Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during earthquakes poses a significant hazard to the built environment, as observed in Christchurch during the 2010 to 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). It is critical that geotechnical earthquake engineers are able to adequately predict both the spatial extent of lateral spreads and magnitudes of associated ground movements for design purposes. Published empirical and semi-empirical models for predicting lateral spread displacements have been shown to vary by a factor of <0.5 to >2 from those measured in parts of Christchurch during CES. Comprehensive post- CES lateral spreading studies have clearly indicated that the spatial distribution of the horizontal displacements and extent of lateral spreading along the Avon River in eastern Christchurch were strongly influenced by geologic, stratigraphic and topographic features.
In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand was severe and extensive, and data regarding the displacements associated with the lateral spreading provides an excellent opportunity to better understand the factors that influence these movements. Horizontal displacements measured from optical satellite imagery and subsurface data from the New Zealand Geotechnical Database (NZGD) were used to investigate four distinct lateral spread areas along the Avon River in Christchurch. These areas experienced displacements between 0.5 and 2 m, with the inland extent of displacement ranging from 100 m to over 600 m. Existing empirical and semi-empirical displacement models tend to under estimate displacements at some sites and over estimate at others. The integrated datasets indicate that the areas with more severe and spatially extensive displacements are associated with thicker and more laterally continuous deposits of liquefiable soil. In some areas, the inland extent of displacements is constrained by geologic boundaries and geomorphic features, as expressed by distinct topographic breaks. In other areas the extent of displacement is influenced by the continuity of liquefiable strata or by the presence of layers that may act as vertical seepage barriers. These observations demonstrate the need to integrate geologic/geomorphic analyses with geotechnical analyses when assessing the potential for lateral spreading movements.
