The Avon-Heathcote Estuary is of significant value to Christchurch due to its high productivity, biotic diversity, proximity to the city, and its cultural, recreational and aesthetic qualities. Nonetheless, it has been subjected to decades of degradation from sewage wastewater discharges and encroaching urban development. The result was a eutrophied estuary, high in nitrogen, affected by large blooms of nuisance macroalgae and covered by degraded sediments. In March 2010, treated wastewater was diverted from the estuary to a site 3 km offshore. This quickly reduced water nitrogen by 90% within the estuary and, within months, there was reduced production of macroalgae. However, a series of earthquakes beginning in September 2010 brought massive changes: tilting of the estuary, changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sediment and nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are an important buffer against eutrophication. Therefore, in tandem with the wastewater diversion, they could underpin much of the recovery of the estuary. Overall, the new sediments were less favourable for benthic microalgal growth and recolonisation, but were less contaminated than old sediments at highly eutrophic sites. Because the new sediments were less contaminated than the old sediments, they could help return the estuary to a noneutrophic state. However, if the new sediments, which are less favourable for microalgal growth, disperse over the old sediments at highly eutrophic sites, they could become contaminated and interfere with estuarine recovery. Therefore, recovery of microalgal communities and the estuary was expected to be generally long, but variable and site-specific, with the least eutrophic sites recovering quickly, and the most eutrophic sites taking years to return to a pre-earthquake and non-eutrophied state. changes in channels and water flow, and a huge influx of liquefied sediments that covered up to 65% of the estuary floor. Water nitrogen increased due to damage to sewage infrastructure and the diversion pipeline being turned off. Together, these drastically altered the estuarine ecosystem. My study involves three laboratory and five in situ experiments that investigate the base of the food chain and responses of benthic microalgae to earthquake-driven sedimen tand nutrient changes. It was predicted that the new sediments would be coarser and less contaminated with organic matter and nutrients than the old sediments, would have decreased microalgal biomass, and would prevent invertebrate grazing and bioturbation activities. It was believed that microalgal biomass would become similar across new and old sediments types as the unstable new sediments were resuspended and distributed over the old sediments. Contact cores of the sediment were taken at three sites, across a eutrophication gradient, monthly from September 2011 to March 2012. Extracted chlorophyll a pigments showed that microalgal biomass was generally lower on new liquefied sediments compared to old sediments, although there was considerable site to site variation, with the highly eutrophic sites being the most affected by the emergence of the new sediments. Grazer experiments showed that invertebrates had both positive and negative site-specific effects on microalgal biomass depending on their identity. At one site, new sediments facilitated grazing by Amphibola crenata, whereas at another site, new sediments did not alter the direct and indirect effects of invertebrates (Nicon aestuariensis, Macropthalmus hirtipes, and A. crenata) on microalgae. From nutrient addition experiments it was clear that benthic microalgae were able to use nutrients from within both old and new sediments equally. This implied that microalgae were reducing legacy nutrients in both sediments, and that they are
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.
