The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2-6.3 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings, and most of the city lifelines and infrastructure. This manuscript presents an overview of observed geotechnical aspects of this earthquake as well as some of the completed and on-going research investigations. A unique aspect, which is particularly emphasized, is the severity and spatial extent of liquefaction occurring in native soils. Overall, both the spatial extent and severity of liquefaction in the city was greater than in the preceding 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake, including numerous areas that liquefied in both events. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, variable over both large and short spatial scales, affected commercial structures in the Central Business District (CBD) in a variety of ways including: total and differential settlements and tilting; punching settlements of structures with shallow foundations; differential movements of components of complex structures; and interaction of adjacent structures via common foundation soils. Liquefaction was most severe in residential areas located to the east of the CBD as a result of stronger ground shaking due to the proximity to the causative fault, a high water table approximately 1m from the surface, and soils with composition and states of high susceptibility and potential for liquefaction. Total and differential settlements, and lateral movements, due to liquefaction and lateral spreading is estimated to have severely compromised 15,000 residential structures, the majority of which otherwise sustained only minor to moderate damage directly due to inertial loading from ground shaking. Liquefaction also had a profound effect on lifelines and other infrastructure, particularly bridge structures, and underground services. Minor damage was also observed at flood stop banks to the north of the city, which were more severely impacted in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake. Due to the large high-frequency ground motion in the Port hills numerous rock falls and landslides also occurred, resulting in several fatalities and rendering some residential areas uninhabitable.
The objective of this study is to examine the influence of near-fault motions on liquefaction triggering in Christchurch and neighboring towns during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). The CES began with the 4 September 2010, Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake and included up to ten events that triggered liquefaction. However, most notably, widespread liquefaction was induced by the Darfield earthquake and the Mw6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Of particular relevance to this study is the forward directivity effects that were prevalent in the motions recorded during the Darfield earthquake, and to a much lesser extent, during the Christchurch earthquake. A 2D variant of the Richart-Newmark fatigue theory was used to compute the equivalent number of cycles (neq) for the ground motions, where volumetric strain was used as the damage metric. This study is unique because it considers the contribution and phasing of both the fault-normal and fault-parallel components of motion on neq and the magnitude scaling factor (MSF). It was found that when the fault-normal and fault-parallel motions were treated individually, the former yielded a lower neq than the latter. Additionally, when the combined effects of fault-normal and fault-parallel components were considered, it was found that the MSF were higher than those commonly used. This implies that motions containing near-fault effects are less demanding on the soil than motions that do not. This may be one of several factors that resulted in less severe liquefaction occurring during the Darfield earthquake than the Christchurch earthquake.
Previous earthquakes demonstrated destructive effects of soil-structure interaction on structural response. For example, in the 1970 Gediz earthquake in Turkey, part of a factory was demolished in a town 135 km from the epicentre, while no other buildings in the town were damaged. Subsequent investigations revealed that the fundamental period of vibration of the factory was approximately equal to that of the underlying soil. This alignment provided a resonance effect and led to collapse of the structure. Another dramatic example took place in Adapazari, during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake where several foundations failed due to either bearing capacity exceedance or foundation uplifting, consequently, damaging the structure. Finally, the Christchurch 2012 earthquakes have shown that significant nonlinear action in the soil and soil-foundation interface can be expected due to high levels of seismic excitation and spectral acceleration. This nonlinearity, in turn, significantly influenced the response of the structure interacting with the soil-foundation underneath. Extensive research over more than 35 years has focused on the subject of seismic soil-structure interaction. However, since the response of soil-structure systems to seismic forces is extremely complex, burdened by uncertainties in system parameters and variability in ground motions, the role of soil-structure interaction on the structural response is still controversial. Conventional design procedures suggest that soil-structure interaction effects on the structural response can be conservatively ignored. However, more recent studies show that soil-structure interaction can be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the soil-structure-earthquake scenarios considered. In view of the above mentioned issues, this research aims to utilise a comprehensive and systematic probabilistic methodology, as the most rational way, to quantify the effects of soil-structure interaction on the structural response considering both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. The goal is achieved by examining the response of established rheological single-degree-of-freedom systems located on shallow-foundation and excited by ground motions with different spectral characteristics. In this regard, four main phases are followed. First, the effects of seismic soil-structure interaction on the response of structures with linear behaviour are investigated using a robust stochastic approach. Herein, the soil-foundation interface is modelled by an equivalent linear cone model. This phase is mainly considered to examine the influence of soil-structure interaction on the approach that has been adopted in the building codes for developing design spectrum and defining the seismic forces acting on the structure. Second, the effects of structural nonlinearity on the role of soil-structure interaction in modifying seismic structural response are studied. The same stochastic approach as phase 1 is followed, while three different types of structural force-deflection behaviour are examined. Third, a systematic fashion is carried out to look for any possible correlation between soil, structural, and system parameters and the degree of soil-structure interaction effects on the structural response. An attempt is made to identify the key parameters whose variation significantly affects the structural response. In addition, it is tried to define the critical range of variation of parameters of consequent. Finally, the impact of soil-foundation interface nonlinearity on the soil-structure interaction analysis is examined. In this regard, a newly developed macro-element covering both material and geometrical soil-foundation interface nonlinearity is implemented in a finite-element program Raumoko 3D. This model is then used in an extensive probabilistic simulation to compare the effects of linear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction on the structural response. This research is concluded by reviewing the current design guidelines incorporating soil-structure interaction effects in their design procedures. A discussion is then followed on the inadequacies of current procedures based on the outcomes of this study.
Research Report: 2010-02 The objective in writing this report is to provide a guide to structural engineers on how to assess the potential seismic performance of existing hollow-core floors in buildings and the steps involved in the design of new floors. Hollow-core units in New Zealand do not contain stirrups within the precast concrete section. This is due to the way that they are manufactured. The only reinforcement in the great majority of hollow-core units consists of pretensioned strands that are located close to the soffit. A consequence of this is that hollow-core units have a number of potential brittle failure modes that can occur when adverse structural actions are induced in the units. These adverse actions can be induced in a major earthquake due to the relative vertical, horizontal and rotational displacements that occur between hollow-core units and adjacent structural elements, such as beams or structural walls. A number of large scale structural tests backed up by analytical research has shown that extensive interaction occurs between floors containing prestressed precast units and other structural elements, such as walls and beams. The constraint that prestressed units in a floor can apply to adjacent beams can result in an increase in strength of the beams to a considerably greater strength than that indicated in editions of the New Zealand Structural Concrete Standard published prior to 2006. The extent of this increase is such that it could in some cases result in the development of a non-ductile failure mechanism instead of the ductile failure mechanism assumed in the design. Prestressed floor units tie the floor bays together leaving a weak section where the floor joins to supporting structural elements. The restraint provided by the prestress restricts the opening of cracks within the bay. In the event of an earthquake this restraint can result in wide cracks developing at some of the boundaries to floor bays. These cracks may have a significant influence on the performance of the floor when it acts as a diaphragm to transfer seismic forces to the lateral force resisting structural elements in the building. The report contains details of; 1. The different failure modes, which may be induced in hollow-core floors, and the failure modes that may develop in a buildings due to the presence of hollow-core units in the floors; 2. Criteria that may be used to assess the magnitude of the design earthquake which may be safely resisted by a hollow-core floor in a building; 3. Details of how construction practice related to the use of hollow-core floors in New Zealand has changed over the last five decades. This highlights particular aspects that need to be considered in carrying out an assessment of existing hollow-core floors; 4. Information on how a new hollow-core floor may be designed to be consistent with the Earthquake Actions Standard, NZS1170.5: 2004 and the Structural Concrete Standard, NZS3101: 2006 (plus Amendment 2); 5. A review of the research findings relevant to the behaviour of New Zealand hollow-core floors under earthquake conditions. Research that was used to develop the assessment and design criteria is described together with details of how the different criteria were developed from this work.
Tens of thousands of landslides were generated over 10, 000 km2 of North Canterbury and Marlborough as a consequence of the 14 November 2016, MW7.8 Kaikōura Earthquake. The most intense landslide damage was concentrated in 3500 km2 around the areas of fault rupture. Given the sparsely populated area affected by landslides, only a few homes were impacted and there were no recorded deaths due to landslides. Landslides caused major disruption with all road and rail links with Kaikōura being severed. The landslides affecting State Highway 1 (the main road link in the South Island of New Zealand) and the South Island main trunk railway extended from Ward in Marlborough all the way to the south of Oaro in North Canterbury. The majority of landslides occurred in two geological and geotechnically distinct materials reflective of the dominant rock types in the affected area. In the Neogene sedimentary rocks (sandstones, limestones and siltstones) of the Hurunui District, North Canterbury and around Cape Campbell in Marlborough, first-time and reactivated rock-slides and rock-block slides were the dominant landslide type. These rocks also tend to have rock material strength values in the range of 5-20 MPa. In the Torlesse 'basement' rocks (greywacke sandstones and argillite) of the Kaikōura Ranges, first-time rock and debris avalanches were the dominant landslide type. These rocks tend to have material strength values in the range of 20-50 MPa. A feature of this earthquake is the large number (more than 200) of valley blocking landslides it generated. This was partly due to the steep and confined slopes in the area and the widely distributed strong ground shaking. The largest landslide dam has an approximate volume of 12(±2) M m3 and the debris from this travelled about 2.7 km2 downslope where it formed a dam blocking the Hapuku River. The long-term stability of cracked slopes and landslide dams from future strong earthquakes and large rainstorms are an ongoing concern to central and local government agencies responsible for rebuilding homes and infrastructure. A particular concern is the potential for debris floods to affect downstream assets and infrastructure should some of the landslide dams breach catastrophically. At least twenty-one faults ruptured to the ground surface or sea floor, with these surface ruptures extending from the Emu Plain in North Canterbury to offshore of Cape Campbell in Marlborough. The mapped landslide distribution reflects the complexity of the earthquake rupture. Landslides are distributed across a broad area of intense ground shaking reflective of the elongate area affected by fault rupture, and are not clustered around the earthquake epicentre. The largest landslides triggered by the earthquake are located either on or adjacent to faults that ruptured to the ground surface. Surface faults may provide a plane of weakness or hydrological discontinuity and adversely oriented surface faults may be indicative of the location of future large landslides. Their location appears to have a strong structural geological control. Initial results from our landslide investigations suggest predictive models relying only on ground-shaking estimates underestimate the number and size of the largest landslides that occurred.
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010-2011 produced large seismic moments up to Mw 7.1. These large, near-to-surface (<15 km) ruptures triggered >6,000 rockfall boulders on the Port Hills of Christchurch, many of which impacted houses and affected the livelihoods of people within the impacted area. From these disastrous and unpredicted natural events a need arose to be able to assess the areas affected by rockfall events in the future, where it is known that a rockfall is possible from a specific source outcrop but the potential boulder runout and dynamics are not understood. The distribution of rockfall deposits is largely constrained by the physical properties and processes of the boulder and its motion such as block density, shape and size, block velocity, bounce height, impact and rebound angle, as well as the properties of the substrate. Numerical rockfall models go some way to accounting for all the complex factors in an algorithm, commonly parameterised in a user interface where site-specific effects can be calibrated. Calibration of these algorithms requires thorough field checks and often experimental practises. The purpose of this project, which began immediately following the most destructive rupture of the CES (February 22, 2011), is to collate data to characterise boulder falls, and to use this information, supplemented by a set of anthropogenic boulder fall data, to perform an in-depth calibration of the three-dimensional numerical rockfall model RAMMS::Rockfall. The thesis covers the following topics: • Use of field data to calibrate RAMMS. Boulder impact trails in the loess-colluvium soils at Rapaki Bay have been used to estimate ranges of boulder velocities and bounce heights. RAMMS results replicate field data closely; it is concluded that the model is appropriate for analysing the earthquake-triggered boulder trails at Rapaki Bay, and that it can be usefully applied to rockfall trajectory and hazard assessment at this and similar sites elsewhere. • Detailed analysis of dynamic rockfall processes, interpreted from recorded boulder rolling experiments, and compared to RAMMS simulated results at the same site. Recorded rotational and translational velocities of a particular boulder show that the boulder behaves logically and dynamically on impact with different substrate types. Simulations show that seasonal changes in soil moisture alter rockfall dynamics and runout predictions within RAMMS, and adjustments are made to the calibration to reflect this; suggesting that in hazard analysis a rockfall model should be calibrated to dry rather than wet soil conditions to anticipate the most serious outcome. • Verifying the model calibration for a separate site on the Port Hills. The results of the RAMMS simulations show the effectiveness of calibration against a real data set, as well as the effectiveness of vegetation as a rockfall barrier/retardant. The results of simulations are compared using hazard maps, where the maximum runouts match well the mapped CES fallen boulder maximum runouts. The results of the simulations in terms of frequency distribution of deposit locations on the slope are also compared with those of the CES data, using the shadow angle tool to apportion slope zones. These results also replicate real field data well. Results show that a maximum runout envelope can be mapped, as well as frequency distribution of deposited boulders for hazard (and thus risk) analysis purposes. The accuracy of the rockfall runout envelope and frequency distribution can be improved by comprehensive vegetation and substrate mapping. The topics above define the scope of the project, limiting the focus to rockfall processes on the Port Hills, and implications for model calibration for the wider scientific community. The results provide a useful rockfall analysis methodology with a defensible and replicable calibration process, that has the potential to be applied to other lithologies and substrates. Its applications include a method of analysis for the selection and positioning of rockfall countermeasure design; site safety assessment for scaling and demolition works; and risk analysis and land planning for future construction in Christchurch.
