Queenstown and Christchurch are twin poles of New Zealand's landscape of risk. As the country's 'adventure capital', Queenstown is a spectacular landscape in which risk is a commodity. Christchurch's landscape is also risky, ruptured by earthquakes, tentatively rebuilding. As a far-flung group of tiny islands in a vast ocean, New Zealand is the poster-child of the sublime.
Queenstown and Christchurch tell two different, yet complementary, stories about the sublime.
Christchurch and Queenstown are vehicles for exploring the 21st-century sublime, for reflecting on its expansive influence on shaping cultural landscapes. Christchurch and Queenstown stretch and challenge the sublime's influence on the designed landscape. Circling the paradoxes of risk and safety, suffering and pleasure, the sublime feeds an infinite appetite for fear as entertainment, and at the same time calls for an empathetic caring for a broken landscape and its residents.
After the magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck Canterbury on 4 September 2010, most media reports claimed that no lives had been lost. But In fact, this first earthquake killed at least 3000 chickens, eight cows, one dog, a lemur and 150 aquarium fish. University of Canterbury associate professor Annie Potts, along with co-author Donelle Gadenne, wrote Animals in Emergencies: Learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes, revealing what happened to the animals during and after the series of quakes. Annie Potts will give a public lecture, 'Animals and natural disasters: Learning from recent earthquakes', on Thursday 16 March, 7pm at UC Ilam campus, Christchurch. Register to attend free at: www.canterbury.ac.nz/ucconnect
This study uses 44 high quality liquefaction case histories taken from 22 locations affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence to evaluate four commonly used CPT-VS correlations (i.e., Robertson, 2009; Hegazy and Mayne, 2006; Andrus et al., 2007; McGann et al., 2015b). Co-located CPT soundings and VS profiles, developed from surface wave testing, were obtained at 22 locations and case histories were developed for the Mw 7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield and Mw 6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. The CPT soundings are used to generate VS profiles using each of four CPT-VS correlations. These correlated VS profiles are used to estimate the factor of safety against liquefaction using the Kayen et al. (2013) VS-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure. An error index is used to quantify the predictive capabilities of these correlations in relation to the observations of liquefaction (or the lack thereof). Additionally, the error indices from the CPT-correlated VS profiles are compared to those obtained using: (1) the Kayen et al. (2013) procedure with surface wave-derived VS profiles, and (2) the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedure. Based on the error indices, the evaluation procedures based on direct measurements of either CPT or VS provided more accurate liquefaction triggering estimates than those obtained from any of the CPT-VS correlations. However, the performance of the CPT-VS correlations varied, with the Robertson (2009) and Hegazy and Mayne (2006) correlations performing relatively poorly for the Christchurch soils and the Andrus et al. (2007) and McGann et al. (2015b) correlations performing better. The McGann et al. (2015b) correlation had the lowest error indices of the CPT-VS correlations tested, however, none of the CPT-VS correlations provided accurate enough VS predictions to be used for the evaluation of liquefaction triggering using the VS-based liquefaction evaluation procedures.
The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) of 2010-2011 caused widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch. Observations from the CES highlight some sites were liquefaction was predicted by the simplified method but did not manifest. There are a number of reasons why the simplified method may over-predict liquefaction, one of these is the dynamic interaction between soil layers within a stratified deposit. Soil layer interaction occurs through two key mechanisms; modification of the ground motion due to seismic waves passing through deep liquefied layers, and the effect of pore water seepage from an area of high excess pore water pressure to the surrounding soil. In this way, soil layer interaction can significantly alter the liquefaction behaviour and surface manifestation of soils subject to seismic loading. This research aimed to develop an understanding of how soil layer interaction, in particular ground motion modification, affects the development of excess pore water pressures and liquefaction manifestation in a soil deposit subject to seismic loading. A 1-D soil column time history Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) was conducted to give an in depth assessment of the development of pore pressures in a number of soil deposits. For this analysis, ground motions, soil profiles and model parameters were required for the ESA. Deconvolution of ground motions recorded at the surface during the CES was used to develop some acceleration time histories to input at the base of the soil-column model. An analysis of 55 sites around Christchurch, where detailed site investigations have been carried out, was then conducted to identify some simplified soil profiles and soil characteristics. From this analysis, four soil profiles representative of different levels of liquefaction manifestation were developed. These were; two thick uniform and vertically continuous sandy deposits that were representative of sites were liquefaction manifested in both the Mw 7.1 September 2010 and the Mw 6.3 February 2011 earthquakes, and two vertically discontinuous profiles with interlayered liquefiable and non-liquefiable layers representative of sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either the September 2010 or the February 2011 events. Model parameters were then developed for these four representative soil profiles through calibration of the constitutive model in element test simulations. Simulations were run for each of the four profiles subject to three levels of loading intensity. The results were analysed for the effect of soil layer interaction. These were then compared to a simplified triggering analysis for the same four profiles to determine where the simplified method was accurate in predicting soil liquefaction (for the continuous sandy deposits) and were it was less accurate (the vertically discontinuous deposits where soil layer interaction was a factor).
