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
Advanced seismic effective-stress analysis is used to scrutinize the liquefaction performance of 55 well-documented case-history sites from Christchurch. The performance of these sites during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence varied significantly, from no liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface (in any of the major events) to severe liquefaction manifestation in multiple events. For the majority of the 55 sites, the simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures, which are conventionally used in engineering practice, could not explain these dramatic differences in the manifestation. Detailed geotechnical characterization and subsequent examination of the soil profile characteristics of the 55 sites identified some similarities but also important differences between sites that manifested liquefaction in the two major events of the sequence (YY-sites) and sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either event (NN-sites). In particular, while the YY-sites and NN-sites are shown to have practically identical critical layer characteristics, they have significant differences with regard to their deposit characteristics including the thickness and vertical continuity of their critical zones and liquefiable materials. A CPT-based effective stress analysis procedure is developed and implemented for the analyses of the 55 case history sites. Key features of this procedure are that, on the one hand, it can be fully automated in a programming environment and, on the other hand, it is directly equivalent (in the definition of cyclic resistance and required input data) to the CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures. These features facilitate significantly the application of effective-stress analysis for simple 1D free-field soil-column problems and also provide a basis for rigorous comparisons of the outcomes of effective-stress analyses and simplified procedures. Input motions for the analyses are derived using selected (reference) recordings from the two major events of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A step-by-step procedure for the selection of representative reference motions for each site and their subsequent treatment (i.e. deconvolution and scaling) is presented. The focus of the proposed procedure is to address key aspects of spatial variability of ground motion in the near-source region of an earthquake including extended-source effects, path effects, and variation in the deeper regional geology.
