliding only significant in the last two excitation levels, resulting in a bi-linear displacement acceleration curve. An increase in acceleration amplification with increasing excitation was observed with amplification factors of up to 1.5 recorded. Maximum seismic and static horizontal earth pressures were recorded at failure and were recorded at the wall toe. The highest reinforcement load was recorded at the lowest (deepest in the backfill) reinforcement layer with a decrease in peak load observed at failure, possibly due to pullout failure of the reinforcement layer. Conversely, peak reinforcement load was recorded at failure for the top reinforcement layer. The staggered reinforcement models exhibited greater wall stability than the uniform reinforcement models of L/H=0.75. However, similar critical accelerations were determined for the two wall models due to the coarseness of excitation level increments of 0.1g. The extended top reinforcements were found to restrict the rotational component of displacement and prevented the development of a preliminary shear band at the middle reinforcement layer, contributing positively to wall stability. Lower acceleration amplification factors were determined for the longer uniform reinforcement length models due to reduced model deformation. A greater distribution of reinforcement load towards the top two extended reinforcement layers was also observed in the staggered wall models. An increase in model backfill density was observed to result in greater wall stability than an increase in uniform reinforcement length. Greater acceleration amplification was observed in looser backfill models due to their lower model stiffness. Due to greater confinement of the reinforcement layers, greater reinforcement loads were developed in higher density wall models with less wall movement required to engage the reinforcement layers and mobilise their resistance. The application of surcharge on the backfill was observed to initially increase the wall stability due to greater normal stresses within the backfill but at greater excitation levels, the surcharge contribution to wall destabilising inertial forces outweighs its contribution to wall stability. As a result, no clear influence of surcharge on the critical acceleration of the wall models was observed. Lower acceleration amplification factors were observed for the surcharged models as the surcharge acts as a damper during excitation. The application of the surcharge also increases the magnitude of reinforcement load developed due to greater confinement and increased wall destabilising forces. The rotation of the wall panel resulted in the progressive development of shears surface with depth that extended from the backfill surface to the ends of the reinforcement (edge of the reinforced soil block). The resultant failure plane would have extended from the backfill surface to the lowest reinforcement layer before developing at the toe of the wall, forming a two-wedge failure mechanism. This is confirmed by development of failure planes at the lowest reinforcement layer (deepest with the backfill) and at the wall toe observed at the critical acceleration level. Key observations of the effect of different wall parameters from the GeoPIV results are found to be in good agreement with conclusions developed from the other forms of instrumentation. Further research is required to achieve the goal of developing seismic guidelines for GRS walls in geotechnical structures in New Zealand. This includes developing and testing wall models with a different facing type (segmental or wrap-around facing), load cell instrumentation of all reinforcement layers, dynamic loading on the wall panel and the use of local soils as the backfill material. Lastly, the limitations of the experimental procedure and wall models should be understood.
