Landslides are significant hazards, especially in seismically-active mountainous regions, where shaking amplified by steep topography can result in widespread landsliding. These landslides present not only an acute hazard, but a chronic hazard that can last years-to-decades after the initial earthquake, causing recurring impacts. The Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake caused more than 20,000 landslides throughout North Canterbury and resulted in significant damage to nationally significant infrastructure in the coastal transport corridor (CTC), isolating Kaikōura from the rest of New Zealand. In the years following, ongoing landsliding triggered by intense rainfall exacerbated the impacts and slowed the recovery process. However, while there is significant research on co-seismic landslides and their initial impacts in New Zealand, little research has explored the evolution of co-seismic landslides and how this hazard changes over time. This research maps landslides annually between 2013 and 2021 to evaluate the changes in pre-earthquake, co-seismic and post-earthquake rates of landsliding to determine how landslide hazard has changed over this time. In particular, the research explores how the number, area, and spatial distribution of landslides has changed since the earthquake, and whether post-earthquake mitigation works have in any way affected the long-term landslide hazard. Mapping of landslides was undertaken using open-source, medium resolution Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 satellite imagery, with landslides identified visually and mapped as single polygons that capture both the source zone and deposit. Three study areas with differing levels of post-earthquake mitigation are compared: (i) the northern CTC, where the majority of mitigation was in the form of active debris removal; (ii) the southern CTC, where mitigation was primarily via passive protection measures; and (iii) Mount Fyffe, which has had no mitigation works since the earthquake. The results show that despite similar initial impacts during the earthquake, the rate of recovery in terms of landslide rates varies substantially across the three study areas. In Mount Fyffe, the number and area of landslides could take 45 and 22 years from 2021 respectively to return to pre-earthquake levels at the current rate. Comparatively, in the CTC, it could take just 5 years and 3-4 years from 2021 respectively. Notably, the fastest recovery in terms of landslide rates in the CTC was primarily located directly along the transport network, whereas what little recovery did occur in Mount Fyffe appeared to follow no particular pattern. Importantly, recovery rates in the northern CTC were notably higher than in the southern CTC, despite greater co-seismic impacts in the former. Combined, these results suggest the active, debris removal mitigation undertaken in the northern CTC may have had the effect of dramatically reducing the time for landslide rates to return to pre-earthquake levels. The role of slope angle and slope aspect were explored to evaluate if these observations could be driven by local differences in topography. The Mount Fyffe study area has higher slope angles than the CTC as a whole and landslides predominantly occurred on slightly steeper slopes than in the CTC. This may have contributed to the longer recovery times for landsliding in Mount Fyffe due to greater gravitational instability, however the observed variations are minor compared to the differences in recovery rates. In terms of slope aspect, landslides in Mount Fyffe preferentially occurred on north- and south-facing slopes whereas landslides in the CTC preferred the east- and south-facing slopes. The potential role of these differences in landslide recovery remains unclear but may be related to the propagation direction of the earthquake and the tracking direction of post-earthquake ex-tropical cyclones. Finally, landslides in the CTC are observed to be moving further away from the transport network and the number of landslides impacting the CTC decreased significantly since the earthquake. Nevertheless, the potential for further landslide reactivation remains. Therefore, despite the recovery in the CTC, it is clear that there is still risk of the transport network being impacted by further landsliding, at least for the next 3-5 yrs.
The Eastern Humps and Leader faults, situated in the Mount Stewart Range in North Canterbury, are two of the ≥17 faults which ruptured during the 2016 MW7.8 Kaikōura Earthquake. The earthquake produced complex, intersecting ground ruptures of these faults and the co-seismic uplift of the Mount Stewart Range. This thesis aims to determine how these two faults accommodated deformation during the 2016 earthquake and how they interact with each other and with pre-existing geological structures. In addition, it aims to establish the most likely subsurface geometry of the fault complex across the Mount Stewart Range, and to investigate the paleoseismic history of the Leader Fault. The Eastern Humps Fault strikes ~240° and dips 80° to 60° to the northwest and accommodated right- lateral – reverse-slip, with up to 4 m horizontal and 2 m vertical displacement in the 2016 earthquake. The strike of the Leader Fault varies from ~155 to ~300°, and dips ~30 to ~80° to the west/northwest, and mainly accommodated left-lateral – reverse-slip of up to 3.5 m horizontal and 3.5 m vertical slip in the 2016 earthquake. On both the Eastern Humps and Leader faults the slip is variable along strike, with areas of low total displacement and areas where horizontal and vertical displacement are negatively correlated. Fault traces with low total displacement reflect the presence of off-fault (distributed) displacement which is not being captured with field measurements. The negative correlation of horizontal and vertical displacement likely indicates a degree of slip partitioning during the 2016 earthquake on both the Eastern Humps and Leader faults. The Eastern Humps and Leader faults have a complex, interdependent relationship with the local bedrock geology. The Humps Fault appears to be a primary driver of ongoing folding and deformation of the local Mendip Syncline and folding of the Mount Stewart Range, which probably began prior to, or synchronous with, initial rupture of The Humps Fault. The Leader Fault appears to use existing lithological weaknesses in the Cretaceous-Cenozoic bedrock stratigraphy to rupture to the surface. This largely accounts for the strong variability on the strike and dip of the Leader Fault, as the geometry of the surface ruptures tend to reflect the strike and dip of the geological strata which it is rupturing through. The Leader Fault may also accommodate some degree of flexural slip in the Cenozoic cover sequence of the Mendip Syncline, contributing to the ongoing growth of the fold. The similarity between topography and uplift profiles from the 2016 earthquake suggest that growth of the Mount Stewart Range has been primarily driven by multiple (>500) discrete earthquakes that rupture The Humps and Leader faults. The spatial distribution of surface displacements across the Mount Stewart Range is more symmetrical than would be expected if uplift is driven primarily by The Humps and Leader faults alone. Elastic dislocation forward models were used to model potential sub-surface geometries and the resulting patterns of deformation compared to photogrammetry-derived surface displacements. Results show a slight preference for models with a steeply southeast-dipping blind fault, coincident with a zone of seismicity at depth, as a ‘backthrust’ to The Humps and Leader faults. This inferred Mount Stewart Fault accommodated contractional strain during the 2016 earthquake and contributes to the ongoing uplift of the Mount Stewart Range with a component of folding. Right-lateral and reverse shear stress change on the Hope Fault was also modelled using Coulomb 3.3 software to examine whether slip on The Humps and Leader faults could transfer enough stress onto the Hope Fault to trigger through-going rupture. Results indicate that during the 2016 earthquake right-lateral shear and reverse stress only increased on the Hope Fault in small areas to the west of the Leader Fault, and similar ruptures would be unlikely to trigger eastward propagating rupture unless the Hope Fault was close to failure prior to the earthquake. Paleoseismic trenches were excavated on the Leader Fault at four locations from 2018 to 2020, revealing near surface (< 4m depth) contractional deformation of Holocene stratigraphy. Three of the trench locations uncovered clear evidence for rupture of the Leader Fault prior to 2016, with fault displacement of near surface stratigraphy being greater than displacement recorded during the 2016 earthquake. Radiocarbon dating of in-situ organic material from two trenches indicate a date of the penultimate earthquake on the Leader Fault within the past 1000 years. This date is consistent with The Humps and Leader faults having ruptured simultaneously in the past, and with multi-fault ruptures involving The Humps, Leader, Hundalee and Stone Jug faults having occurred prior to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. Overall, the results contribute to an improved understanding of the Kaikōura earthquake and highlight the importance of detailed structural and paleoseismic investigations in determining controls on earthquake ‘complexity’.
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in large seismic events often results in pervasive and costly damage to engineering structures and lifelines, making it a critical component of engineering design. However, the complex nature of this phenomenon leads to designing for such a hazard extremely challenging and there is a clear for an improved understanding and predicting liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. The 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) Earthquakes triggered severe liquefaction-induced lateral spreading along the streams and rivers of the Christchurch region, causing extensive damage to roads, bridges, lifelines, and structures in the vicinity. The unfortunate devastation induced from lateral spreading in these events also rendered the rare opportunity to gain an improved understanding of lateral spreading displacements specific to the Christchurch region. As part of this thesis, the method of ground surveying was employed following the 4 September 2010 Darfield (Mw 7.1) and 22 February 2011 Christchurch (Mw 6.2) earthquakes at 126 locations (19 repeated) throughout Christchurch and surrounding suburbs. The method involved measurements and then summation of crack widths along a specific alignment (transect) running approximately perpendicular to the waterway to indicate typically a maximum lateral displacement at the bank and reduction of the magnitude of displacements with distance from the river. Rigorous data processing and comparisons with alternative measurements of lateral spreading were performed to verify results from field observations and validate the method of ground surveying employed, as well as highlight the complex nature of lateral spreading displacements. The welldocumented field data was scrutinized to gain an understanding of typical magnitudes and distribution patterns (distribution of displacement with distance) of lateral spreading observed in the Christchurch area. Maximum displacements ranging from less than 10 cm to over 3.5 m were encountered at the sites surveyed and the area affected by spreading ranged from less than 20 m to over 200 m from the river. Despite the highly non-uniform displacements, four characteristic distribution patterns including large, distributed ground displacements, block-type movements, large and localized ground displacements, and areas of little to no displacements were identified. Available geotechnical, seismic, and topographic data were collated at the ground surveying sites for subsequent analysis of field measurements. Two widely-used empirical models (Zhang et al. (2004), Youd et al. (2002)) were scrutinized and applied to locations in the vicinity of field measurements for comparison with model predictions. The results indicated generally poor correlation (outside a factor of two) with empirical predictions at most locations and further validated the need for an improved, analysis- based method of predicting lateral displacements that considers the many factors involved on a site-specific basis. In addition, the development of appropriate model input parameters for the Youd et al. (2002) model led to a site-specific correlation of soil behavior type index, Ic, and fines content, FC, for sites along the Avon River in Christchurch that matched up well with existing Ic – FC relationships commonly used in current practice. Lastly, a rigorous analysis was performed for 25 selected locations of ground surveying measurements along the Avon River where ground slope conditions are mild (-1 to 2%) and channel heights range from about 2 – 4.5 m. The field data was divided into categories based on the observed distribution pattern of ground displacements including: large and distributed, moderate and distributed, small to negligible, and large and localized. A systematic approach was applied to determine potential critical layers contributing to the observed displacement patterns which led to the development of characteristic profiles for each category considered. The results of these analyses outline an alternative approach to the evaluation of lateral spreading in which a detailed geotechnical analysis is used to identify the potential for large spreading displacements and likely spatial distribution patterns of spreading. Key factors affecting the observed magnitude and distribution of spreading included the thickness of the critical layer, relative density, soil type and layer continuity. It was found that the large and distributed ground displacements were associated with a thick (1.5 – 2.5 m) deposit of loose, fine to silty sand (qc1 ~4-7 MPa, Ic 1.9-2.1, qc1n_cs ~50-70) that was continuous along the bank and with distance from the river. In contrast, small to negligible displacements were characterized by an absence of or relatively thin (< 1 m), discontinuous critical layer. Characteristic features of the moderate and distributed displacements were found to be somewhere between these two extremes. The localized and large displacements showed a characteristic critical layer similar to that observed in the large and distributed sites but that was not continuous and hence leading to the localized zone of displacement. The findings presented in this thesis illustrate the highly complex nature of lateral displacements that cannot be captured in simplified models but require a robust geotechnical analysis similar to that performed for this research.
The Lake Coleridge Rock Avalanche Deposits (LCRADs) are located on Ryton Station in the middle Rakaia Valley, approximately 80 km west of Christchurch. Torlesse Supergroup greywacke is the basement material and has been significantly influenced by both active tectonics and glaciation. Both glacial and post-glacial processes have produced large volumes of material which blanket the bedrock on slopes and in the valley floors. The LCRADs were part of a regional study of rock avalanches by WHITEHOUSE (1981, 1983) and WHITEHOUSE and GRIFFITHS (1983), and a single rock avalanche event was recognised with a weathering rind age of 120 years B.P. that was later modified to 150 ± 40 years B.P. The present study has refined details of both the age and the sequence of events at the site, by identifying three separate rock avalanche deposits (termed the LCRA1, LCRA2 and LCRA3 deposits), which are all sourced from near the summit of Carriage Drive. The LCRA1 deposit is lobate in shape and had an estimated original deposit volume of 12.5 x 10⁶ m³, although erosion by the Ryton River has reduced the present day debris volume to 5.1 x 10⁶ m³. An optically stimulated luminescence date taken from sandy loess immediately beneath the LCRA1 deposit provided a maximum age for the rock avalanche event of 9,720 ± 750 years B.P., which is believed to be realistic given that this is shortly after the retreat of Acheron 3 ice from this part of the valley. Emplacement of rock avalanche material into an ancestral Ryton riverbed created a natural dam with a ~17 M m³ lake upstream. The river is thought to have created a natural spillway over the dam structure at ~557 m (a.s.l), and to have existed for a number of years before any significant downcutting occurred. Although a triggering mechanism for the LCRA1 deposit was poorly constrained, it is thought that stress rebound after glacial ice removal may have initiated failure. Due to the event occurring c.10,000 years ago, there was a lack of definition for a possible earthquake trigger, though the possibility is obvious. The LCRA₂ event had an original deposit volume of 0.66 x 10⁶ m³, and was constrained to the low-lying area adjacent to the Ryton River that had been created by river erosion of the LCRA1 deposit. Further erosion by the Ryton River has reduced the deposit volume to 0.4 x 10⁶ m³. A radiocarbon date from a piece of mānuka found within the LCRA2 deposit provided an age of 668 ± 36 years B.P., and this is thought to reliably date the event. The LCRA2 event also dammed the Ryton River, and the preservation of dam-break outwash terraces downstream from the deposit provides clear evidence of rapid dam erosion and flooding after overtopping, and breaching by the Ryton River. Based on the mean annual flow of the Ryton River, the LCRA2 lake would have taken approximately two weeks to fill assuming that there were no preferred breach paths and the material was relatively impermeable. The LCRA2 event is thought to have been coseismic with a fault rupture along the western segment of the PPAFZ, which has been dated at 600 ± 100 years B.P. by SMITH (2003). The small LCRA3 event was not able to be dated, but it is believed to have failed shortly after the LCRA2 event and it may in fact be a lag deposit of the second rock avalanche event possibly triggered by an aftershock. The deposit is only visible at one locality within the cliffs that line the Ryton River, and its lack of geomorphic expression is attributed to it occurring closely after the LCRA2 event, while the Ryton River was still dammed from the second rock avalanche event. A wedge-block of some 35,000 m³ of source material for a future rock avalanche was identified at the summit of Carriage Drive. The dilation of the rock mass, combined with unfavourably oriented sub-vertical bedding in the Torlesse Supergroup bedrock, has allowed toppling-style failure on both of the main ridge lines around the source area for the LCRADs. In the event of a future rock avalanche occurring within the Ryton riverbed an emergency response plan has been developed to provide a staged response, especially in relation to the camping ground located at the mouth of the Ryton River. A long-term management plan has also been developed for mitigation measures for the Ryton riverbed and adjacent floodplain areas downstream of a future rock avalanche at the LCRAD site.
In 2010 and 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand experienced a series of earthquakes that caused extensive damage across the city, but primarily to the Central Business District (CBD) and eastern suburbs. A major feature of the observed damage was extensive and severe soil liquefaction and associated ground damage, affecting buildings and infrastructure. The behaviour of soil during earthquake loading is a complex phenomena that can be most comprehensively analysed through advanced numerical simulations to aid engineers in the design of important buildings and critical facilities. These numerical simulations are highly dependent on the capabilities of the constitutive soil model to replicate the salient features of sand behaviour during cyclic loading, including liquefaction and cyclic mobility, such as the Stress-Density model. For robust analyses advanced soil models require extensive testing to derive engineering parameters under varying loading conditions for calibration. Prior to this research project little testing on Christchurch sands had been completed, and none from natural samples containing important features such as fabric and structure of the sand that may be influenced by the unique stress-history of the deposit. This research programme is focussed on the characterisation of Christchurch sands, as typically found in the CBD, to facilitate advanced soil modelling in both res earch and engineering practice - to simulate earthquake loading on proposed foundation design solutions including expensive ground improvement treatments. This has involved the use of a new Gel Push (GP) sampler to obtain undisturbed samples from below the ground-water table. Due to the variable nature of fluvial deposition, samples with a wide range of soil gradations, and accordingly soil index properties, were obtained from the sampling sites. The quality of the samples is comprehensively examined using available data from the ground investigation and laboratory testing. A meta-quality assessment was considered whereby a each method of evaluation contributed to the final quality index assigned to the specimen. The sampling sites were characterised with available geotechnical field-based test data, primarily the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT), supported by borehole sampling and shear-wave velocity testing. This characterisation provides a geo- logical context to the sampling sites and samples obtained for element testing. It also facilitated the evaluation of sample quality. The sampling sites were evaluated for liquefaction hazard using the industry standard empirical procedures, and showed good correlation to observations made following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. However, the empirical method over-predicted liquefaction occurrence during the preceding 4 September 2010 event, and under-predicted for the subsequent 13 June 2011 event. The reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. The response of the GP samples to monotonic and cyclic loading was measured in the laboratory through triaxial testing at the University of Canterbury geomechanics laboratory. The undisturbed samples were compared to reconstituted specimens formed in the lab in an attempt to quantify the effect of fabric and structure in the Christchurch sands. Further testing of moist tamped re- constituted specimens (MT) was conducted to define important state parameters and state-dependent properties including the Critical State Line (CSL), and the stress-strain curve for varying state index. To account for the wide-ranging soil gradations, selected representative specimens were used to define four distinct CSL. The input parameters for the Stress-Density Model (S-D) were derived from a suite of tests performed on each representative soil, and with reference to available GP sample data. The results of testing were scrutinised by comparing the data against expected trends. The influence of fabric and structure of the GP samples was observed to result in similar cyclic strength curves at 5 % Double Amplitude (DA) strain criteria, however on close inspection of the test data, clear differences emerged. The natural samples exhibited higher compressibility during initial loading cycles, but thereafter typically exhibited steady growth of plastic strain and excess pore water pressure towards and beyond the strain criteria and initial liquefaction, and no flow was observed. By contrast the reconstituted specimens exhibited a stiffer response during initial loading cycles, but exponential growth in strains and associated excess pore water pressure beyond phase-transformation, and particularly after initial liquefaction where large strains were mobilised in subsequent cycles. These behavioural differences were not well characterised by the cyclic strength curve at 5 % DA strain level, which showed a similar strength for both GP samples and MT specimens. A preliminary calibration of the S-D model for a range of soil gradations is derived from the suite of laboratory test data. Issues encountered include the influence of natural structure on the peak-strength–state index relationship, resulting in much higher peak strengths than typically observed for sands in the literature. For the S-D model this resulted in excessive stiffness to be modelled during cyclic mobility, when the state index becomes large momentarily, causing strain development to halt. This behaviour prevented modelling the observed re- sponse of silty sands to large strains, synonymous with “liquefaction”. Efforts to reduce this effect within the current formulation are proposed as well as future research to address this issue.
Background: We are in a period of history where natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and severity. They are having widespread impacts on communities, especially on vulnerable communities, those most affected who have the least ability to prepare or respond to a disaster. The ability to assemble and effectively manage Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) is critical to navigating the complexity and chaos found immediately following disasters. These teams play a crucial role in the multi-sectoral, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary, and inter-organisational response and are vital to ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable populations such as the young, aged, and socially and medically disadvantaged in disasters. Communication is key to the smooth operation of these teams. Most studies of the communication in IERTs during a disaster have been focussed at a macro-level of examining larger scale patterns and trends within organisations. Rarely found are micro-level analyses of interpersonal communication at the critical interfaces between collaborating agencies. This study set out to understand the experiences of those working at the interagency interfaces in an IERT set up by the Canterbury District Health Board to respond to the needs of the vulnerable people in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2010-11. The aim of the study was to gain insights about the complexities of interpersonal communication (micro-level) involved in interagency response coordination and to generate an improved understanding into what stabilises the interagency communication interfaces between those agencies responding to a major disaster. Methods: A qualitative case study research design was employed to investigate how interagency communication interfaces were stabilised at the micro-level (“the case”) in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury in 2010-11 (“the context”). Participant recruitment was undertaken by mapping which agencies were involved within the IERT and approaching representatives from each of these agencies. Data was collected via individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide and was based on the “Critical Incident Technique”. Subsequently, data was transcribed verbatim and subjected to inductive analysis. This was underpinned theoretically by Weick’s “Interpretive Approach” and supported by Nvivo qualitative data analysis software. Results: 19 participants were interviewed in this study. Out of the inductive analysis emerged two primary themes, each with several sub-factors. The first major theme was destabilising/disruptive factors of interagency communication with five sub-factors, a) conflicting role mandates, b) rigid command structures, c) disruption of established communication structures, d) lack of shared language and understanding, and e) situational awareness disruption. The second major theme stabilising/steadying factors in interagency communication had four sub-factors, a) the establishment of the IERT, b) emergent novel communication strategies, c) establishment of a liaison role and d) pre-existing networks and relationships. Finally, there was a third sub-level identified during inductive analysis, where sub-factors from both primary themes were noted to be uniquely interconnected by emergent “consequences” arising out of the disaster context. Finally, findings were synthesised into a conceptual “Model of Interagency Communication at the Micro-level” based on this case study of the Canterbury earthquake disaster response. Discussion: The three key dimensions of The People, The Connections and The Improvisations served as a framework for the discussion of what stabilises interagency communication interfaces in a major disaster. The People were key to stabilising the interagency interfaces through functioning as a flexible conduit, guiding and navigating communication at the interagency interfaces and improving situational awareness. The Connections provided the collective competence, shared decision-making and prior established relationships that stabilised the micro-level communication at interagency interfaces. And finally, The Improvisations i.e., novel ideas and inventiveness that emerge out of rapidly changing post-disaster environments, also contributed to stabilisation of micro-level communication flows across interagency interfaces in the disaster response. “Command and control” hierarchical structures do provide clear processes and structures for teams working in disasters to follow. However, improvisations and novel solutions are also needed and often emerge from first responders (who are best placed to assess the evolving needs in a disaster where there is a high degree of uncertainty). Conclusion: This study highlights the value of incorporating an interface perspective into any study that seeks to understand the processes of IERTs during disaster responses. It also strengthens the requirement for disaster management frameworks to formally plan for and to allow for the adaptive responsiveness of local teams on the ground, and legitimise and recognise the improvisations of those in the role of emergent boundary spanners in a disaster response. This needs to be in addition to existing formal disaster response mechanisms. This study provides a new conceptual model that can be used to guide future case studies exploring stability at the interfaces of other IERTs and highlights the centrality of communication in the experiences of members of teams in the aftermath of a disaster. Utilising these new perspectives on stabilising communication at the interagency interfaces in disaster responses will have practical implications in the future to better serve the needs of vulnerable people who are at greatest risk of adverse outcomes in a disaster.
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.
