The magnitude Mw 6.2 earthquake of February 22nd 2011 that struck beneath the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, caused widespread damage and was particularly destructive to the Central Business District (CBD). The shaking caused major damage, including collapses of structures, and initiated ground failure in the form of soil liquefaction and consequent effects such as sand boils, surface flooding, large differential settlements of buildings and lateral spreading of ground towards rivers were observed. A research project underway at the University of Canterbury to characterise the engineering behaviour of the soils in the region was influenced by this event to focus on the performance of the highly variable ground conditions in the CBD. This paper outlines the methodology of this research to characterise the key soil horizons that underlie the CBD that influenced the performance of important structures during the recent earthquakes, and will influence the performance of the rebuilt city centre under future events. The methodology follows post-earthquake reconnaissance in the central city, a desk study on ground conditions, site selection, mobilisation of a post-earthquake ground investigation incorporating the cone penetration test (CPT), borehole drilling, shear wave velocity profiling and Gel-push sampling followed by a programme of laboratory testing including monotonic and cyclic testing of the soils obtained in the investigation. The research is timely and aims to inform the impending rebuild, with appropriate information on the soils response to dynamic loading, and the influence this has on the performance of structures with various foundation forms.
This report is the output of a longitudinal study that was established between the University of Auckland and Resilient Organisations, in conjunction with the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ), to evaluate the ongoing resource availability and capacity for post-earthquake reconstruction in Christchurch.
The 4 September 2010 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes caused significant damage to Christchurch and surrounding suburbs as a result of the widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading that occurred. Ground surveying-based field investigations were conducted following these two events in order to measure permanent ground displacements in areas significantly affected by lateral spreading. Data was analysed with respect to the distribution of lateral spreading vs. distance from the waterway, and the failure patterns observed. Two types of failure distribution patterns were observed, a typical distributed pattern and an atypical block failure. Differences in lateral spreading measurements along adjacent banks of the Avon River in the area of Dallington were also examined. The spreading patterns between the adjacent banks varied with the respective river geometry and/or geotechnical conditions at the banks.
On the second day of teaching for 2011, the University of Canterbury (UC) faced the most significant crisis of its 138-year history. After being shaken severely by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on 4 September 2010, UC felt it was well along the pathway to getting back to ‘normal’. That all changed at 12:51pm on 22 February 2011, when Christchurch city was hit by an even more devastating event. A magnitude 6.3 (Modified Mercalli intensity ten – MM X) earthquake, just 13km south-east of the Christchurch city centre, caused vertical peak ground accelerations amongst the highest ever recorded in an urban environment, in some places more than twice the acceleration due to gravity. The earthquake caused immediate evacuation of the UC campus and resulted in significant damage to many buildings. Thankfully there were no serious injuries or fatalities on campus, but 185 people died in the city and many more suffered serious injuries. At the time of writing, eighteen months after the first earthquake in September, Christchurch is still experiencing regular earthquakes. Seismologists warn that the region may experience heightened seismicity for a decade or more. While writing this report we have talked with many different people from across the University. People’s experiences are different and we have not managed to talk with everyone, but we hope that by drawing together many different perspectives from across the campus that this report will serve two purposes; to retain our institutional memory of what we have learnt over the past eighteen months, and also to share our learnings with other organisations in New Zealand and around the world who, we hope, will benefit from learning about our experience.
Depending on their nature and severity, disasters can create large volumes of debris and waste. Waste volumes from a single event can be the equivalent of many times the annual waste generation rate of the affected community. These volumes can overwhelm existing solid waste management facilities and personnel. Mismanagement of disaster waste can affect both the response and long term recovery of a disaster affected area. Previous research into disaster waste management has been either context specific or event specific, making it difficult to transfer lessons from one disaster event to another. The aim of this research is to develop a systems understanding of disaster waste management and in turn develop context- and disaster-transferrable decision-making guidance for emergency and waste managers. To research this complex and multi-disciplinary problem, a multi-hazard, multi-context, multi-case study approach was adopted. The research focussed on five major disaster events: 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 2009 Victorian Bushfires, 2009 Samoan tsunami, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The first stage of the analysis involved the development of a set of ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators. The indicators demonstrate a method by which disaster managers, planners and researchers can simplify the very large spectra of possible disaster impacts, into some key decision-drivers which will likely influence post-disaster management requirements. The second stage of the research was to develop a set of criteria to represent the desirable environmental, economic, social and recovery effects of a successful disaster waste management system. These criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of the disaster waste management approaches for the case studies. The third stage of the research was the cross-case analysis. Six main elements of disaster waste management systems were identified and analysed. These were: strategic management, funding mechanisms, operational management, environmental and human health risk management, and legislation and regulation. Within each of these system elements, key decision-making guidance (linked to the ‘disaster & disaster waste’ indicators) and management principles were developed. The ‘disaster & disaster waste’ impact indicators, the effects assessment criteria and management principles have all been developed so that they can be practically applied to disaster waste management planning and response in the future.
