The collapse of Redcliffs’ cliff in the 22 February 2011 and 13 June 2011 earthquakes were the first times ever a major failure incident occurred at Redcliffs in approximately 6000 years. This master’s thesis is a multidisciplinary engineering geological investigation sought to study these particular failure incidents, focusing on collecting the data necessary to explain the cause and effect of the cliff collapsing in the event of two major earthquakes. This study provides quantitative and qualitative data about the geotechnical attributes and engineering geological nature of the sea-cut cliff located at Redcliffs. Results from surveying the geology of Redcliffs show that the exposed lithology of the cliff face is a variably jointed rock body of welded and (relatively intact) unwelded ignimbrite, a predominantly massive unit of brecciated tuff, and a covering of wind-blown loess and soil deposit (commonly found throughout Canterbury) on top of the cliff. Moreover, detailing the external component of the slope profile shows that Redcliffs’ cliff is a 40 – 80 m cliff with two intersecting (NE and SE facing) slope aspects. The (remotely) measured geometry of the cliff face comprises of multiple outstanding gradients, averaging a slope angle of ~67 degrees (post-13 June 2011), where the steepest components are ~80 degrees, whereas the gentle sloping sections are ~44 degrees. The physical structure of Redcliffs’ cliff drastically changed after each collapse, whereby seismically induced alterations to the slope geometry resulted in material deposited on the talus at the base of the cliff. Prior to the first collapse, the variance of the gradient down the slope was minimal, with the SE Face being the most variable with up to three major gradients on one cross section. However, after each major collapse, the variability increased with more parts of the cliff face having more than one major gradient that is steeper or gentler than the remainder of the slope. The estimated volume of material lost as a result of the gradient changes was 28,267 m³ in February and 11,360 m³ in June 2011. In addition, surveys of the cliff top after the failure incidents revealed the development of fissures along the cliff edge. Monitoring 10 fissures over three months indicated that fissured by the cliff edge respond to intense seismicity (generally ≥ Mw 4) by widening. Redcliffs’ cliff collapsed on two separate occasions as a result of an accumulated amount of damage of the rock masses in the cliff (caused by weathering and erosion over time), and two Mw 6.2 trigger earthquakes which shook the Redcliffs and the surrounding area at a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) estimated to be around 2 g. The results of the theoretical study suggests that PGA levels felt on-site during both instances of failure are the result of three major factors: source of the quake and the site affected; topographic amplification of the ground movement; the short distance between the source and the cliff for both fault ruptures; the focus of seismic energy in the direction of thrust faulting along a path that intercepts Redcliffs (and the Port Hills). Ultimately, failure on the NE and SE Faces of Redcliffs’ cliff was concluded to be global as every part of the exposed cliff face deposited a significant volume of material on the talus at the base of the cliff, with the exception of one section on the NE Face. The cliff collapses was a concurrent process that is a single (non-monotonic) event that operated as a complex series of (primarily) toppling rock falls, some sliding of blocks, and slumping of the soil mantle on top of the cliff. The first collapse had a mixture of equivalent continua slope movement of the heavily weathered / damaged surface of the cliff face, and discontinuous slope movement of the jointed inner slope (behind the heavily weathered surface); whereas the second collapse resulted in only discontinuous slope movement on account of the freshly exposed cliff face that had damage to the rock masses, in the form of old and (relatively) new discontinuous fractures, induced by earthquakes and aftershocks leading up to the point of failure.
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.
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.
During the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, several reinforced concrete (RC) walls in multi-storey buildings formed a single crack in the plastic hinge region as opposed to distributed cracking. In several cases the crack width that was required to accommodate the inelastic displacement of the building resulted in fracture of the vertical reinforcing steel. This type of failure is characteristic of RC members with low reinforcement contents, where the area of reinforcing steel is insufficient to develop the tension force required to form secondary cracks in the surrounding concrete. The minimum vertical reinforcement in RC walls was increased in NZS 3101:2006 with the equation for the minimum vertical reinforcement in beams also adopted for walls, despite differences in reinforcement arrangement and loading. A series of moment-curvature analyses were conducted for an example RC wall based on the Gallery Apartments building in Christchurch. The analysis results indicated that even when the NZS 3101:2006 minimum vertical reinforcement limit was satisfied for a known concrete strength, the wall was still susceptible to sudden failure unless a significant axial load was applied. Additionally, current equations for minimum reinforcement based on a sectional analysis approach do not adequately address the issues related to crack control and distribution of inelastic deformations in ductile walls.
As a result of the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the more damaging 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, considerable damage occurred to a significant number of buildings in Christchurch. The damage that occurred to the Christchurch Roman Catholic Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament (commonly known as the Christchurch Basilica) as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes is reported, and the observed failure modes are identified. A previous strengthening intervention is outlined and the estimated capacity of the building is discussed. This strengthening was completed in 2004, and addressed the worst aspects of the building's seismic vulnerability. Urgent work was undertaken post-earthquake to secure parts of the building in order to limit damage and prevent collapse of unstable parts of the building. The approach taken for this securing is outlined, and the performance of the building and the previously installed earthquake strengthening intervention is evaluated.A key consideration throughout the project was the interaction between the structural securing requirements that were driven by the requirement to limit damage and mitigate hazards, and the heritage considerations. Lessons learnt from the strengthening that was carried out, the securing work undertaken, and the approach taken in making the building "safe" are discussed. Some conclusions are drawn with respect to the effectiveness of strengthening similar building types, and the approach taken to secure the building under active seismic conditions. AM - Accepted Manuscript
On February 22, 2011, a magnitude Mw 6.2 earthquake affected the Canterbury region, New Zealand, resulting in many fatalities. Liquefaction occurred across many areas, visible on the surface as ‘‘sand volcanoes’’, blisters and subsidence, causing significant damage to buildings, land and infrastructure. Liquefaction occurred at a number of sites across the Christchurch Boys High School sports grounds; one area in particular contained a piston ground failure and an adjacent silt volcano. Here, as part of a class project, we apply near-surface geophysics to image these two liquefaction features and determine whether they share a subsurface connection. Hand auger results enable correlation of the geophysical responses with the subsurface stratigraphy. The survey results suggest that there is a subsurface link, likely via a paleo-stream channel. The anomalous responses of the horizontal loop electromagnetic survey and electrical resistivity imaging highlight the disruption of the subsurface electrical properties beneath and between the two liquefaction features. The vertical magnetic gradient may also show a subtle anomalous response in this area, however the results are inconclusive. The ground penetrating radar survey shows disruption of the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the liquefaction features, in particular sediment mounding beneath the silt ejection (‘‘silt volcano’’) and stratigraphic disruption beneath the piston failure. The results indicate how near-surface geophysics allow the characteristics of liquefaction in the subsurface to be better understood, which could aid remediation work following liquefaction-induced land damage and guide interpretation of geophysical surveys of paleoliquefaction features.
A selection of the week's news including a former New Zealand cricketer demanding answers over how his name has been linked an investigation into match-fixing, the Act Party leader announces he is quitting as party leader and will leave parliament next year, the biggest drug haul in New Zealand history, the Auditor General apologises to Mangawhai locals for Audit New Zealand's failure to identify a 60 million-plus waste-water debacle, the Labour Party says its victory in the Christchurch East by-election is an indictment of the Government's response to the earthquakes, we hear from the author of a book about the building blocks of our words and literature and the national champion who will proudly represent New Zealand at an international competition in Perth.
Two projects are documented within this MEM Report: I. The first project examined what was learnt involving the critical infrastructure in the aftermath of natural disasters in the Canterbury region of New Zealand – the most prominent being the series of earthquakes between 2010 and 2011. The project identified several learning gaps, leading to recommendations for further investigations that could add significant value for the lifeline infrastructure community. II. Following the Lifeline Lesson Learnt Project, the Disaster Mitigation Guideline series was initiated with two booklets, one on Emergency Potable Water and a second on Emergency Sanitation. The key message from both projects is that we can and must learn from disasters. The projects described are part of the emergency management, and critical infrastructure learning cycles – presenting knowledge captured by others in a digestible format, enabling the lessons to be reapplied. Without these kinds of projects, there will be fewer opportunities to learn from other’s successes and failures when it comes to preparing for natural disasters.
The paper proposes a simple method for quick post-earthquake assessment of damage and condition of a stock of bridges in a transportation network using seismic data recorded by a strong motion array. The first part of the paper is concerned with using existing free field strong motion recorders to predict peak ground acceleration (PGA) at an arbitrary bridge site. Two methods are developed using artificial neural networks (a single network and a committee of neural networks) considering influential parameters, such as seismic magnitude, hypocentral depth and epicentral distance. The efficiency of the proposed method is explored using actual strong motion records from the devastating 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand. In the second part, two simple ideas are outlined how to infer the likely damage to a bridge using either the predicted PGA and seismic design spectrum, or a broader set of seismic metrics, structural parameters and damage indices.
The capability of self-compacting concrete (SCC) in flowing through and filling in even the most congested areas makes it ideal for being used in congested reinforced concrete (RC) structural members such as beam-column joints (BCJ). However, members of tall multi-storey structures impose high capacity requirements where implementing normal-strength self-compacting concrete is not preferable. In the present study, a commercially reproducible high-strength self-compacting concrete (HSSCC), a conventionally vibrated high-strength concrete (CVHSC) and a normal strength conventionally vibrated concrete (CVC) were designed using locally available materials in Christchurch, New Zealand. Following the guidelines of the New Zealand concrete standards NZS3101, seven beam-column joints (BCJ) were designed. Factors such as the concrete type, grade of reinforcement, amount of joint shear stirrups, axial load, and direction of casting were considered variables. All BCJs were tested under a displacement-controlled quasi-static reversed cyclic regime. The cracking pattern at different load levels and the mode of failure were also recorded. In addition, the load, displacement, drift, ductility, joint shear deformations, and elongation of the plastic hinge zone were also measured during the experiment. It was found that not only none of the seismically important features were compromised by using HSSCC, but also the quality of material and ease of construction boosted the performance of the BCJs.
The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for adhesive anchor connections than for through-bolt connections (i.e. anchorages having plates on the exterior façade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragms. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation and the use of metal mesh sleeve. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5o to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a snapshot of the performed experimental program and the test results and a preliminary proposed pull-out capacity of adhesive anchors are presented herein.
The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for adhesive anchor connections than for through-bolt connections (i.e. anchorages having plates on the exterior façade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragm. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation and the use of metal mesh sleeve. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5o to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a snapshot of the performed experimental program and the test results and a preliminary proposed pull-out capacity of adhesive anchors are presented herein. http://www.confer.co.nz/nzsee/ VoR - Version of Record
The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for the case of adhesive anchor connections than for the case of through-bolt connections (i.e. anchorages having plates on the exterior façade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragm. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation and the use of metal foil sleeve. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5o to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and a snapshot of the performed experimental program and the test results are presented herein. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/21050
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence that his Ministers are ethical and competent?
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on building momentum in the New Zealand economy and how this is supporting jobs?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Has he checked his files yet regarding whether Hon John Banks declared a potential conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill while still a Minister; if so, was any conflict declared?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the performance of Health Benefits Ltd; if so, why?
NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent progress has been made on the anchor projects in the Christchurch Central recovery plan?
ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Conservation: Has he received any reports on the environmental impact of seismic surveying in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone?
Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of State Services: Has he asked the State Services Commissioner for reports on recent failures of state sector agencies to carry out their functions according to the law; if not, why not?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on boosting innovation in the primary sector through the Primary Growth Partnership?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports, if any, has he received on the state of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made to support the victims of serious financial crime?
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister of Conservation: Why did he tell the House on 24 September "the first I knew of the issue of the submission was just 5 days before" when as he stated on 17 October "The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department's role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management"?
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he explain, given the latest projection of New Zealand's net greenhouse gas emissions is around 90 million tonnes in 2040, how the Government can conceivably reach its own emissions reduction target of 30 million tonnes by 2050?
