STRUCTURE & GEOLOGY

Johnathan - Scott - Khang

5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 19 21 22 25 27 28 31 33 35 37 38 40 41 44

Introduction Elements Tectonic Systems Coastal Processes Geological Processes Age of Soil Coincidence/Overlap Resources Main Soil Types Sub Soil Types Density of Main Soils Density of Sub Soils Porosity of Soils Beneath the City Bearing Capacity of Soil Cost of Rebuilding Structures g Map Spatial Distribution of Spectral Accelerations Liquefaction Map Swamp Overlay Map Foundation Types Liquefaction Induced Damage System Plan Appendix
3

CONTENTS

CHRISTCHURCH
The geology of a site and the strength of a building upon it are inherently linked. If the ground on which a structure is built becomes highly unstable, it is likely buildings will fail structurally. The aims of the reconstruction of Christchurch should be for a city that can withstand a higher level of earth movement than is currently set and the best way to achieve this is with a thorough knowledge of what buildings failed in the earthquakes and why with an emphasis on the ground conditions and makeup of the terrain. From our research we aim to understand where different structural types can be built and perhaps where structures should not be built at all.

Urban Areas of Christchurch 1:500,000

5km

10km 15km 5

pebbles and stones gravels silt ground related factors (end results) resources and uses sand paving mortar volcanic rocks limestone basalt ground strength - bearing capacity permeability buildings water movements grains and seeds fertility of soils ground uses crops cows grass animals sheep native trees meat forestry other animals eg ostriches and deer other animal products eg hooves permeability urban or otherwise built on not natural wool food other products eg gelatin milk leather animal processing dairy clothing exporting port and sea travel northwards sea travel southbound sea travel crop processing national transportation rail rail hub building stone quality of buildings aggregate concrete

mountains - alps. water

growing and moving - movement of alpine fault rivers waimakariri south of banks peninsula rivers eg rakaia erosion deposition alluvium

stresses in adjacent nz ground eg canterbury plains. length of rivers gradient of deposition

quake from fault movement because of stress alluvium

alluvium

liquefaction soft soil amplification

ground level change due to earthquake

ground level change due to liquefaction

christchurch fertile farmland springs animals high dairy production city water supply original wetlands dairy export port hills infrastructure damage building damage topographic amplification landslides

loss of means (of self support) effects building damage business and economic damage building destruction loss of life psychological effects overall production of city post quake long term difficulties in aquiring insurance insurance claims grief upset of the notion of safety PTSD

alluvium

absorbtion

groundwater

water table rises

christchurch Avon and Heathcoate rivers

banks peninsula - and port hills.

southland current

banks peninsula - and port hills.

pegasus bay

southward coastal movenment

coastal deposition

alluvium

inputs

insurance companies

canterbury bight

coastal erosion

silting

port

dredging

help and support

national or local international

building concerns

type/function

civic foundation types commercial structural systems or types residential what matierials were materials used builders construction quality what quality the matierials were manufactured as

food personell water financial amenities

building material manufacturers

sanitation

age

old (long before building code, heritage buildings)

services home original condition of distruption of shelter care food water sewerage disposal local imported (into area) family and company (who you are with)

medium (shortly before building code implimented, from 1960s to 1991) recent (after building code implimented by building act of 1991) design quality budget building code architects building use siting

specific ground conditions area of construction

experienced forces other hazards

restoration of

Inuences: the lines indicate the factors which each element is affected by.
communication

Fresh water and erosion system.

Coastal system

Human factors

Alluvium

information

Seismic system
6

Living ecologies

Financial factors

Volcanics

Definition of X: Alluvium. Process: Element:

Ground stability

1:

Buildings (foundations) Infrastructure Landscaping and embankments

Element formed/affected by:

A: B: C:

See <D>

ELEMENTS
A Reference Sheet
Everything in the system that affects Christchurch is related. It is impossible to dene where any single chain of events starts, because each system relates to all the other systems and so must take every other system into account. The idea of the mountains is nothing without the idea of the water which erodes them. The idea of alluvial plains is nothing without the idea of the coast which erodes and regulates its ever changing shoreline. There is no single event which begins the process of creating the alluvium, because it acts not as a chain but as a complx lattice. The city is a product of these systems: they are the eld from which it has grown and bloomed. The nature of Christchurch as an interlinked city, the very reason it was formed where it currently exists, is changing. The safety of the buildings, as they grow larger and heavier, becomes less certain with the risk of earthquakes. The springs and wells from which water is drawn are at risk from intrusive seawater, as well as the toxins and chemicals used by the farming community of the plains. The coastline through which the city trades both nationally and internationally occurs is being pushed further and further away from the hub of the city, while the New Brighton spit grows and the port silts up. The farming capacity of the plains has been reached, and while this supports a long term economy, it cannot easily grow or expand due to the limits of its area. Liquefaction and fault movement are gradually changing the topography of the city. As these trends continue, the resources which brought people to the gathering point that is Christchurch will no longer be adequate to the highly populated hub that the city is. For the future of the city, we need to look at what resources are useful, and how Christchurch as a hub of affected and affecting elements can respond to the gradual series of changes occurring within it. These elements are not simply to do with the ground, but are also to do with the way society works and the demands of todays ofces and contemporary culture. These elements affect the buildings we build and the way the city operates, and if these changes are not in keeping with the existing elements which effect Christchurch, then the city cannot work. The buildings which did not acknowledge the ground and its related system toppled. Christchurch needs to t into this diagram harmoniously, without disjunction.

Rocks
Ground permeability

2:

Surface water Rainwater reaching rivers Capacity for quick change in Groundwater levels

Coastal dynamics Water Deposition

X:

Alluvium

Flood mitigation Stormwater system of city

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7:

Ground stability
Resources from Ground

3:

Sand Silt Gravel Larger stones Aggregate

Ground permeability Resources from Ground Earthquke Suceptability Ground fertility Groundwater storage capacity Interaction existing alluvium
Ground fertility Ground suceptability to earthquake

Affected/formed by element:

See <R>

4: 5:

Soft soil amplification Liquefaction Grass Hay Farmed animals: Cows and Sheep Etc Crops for human use: Fruit and vegetables Grains and seeds: for human consumption Other Crops: for fibre etc. Forestry

} See <D> See <E>

A:

Plate movement Tectonic uplift Faultline Mountains Erosion

See <H>

B:

Southland current Erosion from Canterbury bight Banks peninsula Eddy current in pegasus bay Deposited ridge formation in pegasus bay

See <B>

Glaciation

Rocks
Alluvium and other ground conditions

Coastal Dynamics
Southward particle movement in Pegasus Bay Size of particles deposited along coast

}
}

See <group>

Groundwater storage capacity

6:

High water table: liquefaction. Diffiulty with Basement waterproofing Floating buildings Water resource: aquafers

Fine minerals from glaciation cause fertility of soils

Coastal ground conditions

Rock size influences alluvium properties. Hard rock used as material or resource
Spits and river mouth conditions in pegasus bay (New Brighton etc)

See <X group>

Springs and rivers Interaction with (further) deposition

C:

Fresh water Definition: linear and complex

River beds formed by previous action of rivers Cold temperature Sea Temperature Mountains Catchments Condensation

See <X group>

Permeable alluvium of plains Depth of alluvium Infrastructure Concentration of water already in soil

7:

Alluvial deposit growth Lower gradient rivers Gradiant of deposition: larger rocks fall out first River bed: eroded to a deep channel. River bed: flooding and outwash

Evaporation

Rain in clouds.

Precipitation

Water on the ground.

Collection in rivers

River water Flooding

Absorbtion into groundwater

Groundwater

Sourcing (Boreholes into aquafers) Rising throungh permeable material

In-city water. Humans Springs

Seawater

Water and irrigation sources Ecologies supported by river water Deposition Largest rocks deposited first Erosion Erosion Erosion Impermeable volvanic rock rising to Lyttelton Volcano

Finest sediments deposited along coast

Small rivers (e.g. Avon and Heathcoate) Water in upper soil Suceptability of ground to earthquakes.

A
Mountains Plains and Braided Rivers Farm lands Christchurch SPRINGS Port Hills Volcanics

Erosion of Mountains and Rock Impermeable Rocks Force Groundwater Upwards Transportation of Impermeable Materials Water Absorbtion through Permeable Alluvium Depostion of Fertile Rock Dust from Glaciers

C
The Formation of Alluvium in Christchurch

General subsurface composition under Christchurch

300m Undifferentiated Quartenary alluvium - from present up to 1.8million years ago. Highly permeable fine sediments. 145m Red Bluff Tuff - 1.63 - 5.28 million years old, permeable tuff. 130m Lyttelton basaltic lava - 9.7-11 million years ago, impermeable layer.

545m Eyre group greensand - 55 - 65 million years ago, impermeable layer.

Torlese formation, >150 million years old (Gondwanaland continental plate). Impermeable greywacke.

Scale 1:5000

TECTONIC SYSTEMS
A tectonic system is a system of plates which forms the rocks of the land. New Zealand is a product of the collision between the Australian and Pacic tectonic plates. The result is the uplift of a former Gondwanaland land mass into the Southern Alps, a mountainous barrier to the western rains. As the two plates collide, there is a fault, or a meeting place of two masses, where the plates move and slide upon each other. As a result of the forces which are applied to the the Pacic and the Australian plates, there is a signicant amount of geological movement along this major fault line. As the fault line is not completely straight (it changes direction), there are stresses created in adjacent land, such as around Christchurch. This creates much lesser movements and faults in the adjacent land to releive the built up stress. This stress is released as movement, the energy of which is so great it causes the ground around it to shake in what manifests as an earthquake. The minor fault which caused the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 is highlighted in red on the map, and is an example of a release of stress in the ground.

Southern Alps

A A B

As the plates move not only sideways, but also vertically, you can see how mountain ranges are formed as the uplift of one plate over another causes a rise in the surface. Because the plates under the Southern Alps are colliding, there is a large amount of energy being released as movement all the time, and thus, our mountains are still growing. It is the rocks eroded from these mountains that forms the alluvium under Christchurch; however the epicentre of both recent earthquakes was centred far below this alluvium, which the sectional diagrams show taking up at most the upper 300m of ground. It is most likely the earthquake took place in the Torlesse compound, or the old Gondwanaland land mass underneath all the layers of deposition around Christchurch.

Banks Peninsula

Key: Geological Map

Faults Precambrian Paleozoic Mesozoic Tertiary Quaternary
0

Fault Locations 1:1,000,000 10km 20km 30km

Alpine fault, 27mm movement per year. Greendale fault, cause of christchurch earthquake, 0.2mm per year movement Other minor active faults in area Geological section lines.

Lakes
For further information, see the NZ Geological Timescale, in the appendix.

COASTAL PROCESSES
The coastal processes around Banks Peninsula play a large role in the composition of not only what goes on at the coast, but also what exists under the soil of Christchurch. There are several long rivers, which bring sediments and rocks down from the Southern Alps to the sea. The length of these rivers determines the nature of the sediments deposited at different points along their length. The larger the rocks or sediments, the earlier they get deposited along the river, while the smaller sediments stay suspended and get moved further along because of the force of the water. The smallest sediments are deposited at the point where there is the lowest movement of water. In this case, this is the sea, or where the tidal water meets fresh water. Because of this principle, in conjunction with the long length of the rivers, the coastal soil and deposition along the coast is primarily of small or ne sediments. However, due to the relatively large and energetic movements of most coastlines, these ne sediments are often quickly moved along or away from the beach, and so do not linger. However, Banks Peninsula, as a large solid protrusion into the sea, stops these ocean currents from acting normally in Pegasus bay (to the north of the peninsula). In terms of the southland current (the major ocean current along the shore of the eastern seaboard), Pegasus bay is in the lee of banks peninsula. This results in an inhibition of the acting of this current: Banks Peninsula creates an eddy current in Pegasus bay, and so the current acts much more gently in a southward direction, as opposed to towards the north, which is the case in the Canterbury bight. So the rivers which ow into the Canterbury bight have all their ne sediment eroded away to the north, while the Waimakariri and other rivers which ow into Pegasus bay, simply have their sediments moved southwards towards Christchurch and the Port Hills of Banks Peninsula. As a result, the soil and coastline around Christchurch are full of ne sediments and are growing at a much greater rate than most other coastlines of New Zealand. The major line in this drawing, which intersects Riccarton, corresponds to the coastline, approximately 4000 years before present. This is a very rapid indication of the growth of the coast in this area. In addition to this, the oodplain of the Waimakariri includes the area of Christchurch, and this is testied to by the different layers of sediment around the region. When the Waimakariri oods, there is a large outwash of large pebbles and stones, due to the greater force applied to the alluvium by the water. This is evident in the many different layers of deposition in this area.
Main divide of the Southern Alps Rising mountains produce rock Waimakariri River Catchment Pegasus Bays sediment source

Eddy current

Coastline 4000 years ago.

Pegasus Bay

Major river catchments - Sediment sources Waimakariri Waimakariri River Floodplain Riccarton

Influence of Volcanic geology from Banks Peninsula

Southland current

Coastal Processes 1:1,000,000

0 Waimakariri river catchment Rangitata River catchment Southland current

10km 20km 30km

Rakai River catchment

Canterbury plains alluvial soil

Selwyn River catchment

Coastline 4000 years ago.

Ashberton River catchment 10

Inuence of Volcanic soils

GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Processes:
Alluvial Deposits Material built up over a large period of time deposited by the ow of water along the course of a river or over a ood plane, Glacial Deposits Material built up over a large period of time carried by the movement and melting of a glacier. Coastal Erosion and Deposition Material built up by the deposition of material from coastal currents along the shore. Wind Erosion and Deposition Material that has been picked up and transported by the wind to its current location. Volcanic Material created and deposited from a volcanic eruption. See the Appendix for in depth denitions of the processes.

Geological Processes 1:250,000

Active Beach Active dune (beach sand) Loess Lyttelton volcanics

0
Alluvium in active river bed Late Last Glacial dune Governors Bay Andesite Diamond Harbour volcanics

2.5km 5km

7.5km

Young terrace/plain alluvium

Young dune deposit (river sand)

Rakaia TZ1 greywacke

Bradley/View Hill Volc/Marine Dr

Young alluvial fan

Young beach deposit

Allandale Rhyolite

Mt Herbert volcanics

Young-medium age alluvial fan

Young swamp deposit

Charteris Bay Sandstone

Akaroa volcanics

Old river alluvium/outwash

Young estuarine deposit

Water

Late Last Glacial alluvium

Anthropic deposits

11

AGE OF SOIL
Christchurch is made up of two vastly different processes caused at two very different times. The oldest parts of Christchurch are the Port Hills to the south of the city centre. These were formed by the eruptions of Akaroa, Lyttleton, Mt Herbert, Diamond Harbour and other Banks Peninsula volcanoes. These date back many millions of years, and have even thrust up some greywacke which dates back 250 million years. Contrasting to this is that the vast majority of land that Christchurch city is built on is relatively new (within the last 30,000 years) and some areas are still being formed (see Geological Process Map). This new creation is mainly due to alluvial ows across the Canterbury plains from the Southern Alps in recent years closing the gap between the Alps and Banks Peninsula.

Port Hills

Lyttleton Harbour

Banks Peninsula

Age (Millions of Years) 1:250,000

~ 0 0.524 8.1 250.4

2.5km 5km

7.5km

12

COINCIDENCE / OVERLAP
This map shows the coincidence of the many systems at work underpinning Christchurch. The overlap of the September quakes liquefaction over the areas affected by springs, and the overlap between the February quakes liquefaction and the recently coastal area evidence two points. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the recently coastal zone in front of the green line contains small particles and sediments that have washed south from the Waimakariri River mouth, thus the ground is highly susceptible to liquefaction. The second coincidence of the spring locations and the liquefaction from the earlier quake evidences the nature of the springs and their role in forming the ground conditions of the area around Banks Peninsula. Springs bring several things to the area in which they emerge. Firstly, and most importantly, they bring water. This water is a bringer of life in the form of both natural systems and also human settlements. The water rising to the surface here on the volcanic layer of Lyttleton volcano also indicates a very high groundwater level, as water percolates through the gravel to the surface. This water, in travelling through gravels of a specic type (usually medium to coarse gravels) would cause an erosion of ne sediment particles under the surface, which would be transported with the water to the surface. These sediments, with the high water content of the soils are conducive to two specic things happening: rst, naturally occurring wetlands and swamps in the areas or ponds around springs, and second, ground liquefaction in an earthquake event. This trend is clearly shown by this map, where there is a strong correlation between spring occurrences, liquefaction and bogs or swamps.

Volcanics - Lyttelton and Akaroa basalt.

Coastline 4000 years ago.

Springs and Liquefaction 1:250,000 0 2.5km 5km 7.5km

Old alluvium - compacted large gravel

Spring locations

Liqueed zone from February earthquake

Liqueed zone from September earthquake

Beach or dune deposits 13

RESOURCES
Possibly the most direct inuence the ground has on the city of Christchurch is through the resources it provides. The reason we settle in a place is to do with the resources which the area offers us, be it in terms of food, water, minerals, or simply stone. There is a plethora of resources and uses in what lies under or on the ground in Christchurch. The resources the ground gives us help us to build our cities, and to live in them. They are the local elements that perhaps most surely relate the people and the city of Christchurch to its geographical location. When people use the local aggregate in concrete, or in using the stones in gabions, is associating and locating the thing that is Christchurch in its own place. This list is not exhaustive, particularly in the images used here in association with the uses of these elements. Some uses are so signicant that they require a separate page: the resource the ground provides in terms of its fertility and therefore its growth was and still is a very important element in the formation and continued reformation of Christchurch. There are few degrees of separation between these resources and any element that makes up the city: our culture, our livelihood, and the economic and social success of Christchurch the city is because of the resources of the ground. Christchurch is positioned as an arbiter and processor of these resources.

R:
Alluvial Sand

Resources from Ground

Larger stones

Aggregate

Clay

Peat

Groundwater

Warm springs

Rip Rap

Igneous

Scoria

Basalt

Metamorphic

Limestone

14

Main Soil Type 1:250,000 0 2.5km 5km

Sand

7.5km

MAIN SOIL TYPES

The majority of the soil under Christchurch is made up of forms of gravel with a large amount of sand under the eastern suburbs. Pockets of peat and pug exist in areas and due to the high water content of these areas they have mostly been left as parks and wildlife areas as they are structurally very weak. Gravel and sand pose their own issues where gravel is prone to small amounts of settlement with earthquakes and large forces where as sand is more prone to this and, as we have seen in the September and February earthquakes in Christchurch, sand is extremely prone to liquefaction with the high watertable that exisits in the city.. See the Appendix for denitions of the soil types.

Peat

Gravel

Sandstone

Loess

Hawaiite

Basalt

Andesite

Rhyolite

Water

Sub Soil Type 1:250,000 0 2.5km 5km 7.5km

SUB SOIL TYPES

Underneath the main soils in Christchurch is where some of the major concerns lie. The majority of Christchurch is built upon a great layer of sand and silt. This is problematic as it is what has caused the major liquefaction in the February. When the water table has risen it has taken the ne sand and silt and forced it through cracks and gaps to the surface, this ejection of the underground content has meant that the buildings in these areas have subsided and sunk into the ground. See the Appendix for denitions of the soil types.

15

Density of Main Soil (kg/m3) Overlaid with Land Damage 1:50,000 0 0.5km 1km 1.5km

Port Hills

2768

No observed land damage Minor land damage but no observed liquefaction Moderate liquefaction but no lateral spreading Severe liquefaction but no lateral spreading Moderate lateral spreading Severe lateral spreading 16

DENSITY OF MAIN SOIL

Main soil types in Christchurch are quite dense because of the large amount of gravel. However it is worth noting that the Port Hills to the south of Christchurch are much more dense as they are made of Volcanic rock. At the base of the Port Hills the Loess is less dense than anything else in Christchurch (even less than Water) this is because it is made of up ne wind borne particles that have been caught in the valleys. It can be seen that high areas of ground damage have occured where there is a low to medium density.

Port Hills

Density of Main Soil (kg/m3) 1:250,000

2.5km 5km

7.5km

2768

Density of Main Soil (kg/m3) Overlaid with Land Damage 1:250,000

0 Port Hills
0

2.5km 5km

7.5km

2768

No observed land damage Minor land damage but no observed liquefaction Moderate liquefaction but no lateral spreading Severe liquefaction but no lateral spreading Moderate lateral spreading Severe lateral spreading 17

Density of Sub Soil (kg/m3) Overlaid with Land Damage 1:50,000

0.5km 1km

1.5km

2768

No observed land damage Minor land damage but no observed liquefaction Moderate liquefaction but no lateral spreading Severe liquefaction but no lateral spreading Moderate lateral spreading Severe lateral spreading 18

DENSITY OF SUB SOIL

Underneath the Main layers of Christchurch we nd much less dense soil types. This is where earthquakes are able to cause the most damage through an amplication of the shock waves that push the layers of different densities at different periods. This was a contributing factor in the destruction of so many buildings in the CBD during the February 22 quake. Soft soil Amplication Soft soil types allow for a greater transmission of forces to pass through them unhindered. For example a clay based soil will transmit the power of an earthquake higher than that of rock. Trampoline Effect The vertical movement of layers of soil with different densities causing them to move at different speeds and collide with each other resulting in an amplied movement of the ground.
Density of Sub Soil (kg/m3) 1:250,000 0 2.5km 5km 7.5km

2768

Density of Sub Soil (kg/m3) Overlaid with Land Damage 1:250,000

2.5km 5km

7.5km

2768

No observed land damage Minor land damage but no observed liquefaction Moderate liquefaction but no lateral spreading Severe liquefaction but no lateral spreading Moderate lateral spreading Severe lateral spreading 19

Bexley & Aranui

Richmond

Fendalton

Porosity (percentage) Overlaid with Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading 1:250,000 0 0.5km 1km 1.5km

100

Areas of Observed Minor Liquefaction Areas of Observed Moderate and Severe Liquefaction Areas of Observed Lateral Spreading Cracks 20

POROSITY OF SOIL
Christchurch has a very low water table with the majority of the city only sitting below 10m above sea level. Groundwater depths in Christchurch appear to range between 0.5m and 4.8m.
Bexley & Aranui Richmond Fendalton

Examples of the variance in depths: Bexley and Aranui: 3.4 m to 0.6 m Fendalton and Merivale: 2.7 m to 1.0 m Richmond: 3.4 m to 1.0 m The high water table in Christchurch, and the high porosity are not a good combination for the city. This combination allows the water to freely ow through the soils which means a high water content and this is what has caused the high levels of liquefaction in Christchurch, This can be seen when the porosity map is overlaid with the luiqefaction map and it is clear the lquefaction has happened in areas of medium to high porosity that are near bodies of water.

Porosity (percentage) 1:250,000

2.5km 5km

7.5km

100

Bexley & Aranui Richmond Fendalton

Porosity (percentage) Overlaid with Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading 1:250,000 0 2.5km 5km 7.5km

100

Areas of Observed Minor Liquefaction Areas of Observed Moderate and Severe Liquefaction Areas of Observed Lateral Spreading Cracks 21

BENEATH THE CITY

The underground of Christchurch is made up of a mixture of 18 broad types of soil. These range from aggregates to clay, each with their own properties. The map to the left shows a breakdown of soil in Christchurch in relation to location and depth. This information goes down to 150m below the surface and we can see the dominant materials covering much of Christchurch are sand, gravel, and clay. There is also a lot of shingle in the region. Silt Extremely low strength soil, a ne sediment found in harbours. It is susceptible to liquefaction and subsidence after an earthquake. Sand

Fine Sand

Medium Sand

Coarse Sand

Fine Gravel

Medium Gravel

Coarse Gravel

Silt

Cemented Silt

Low strength soil, made up of granular particles it is susceptible to liquefaction and subsidence after an earthquake. Gravel A larger, medium strength aggregate that lacks cohesion and strength in an earthquake. Shingle A larger, medium strength aggregate that lacks cohesion and strength in an earthquake. Clay A low strength cohesive soil type, able to resist the lateral movement of earthquakes. Pug and Peat A porous low strength soil. Typically found in swamps and quagmires. The map to the left does not show information about the Port Hills to the south of Christchurch. This is important to note as the greatest strength of materials underground can be found in these Hills as they are the only source of bedrock that isnt more than 300m below the surface.

Loose Boulders

Shingle Richmond Soft Clay Fendalton

Bexley & Aranui

Sandy Clay

Firm Clay

Hard Clay

Clay Bound Gravel

Pug

Peat

Clay and Peat

Timber

Concrete

Makeup of Christchurch Soil over an area of 31km x 26.5km 22

Map of Suburb Locations 1:250,000 0 2.5km 5km 7.5km

Richmond
Richmond is located 2.5km to the north east of Christchurch CBD. It is bordered by the Avon River to the south and east which runs in a north east direction. Dudley Creek ows through the north of the suburb in a east west direction. The area is low lying and topographically is typically at.

Fendalton
Fendalton is located 2km to the north west of Christchurch CBD. The Wairarapa Stream, the Waimairi Stream, and the Avon River run through the suburb. The area is low lying and topographically is typically at.

Bexley
Bexley is located 7km to the east of Christchurch CBD. It is bordered by the Avon River to the north, east and south. The Bexley wetland resides to the south of the area. The area is low lying and topographically is typically at.

Damage (from September 2010) Damage (from September 2010)

Moderate settlement, ground cracking and ejection of sand. Areas of only minor or no ground damage are potentially related to areas of ground not impacted by the historic formation of the meandering river loops. Lateral spreading of varying degrees has occurred in localised areas towards rivers and open drains. Liquefaction has occurred causing minor to moderate sand ejection onto the ground surface and subsequent settlement within isolated areas within the suburb.

Damage (from September 2010)

Signicant lateral spreading displacement of the southern tip of the suburb towards the estuary wetlands. While there are some large continuous cracks near the waters edge, this lateral spreading strain is generally expressed as a series of moderate-sized ground cracks over a distance of 50-100 m back from the edge. At the southern tip, a large volume of sand and water was ejected, which has likely resulted in total surface settlements of up to 300-500 mm. Moderate lateral spreading displacement in the riverbank to the east, but the worst of this ground damage is limited to the riverbank area. Moderate settlement and differential settlement across much of the area, accompanied by widespread otation of service pipelines and buried structures. Localised areas of minor or no ground damage in the west of the suburb, potentially related to historic areas of higher ground.

Ground Makeup
Christchurch is underlain with alluvial sand and silt deposits. Richmond is also underlain by sand, gravels, peat and clay.

Ground Makeup
Christchurch is underlain with alluvial sand and silt deposits. Fendalton is also underlain by shingle, clay and sand.

Ground Makeup
Christchurch, and especially Bexley) is underlain with alluvial sand and silt deposits.

Composition of Richmond 0m - 138m

Composition of Fendalton 0m - 83m

Composition of Bexley 0m - 15m

23

Fine Sand

Medium Sand

Coarse Sand

Fine Gravel

Medium Gravel

Coarse Gravel

Silt

Cemented Silt

Loose Boulders

Sands - Fine Sand - Medium Sand San - Coarse Sand San - Silt - Cemented Silt

Clays Clay - Soft Clay Sof - Sandy Clay - Firm Clay - Hard Clay - Clay Bound Gravel - Clay and Peat

Shingle

Soft Clay

Sandy Clay

Firm Clay

Hard Clay

Clay Bound Gravel

Gravels - Fine Gravel - Medium Grave - Coarse Gravel - Loose Boulders - Shingle

Unbuildable Materials Unb - Pug P - Peat

Pug

Peat

Clay and Peat

Assumed soil bearing capacity by soil type of Christchurch kg/m2

Grouped soils by assumed bearing capacity kg/m2

0 24

20,000

20,000

BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL

Bearing Capacity:
Sands

Bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads applied to the ground. The bearing capacity of soil is the maximum average contact pressure between the foundation and the soil which should not produce shear failure in the soil. The bearing capacity of the ground in Christchurch is extremely low as there is no bedrock for over 300m below the ground in all areas except the Port Hills. This signicantly lowers the strength and potential for buildings in the region as all foundations have to oat and can not be anchored into bedrock. This, along with the minimum depth to reach materials of a decent strength (gravel being ideal but if a building is lacking the funds to go that deep with piles, in some areas, sands and silts will have to do), means an increase cost to build a strong building. The depth in particular to stronger soil can be directly linked to the cost as the deeper a pile has to go the more expensive the project becomes. Assumed Bearing Capacity of Soil Types: Clay, sandy clay, silty clay and clayey silt (Clays): 4,882 kg/m2 Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel and clayey gravel (Sands): 7,185 kg/m2
Unbuildable Materials M

Clays

Gravels

Sandy gravel and/or gravel (Gravels): 9,765 kg/m2 Sedimentary and foliated rock: 9,765 kg/m2 Massive crystalline bedrock: 19,530 kg/m2

Combined Sands and Gravels Sa (Minimum Stru Structural Depth)

Depths for soil groups below Christchurch in metres

150 25

The Varying Cost of Rebuilding Christchurch based on Ground Conditions 1:125,000 0 1.25km 2.5km 3.75km

Less Expensive 26

More Expensive

COST OF REBUILDING
The cost of rebuilding Christchurch is in a large part due to the cost of remediating the land or providing a strong enough structure for buildings that they wont be damaged in aftershocks and other earthquakes. This map takes into consideration the following: Base Ground Conditions Rivers and bodies of water - Areas around these need to be treated carefully and/or remediated to x or prevent lateral spreading and liquefaction. Port Hills - Have a solid volcanic bedrock base and so can provide a strong base for foundations that wont have to go as deep as foundations on the plain for the same degree of strength. Sand and Gravel Levels
Minimum Depth of Gravels

Minimum Depth of Sands

Observed Liquefaction Areas

Sands and gravels make up the majority of Christchurchs structural base with gravels being the stronger of the two. To get to gravels in some areas near the coast it is necessary to go down quite deep and so sands may be a cheaper alternative at the expense of strength. Clay Levels A clay cap above sands and gravels can prevent liquefaction from occurring. Peat and Pug Levels Having these above sands, gravels or clays carries a great chance of liquefaction as they are very porous and have a high water content.

Minimum Depth of Clays

Combined Sands and Gravels (Minimum Structural Depth)

Clays above both Sands and Gravels Minimum Depth of Peat and Pug (Unbuildable Materials)

Observed Liquefaction Areas These areas will be expensive to rebuild in as they need a lot of repairs and remediation to be structurally sound again.

Peat and Pug above Sands, Gravels, and Clays

Base Ground Conditions - Rivers - Bodies of Water - Port Hills

Decompososition of Layers in the Cost of Rebuilding Map 27

STRUCTURES
Timber Type I Timber Type II Timber Type III Timber Type IV Masonry Type V Masonry Type VI Masonry Type VII Masonry Type VIII Masonry Type IX Masonry Type X Masonry Type XI

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Free Stand 0 Level Free Stand 1 Level No Gap Different Height 0 Level Corner 1 Level Corner Different Height 1 Level Corner 2 Level Corner Different Height 0 Level Corner Diffrent Height 2 Level Corner Multistory No Gap Different Height 0 Level

Masonry Type XII No Gap Different Height 1 Level

Free Stand Multistorey

Manchester - Gloucester Streets Coner Source: Kam, 2011

Building Types
The diagram shows twenty one different types of demolished buildings in Christchurch CBD. The purpose of this exercise is to understand the conditions that caused damage to the buildings. The buildings types are classed by their materials, characteristics, and its relation to other buildings such as, timber, un-reinforced masonry (URM), concrete, free-stand, insufcient gap (between its neighbor), number of stories, building-block types, different heights, irregular shapes, oor misalignment with neighbour buildings.

Building-Block
The research shows that the URM at the end of the block suffered severe damage when compared to similar types within the block. URM buildings with different heights performed poorly compared to the same height URM buildings. Buildings with oor misalignment with neighbouring buildings were also severely damaged. The level of damage of URM buildings increases with the number of stories.
kenton chambers Source: Kam, 2011 Source: Dowrick, 2009

Torsion Effect
The buildings with irregular shapes were subjected to torsional effects, and suffered severe damage and caused the soft storey pancake collapse. There are a large number of multistory buildings constructed in recent years with irregular shapes that performed poorly compared to old buildings with normal shapes.

Insufcient Gap
The analysis shows the single timber family houses with a tin roof performed well when compared to timber buildings with a masonry roof. It also indicates that timber buildings located in between masonry buildings within a block were less damaged compared to free stand buildings, this is as a result of un-reinforced masonry buildings reducing the lateral displacement of timber building.
28

Masonry Type XIII

Masonry Type XIV

Masonry Type XV

Masonry Type XVI

Masonry Type XVII

Concrete Type XVIII

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
No Gap 1 Level No Gap Different Height 2 Level Free Stand 1 Level

Concrete Type XIX

Concrete Type XX

Concrete Type XXI

Free Stand 0 Level Free Stand Irregular Shape 1 Level Free Stand Multistorey No Gap Multistorey Free Stand Multistorey Free Stand Irregular Shape Multistorey

Source: Paulay & Priestley, 1992

Source: Kam, 2011

Source: Kam, 2011

Source: NZSEE, 2006

29

72.4 %g 57.4 %g 60.1 %g 80.2 %g 188

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Intensity of Forces

SaEW (Ty = 0.26s) for 2 - stry RC URM structures (g)

Peak ground acceleration (%g)

Forces Felt in the February Earthquake (Smyrou, Tasiopoulou, Bal, Gazetas, and Vintzileou, 2011) 1:25,000 0 0.25km 0.5km 0.75km

Fault Feb 11 Epicentre Feb 11 SM Stations

Demolish Partial demolish Make Safe

30

18.6 %g Harewood 22.8 %g Airport 22.0 %g Burwood 48.9 %g 48.9 %g Yaldhurst 72.4 %g Riccarton 29.0 %g Templeton 15.5 %g 57.4 %g 60.1 %g 80.2 %g Estuary 188.7 %g Bexley 107.3 %g New Brighton Marshland

g MAP
According to Kramer (1996) the peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) for a given component of motion is simply the largest value of horizontal acceleration obtained from the accelerogram, of that component. Engineers normally assume the peak of vertical acceleration (PVA) about two third of the PHA. However, the ratio of PVA to PHA has been more variable than initially thought. Christchurchs February earthquakes ratio of PVA to PHA is much higher at further from the epicentre. During the earthquake, the structures were subjected to up-throwing because the PVA was over 1g, which caused a great deal of damage to structures. In vertical acceleration, the maximum acceleration occurs at top due to gravity, and is mainly from axial forces. However, the damage from PHA is from shear and bending. The amplication of PVA in buildings is greater than that of the PHA (Hu, Liu and Dong, 1996). Ground motion with high peak ground acceleration(PGA) for a short-period causes less damage compared to high peak ground accelerations with a long period. Smyrou. (2011) stated that the Heathcote Valley had very short-period components despite being close to the epicentre, while the stronger period components were concentrated close to the CBD. The strong period components close to the CBD correlates to the expected damage of certain structure types.

83.8 %g

Heathcote E 220.3 %g

Prebbleton

Halswell

Sumner

Broadfield

Port 95.6 %g Ladbrooks Landsdowne

16.0 %g Governors Bay Diamond Harbour

Lincoln

Taitapu

Greenpark

16.0 %g
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Intensity of Forces

SaEW (Ty = 0.26s) for 2 - stry RC URM structures (g)

Peak ground acceleration (%g)

Forces Felt in the February Earthquake (Smyrou, Tasiopoulou, Bal, Gazetas, and Vintzileou, 2011) 1:125,000 0 1.25km 2.5km 3.75km

Fault Feb 11 Epicentre Feb 11 SM Stations

Demolish Partial demolish Make Safe

31

72.4 %g 57.4 %g 60.1 %g 80.2 %g 188.

1.5

Intensity of Forces

SaNS (Ty = 1.36s) for 6 - stry RC frame - wall structures (g)

Peak ground acceleration (%g)

1

Spatial Distribution of Spectral Accelerations (Smyrou, Tasiopoulou, Bal, Gazetas, and Vintzileou, 2011) 1:25,000 0 0.25km 0.5km 0.75km

0.5

Fault Feb 11 Epicentre Feb 11 SM Stations

Demolish Partial demolish Make Safe

32

18.6 %g Harewood 22.8 %g Airport 22.0 %g Burwood 48.9 %g 48.9 %g Yaldhurst 72.4 %g Riccarton 29.0 %g Templeton 15.5 %g 57.4 %g 60.1 %g 80.2 %g Estuary 188.7 %g Bexley 107.3 %g New Brighton Marshland

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS

Most of the buildings outside the Christchurch CBD are low rise buildings, and they have a short period compared to mid rise building with the long period in the CBD. This explains the concentration of damage within the CBD in the recent earthquakes. The level of ground motion induced damage to the structures in Christchurch earthquake was varied, depending on the structures height: a two storey un-reinforced masonry building has a short natural period compared to a six storey Reinforced concrete framed building. Brown and Weebner 1992 suggested that the resonant effect will affect ve to seven storey buildings in the northern CBD, because this area has expected response accelerations of 0.7s period (equal to the period of a 5-7 storey building). Therefore, the risk in these areas is higher compare to other areas such as Brighton or the Airport. The ground motion produced by the recent earthquake had a 2s period and therefore affected mid to high rise buildings (615 storeys). The increased effect on certain buildings is known as resonance effect, which is where a building experiences a greater force when the ground motion has the same period of the structure. The resonance effect produces a greater effect in soft ground compared to rm ground because soft ground often increases the period of earthquake vibration closer to that of a building (Brown and Weeber, 1992). The liquefaction map shows that the Northern and Eastern areas have soft, liqueable soil. The soft soil in these areas was subjected to great ground acceleration compared to the rmer soil in the West and South of the city, which indicate the soil characteristics was inuenced by the direction and intensity of waves. The seismic station shows that the East and North of CBD experienced higher forces compared with any other direction closer to the epicentre. According to Kramer (1996), seismic waves travel through rock and then soil from the source in their journey to reach the surface. Therefore, the soil characteristics greatly inuence the ground motion. Soil acts as a lter to seismic waves by attenuating the motion at a certain frequencies and amplifying the motion at other frequencies.

83.8 %g Heathcote Prebbleton Halswell E 220.3 %g Sumner

Broadfield

Port 95.6 %g Ladbrooks Landsdowne

16.0 %g Governors Bay Diamond Harbour

Lincoln

Taitapu

Greenpark

16.0 %g
1.5

Intensity of Forces

SaNS (Ty = 1.36s) for 6 - stry RC frame - wall structures (g)

Peak ground acceleration (%g)

1

Spatial Distribution of Spectral Accelerations (Smyrou, Tasiopoulou, Bal, Gazetas, and Vintzileou, 2011) 1:125,000 0 1.25km 2.5km 3.75km

0.5

Fault Feb 11 Epicentre Feb 11 SM Stations

Demolish Partial demolish Make Safe

33

Dallingto
72.4 %g 188. 57.4 %g

60.1 %g

80.2 %g

Green Orange Red

Severe Moderate No visible liquefaction Trace

Demolition of the City Centre and Surrounding Areas 1:25,000

0.25km 0.5km 0.75km

34

LIQUEFACTION MAP
Belfast Ouruhia

Brown and Weebner (1992) suggested that liquefaction occurs when soil loses strength and behaves as a liquid during an earthquake. The loose soil compacts (increasing in density and reducing in volume) when subjected to earthquake vibration. Pore water pressure in turn increases further, increasing liquefaction, but over time, pressure and liqueed soil dissipate to the ground surface through the cracks.
Smyrou, 2011

18.6 %g

Particle Size Distribution

Harewood 22.8 %g
Air

Marshland

22.0 %g Burwood 107.3 %g 48.9 %g Bexley Yaldhurst 72.4 %g 188.7 %g 57.4 %g 29.0 %g n 60.1 %g 80.2 %g
Partially saturated Three phase soil Solids Water

Water Water

Air

Christchurchs soil is highly susceptible to liquefaction because it is saturated, loose, well sorted silt and sand, or sandy gravels. The liquefaction was also associated with settlement, which causes further compaction and expulsion of liqueed soils through topsoil. Peat soil beneath Christchurch did not liquefy or lose strength during the vibration, but it is likely that it consolidated, which caused ground settlement. The borehole tests were conducted by Tonkin & Taylor in 2011 in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch. They show that the subsoil layers are primarily silty sand and clean ne to medium sand, with a ground water level of 0.3 to 2.5m deep. The Standard Penetrometer Tests(SPT) indicated very low shear resistance in the rst 10m, and conditions highly conducive to liquefaction in an event with high Peak Ground Acceleration. Soil analysis of soil samples in Dallington and Bexley areas show that the soil particle size has particles and characteristics similar to those of Adapazari, Niigata and Kobe areas, which liqueed in their respective past earthquakes (Smyrou et al, 2011). Soil property varies in shape, size (in both mechanical and physical properties) and in the extent to which the void between soil particles are lled with water or air, which create a multiphase of solid, air, liquid. Soil can be classied as either cohesive or cohesiveless, sand and gravel are cohesiveless; they resist shear forces only by friction. Clay and clayey soils are cohesive soil; they resist shear by both cohesion and friction (Hu, Liu and Dong, 1996).

Dallington

Solids Solids

Solids

Saturated Dry Two phase soil

Soil Compaction

83.8 %g

Prebbleton

Halswell

220.3 %g

Sumner

95.6 %g Ladbrooks Landsdowne

Green Orange Red

Severe Moderate No visible liquefaction Trace

Liquefaction Map 1:125,000

1.25km 2.5km 3.75km

35

Sur a Watfe

WAIMAIRI

G ra ss

Grass Surface Water Grass

Swamp Raupo & Flax

ce rfaer Su at W

Tu t u&

APA RAR AI

Tu k ss oc ree kC und Surface Gro n Water e Brok Tussock Swamp

Fe r n

Swamp Raupo Tussock

Tutu & Fern

HI LL

Land Surface Water

Raupo

& utu rn T Fe

Fe Gra Sw s am s p

HIL

Grass

p
r ate W und ce ro rfa G Suoken Br

Terr a

Ra up o

Surface La Water nd
VON VER A RI

Fern & Tutu

Grass Land
d Groun oken Br
Tu tu

Sand Hills

ss Gra

Fl ax

G ra ss

Dry Pond

&

Ra up o

Swamp

COLOMBO STREET

Dock

Creek

Fl ax

Swamp

Dry Pond

Sand

RTO

SH BU N
&

Broken G round

Swamp

S W urfa Ground & ra at ce Surface er ss Water La nd Raupo Swamp ern &F Sand nd Hill s La s G ra p Swam ass r G & ax Fl Sw am tu p mp Tu wa S & n r Fe Dry Land Swamp Raupo Hu mm Fern &c oc ks Swamp &c

E AG P

A RO

D
u Ro

ce

gh G

Ra up o

Swamp
Raupo

Raupo

Grass
Grass

MOORHOUSE AVENUE

Hum
Gr as s
ax Fl s ra G

Gra s

s&

x Fla

mo cks

Fla x

Sur a Watfe ce r

BROUGHAM STREET
Tutu Fern & Grass

Tussocks & Raupo

LIN Br Sw ok W am en OO p Gr Gras D ou s&F AV nd lax EN UE FE RR Y

Tussock & Raupo

HE AT Fe HC rn O G TE ra ss RI VE Tu pa R ki

s &

Surface Water Grass

n Fer

RO AD

Swamp

Broken Surface Ground Water&

Broken Groun
Sw am p

Green Orange Red

Severe Moderate No visible liquefaction Trace Swamp

ax

Broken Ground

Water & S Surface

Surfa

rn Fe

t Tu

& Fern Tu tu

Tut Grau & ss

P Ricath to car ton

ut u &T

s she RuFlax Toe Liquefaction Map with Swamp Overlay

1:25,000 0 0.25km 0.5km 0.75km

36

en Gr o un d

Gr W ass et & La Fl nd ax

to

Swamp

AP

B UI AN

H US

Kai apo i

k ee Cr RO AD Br ok

oe eT /To ss lax Gra F &

Grass Land

Swampy Gr as sT us

et

MARS

oke Brround G

MAIN N

HA RE WO OD

Foot

Swamp
EM O RI A

Gra ss

S NE IN

Bed

Swamp Raupo & Tussocks ROAD PAPANUI

Lan d

AD RO

Flax Fern & Grass Raupo

Cr ee k

AV

Surfa Wate ce r

HILLS

EN UE

Swamp

Raupo ROAD

WAIMAIRI

Terr a

Ra up o

Surface Broken Water Ground & Surface Water Raupo Raupo Swamp Swamp Grass Land Grass Tussock Grass Swamp Land Surface Tu Water k ss oc ree kC nd Surface APA Grou RAR Water en WAI Brok Tussock Swamp G ra ss Surface La Water nd
r ate W und ce ro rfa G Suoken Br

x Fla

Tu t u&

Fe r n

Swamp Raupo Tussock Grass Surface Water Grass

Broken G round

RO AD

RIVE
H US NB

N R AVO

Grass Land

Swamp
RTO

Sand Hills

Sand

Fl ax

N ROAD RICCARTO
AD RO

CA RIC

ss Gra

Ra up o

IN MA

ROAD BLENHEIM

Swamp

COLOMBO STREET

Dock

H UT SO

Creek

Fl ax

Swamp

Swamp Bank Swamp Sandy Soil Surface Water Sand AD Hills Tussock O R IR Flax Swaupo N amp Swamp NO Su Broken AI G W W rfa Ground & ra at ce Surface Raupo er ss & Water La utu rn Tutu & T Fe nd Fern Raupo Swamp ern &F Sand and Hill mp ss L Swa G ra p Raupo & Flax Swam ass r AD G RO & S ax ce GE Fl rfa r PA Sw Fern Su ate am u & W t p p Tutu am Tu Sw & rn Fe Dry und Land n Gro Broke Swamp Raupo Hu mm Fern &c oc Dry ks Pond Swamp &c Dry Swamp Pond Ra up Raupo o
Flax Rushes Fern & Tutu G Sw ras am s p Grass

Grass Land

Grass Land Flax Grass & Fern

BOWER

Tutu & F ern Shin gle Bed le ing Sh

Path

Broken Ground Flax/Toe Toe Wet in Winter

po Rau

Fl ax

AVENUE

T t & hes ax Higound t Fl r a i G P e i To s ra s To &G o up Ra

ck so us

Sand TRAVIS
ROA D WAI-KAKARIKI or SHOE LAGOON HORSE

SWAMP

Ri cc

Raupo Flax & Grass

SWAMP OVERLAY MAP

Liquefaction induced structural damage occurred in the southern CBD and in areas adjacent to the rivers. Most of the structures in the CBD that failed by liquefaction were the super structures. Approximately, 1000 residential houses in Kaiapoi and 5100 houses in Dallington, Richmond, Avondale and Bexley had foundation damage or foundation settlement. This was related to the common use of heavy concrete foundation slabs, which imposed additional load during the earthquake. The map of liquefaction overlaid with the swamp map from 1850 indicates the areas of liquefaction were either swamp, or wetland in 1850. This correlation is reinforced by the areas boreholes, which show a layer of peat in those locations which used to be swamps.

ax Fl ss o ra up G Ra

RD FO AN CR

ar to

HI LL

ce

Tu tu

&

G ra ss

&

MOORHOUSE AVENUE

Fla

Grass

ET RE ST

&

Gr as

Wet Land
s

Sa

nd

Hi

lls

Wet Swamp Tussocks Raupo & Flax

Sa nd
nd Sa

AV

nk Ba
P on dR au p

o tu Tuern umm F H

u Ro

gh

s ra G s & rn Fe

Swamp
lls Hi

E DY

RS

A RO

Fla Tusso Gras

Raupo

Grass
Gr as s
ax Fl

Hum
s ra G

Gra s

s&

Fla x

Tutu Fern
Broken Surface Ground Water&

& Grass

Surface Water Grass

n Fer

Grass &

Fern

Broken Ground
Sw am p

Grass Land
AD RO

s as Gr & Fe ss rn &Gra Ra up k ee o Cr

AT HC Fla OT E x

SW EL L

Raupo Swamp

Ma La rshy nd
Gras s

Fe

Tu Grass
Flax

paki

rn

Surface Water Surface Water

a ss Gr

Toe

Creek po Ra u Surface s Water Gra oe eT To

nd s La
Flax Toe

Water

Fl ax

Broken Ground

Water & S Surface

Surfac e wa mp

tu Tu rn Fe Swamp & Marshy

& Fern Tu tu

Fe rn

Tut Grau & ss

P Ricath to car ton

HE AT HC O G TE ra ss RI VE Tu pa R ki

Fla xS wa Gra mp ss L and

Surfa Wate ce r

BROUGHAM STREET

Tussocks & Raupo

Tussock & Raupo mo LIN cks Br Sw ok W am en OO p Gr Gras D ou s&F AV nd lax EN UE FE RR Y RO AD Swamp

s &

Flax & Toe Toe

Flax

Tu

tu

&

ut u &T

Flax e Toe To Fern Grass

m fro on th let PaLytt

s she RuFlax oe oe T R T G ou ra gh ss hes Rus

A AW OP

Rushes

rn Fe
oe eT

AD RO

HE

&

HA L

Flax To

ra ss

Tut

Fe

rn

Ma rsh y

AD RO

e e To x To ern Flaass & F Gr

Rushes & Grass Raupo Swamp

x Fla

VE RI

Tu pa ki G

tu Tu
Fla
aupo ern

ra ss

Toe To e

KS

Tupaki
aupo

oe eT To

Toe Toe Fern & Flax

Flax Raupo Flax

G Ferass rn

R p ampo u Sw a R

Fe rn

SP AR

po

Fern Flax Toe Toe

Be d

Fla x

To eT

Fl ax

oe

Green Orange Red

Severe Moderate No visible liquefaction Trace Swamp

Liquefaction Map with Swamp Overlay 1:50,000 0 0.5km 1km 1.5km

37

FOUNDATION TYPES
Raft foundations are used to spread the loads from the structure over a large area (Fig. a). However, they are only suitable for residential house because of the low loads applied. Their function is to mitigate the causes and effects of settlement due to liquefaction. End bearing piles are suitable for multistory buildings, however the piles must reach a soil bearing layer to be able support the loads transmitted through them (Fig. b). Cellular raft foundations, also known as buoyant rafts, are ideal for different settlements in expected locations (Fig. c), Its fundamentally based on buoyancy theory by utilising the overburden pressure of the excavated soil from the site. When the load of the excavated soil is removed the soil will lift upward (Fig. e). If the load of the building is equal to the load of the excavated soil, the building will oat. If the buildings load is heavier, and the stress is not signicant, piles are also used to provide extra support for the cellular raft system (Fig. d). All the foundations must be capped with reasonable compacted clay to prevent liquefaction extrusion. Gravel drainage also must be used to release pore water pressure (Fig. d).

Base isolator Clay Sandy Sandy Bearing Bearing Clay

Compaction piles Clay GWL Sandy Gravel drainage Bearing

a.) Raft Foundation

b.) End Bearing Piles

c.) Cellular Raft

Emmitt and Gorse, 2010

Base isolator Clay

Compaction piles Clay GWL Sandy

Soil volume excavated for cellular foundation

Sandy Bearing

e.) Soil Volume Excavated

Bearing

Gravel drainage

d.) End Bearing Piles + Cellular Raft

38

Lateral Spreading Elevation

Differential Settlement Global Settlement Tilt Settlement

Lateral Spreading Elevation

Bearing Failure

Bearing Failure & Plastic Hinging

Fou nda tion Sep arat ion

Distressed Piles Lateral Spreading Plan Rotation Settlement Down) River Liquefied soil Instability In Level Ground
39

LIQUEFACTION INDUCED DAMAGE

Sandy soil in Christchurch is susceptible to liquefaction and can cause structure settlement. Before an earthquake the particles in sandy soils maintain contact, the force transmitted through these contacts then creates shear resistance against the load from the structures above ground. During an earthquake, sandy soils are subjected to vibration and deformation as a result of shear stress. Therefore, the contact between particles is lost and the force used to transmit in the vertical direction is transmitted to pore water. This process causes the pressure in the pore water to increase. After and earthquake the contacts between sand particles is reestablished after the pore water has escaped. The sandy soil becomes stable again but this is after the settlement has already occurred. The volume of the water that has been ejected is equal to the volume that the soil has decreased by. Pile foundations use friction, cohesion, and soil bearing capacity to support the loads from a building. Bearing soil at bottom of the piles not only support the load transmitted through the pile, but also supports the load from the soil layers above it, this is known as overburden pressure. Soil varies in density and pore water inuences the soil density as a result of water lling void space and is known as saturated soil. Sandy soil has an approximate density of 8 KN/m^3, during the earthquake the water level increased and the sandy soil was saturated so that its density increased to 18 KN/ m^3. Because the density of the sandy soil is added to the 10 KN/m^3 of water the soil was subjected to an increase in overburden pressure. Sandy soil, when subjected to a water level increase and vibration, will lose its shear strength and friction with piles. This is what caused piles to slip and either penetrate into the bearing layer or buckle if the bearing soil was too dense. In turn the structures on the ground settled. The settlement level depended on the structures weight and foundation design.

Compaction piles 14 KN/m^3 Loose state Particles make contact with each other verticlelly and horizontally 8 KN/m^3 18 KN/m^3 Bearing Pre-quake Bearing Pre-quake Peat Sandy Cohesion Friction GWL Clay Sandy Cohesion Friction GWL

14 KN/m^3 16 KN/m^3 Peat 18 KN/m^3 Sandy Friction

GWL Clay Sandy Cohesion

Compaction piles GWL Friction

Sheared state

Bearing Shaking during earthquake

Bearing Shaking during earthquake

Particles make contact horizontally but dont make contact verticlely Repacked state

Particles make contact with each other Source: Brown and Weeber, 1992

40

SYSTEMS
Various foundation systems can be deployed in different locations in Christchurch dependant on the soil types, depths, land condition and relationship to bodies of water. Raft Can be used almost anywhere, in order to prevent liquefaction from entering the building it is recommended to remediate and cap the soil with clay underneath if in a liquefaction area. Can only support lightweight short structures Piles Can be used in areas where there distance from surface to bearing soil (gravel) is at a minimum and there is little or no sand in between the bearing soil and the surface. Can support heavy buildings dependant on the bearing soil.
Minimum Depth of Sands Observed Liquefaction Areas

Gravels Above Sands

Cellular Raft Can be used in areas of liquefaction. Requires a clay top soil. Can only support lightweight short structures. Remediation: Some areas of Christchurch would need to be remediated and capped with clay in order for this system to be used.

Minimum Depth of Peat and Pug (Unbuildable Materials)

Minimum Depth of Gravels

Cellular Raft with Piles Can be used in areas of liquefaction. Requires a clay top soil. Can support multistory buildings with the use of piles down to bearing soil. Strength dependant on the bearing soil. Remediation: Some areas of Christchurch would need to be remediated and capped with clay in order for this system to be used.

Peat and Pug above Sands, Gravels, and Clays

Thickness of sands above gravels

Minimum Depth of Clays

Clays above both Sands and Gravels

Base Ground Conditions - Rivers - Bodies of Water - Port Hills Decompososition of Layers For the Placement of Foundation Systems

41

Raft

Piles

Cellular Raft 42

Cellular Raft with Remediation

Cellullar Raft and Piles

Cellular Raft and Piles with Remediation

Placement of Foundation Types in Christchurch 1:250,000 0 Not Buildable Materials Bad Placement Good Placement 43 2.5km 5km 7.5km

APPENDIX
Geological Processes
Active Beach Unweathered discoidal gravel, shingle and sand in active beach and storm beach ridges. Alluvium in active river bed Active ood plain. Unweathered; rounded-sub angular; variably sorted loose gravel/sand/silt. Young terrace/plain alluvium Modern river oodplain/low-level degradation terrace. Unweathered, variably sorted gravel/sand/silt/clay. Surfaces <2 degree slope. Young alluvial fan Grey to brown, generally unweathered, silty sub angular gravel & sand with minor peat in alluvial fans (slope 1-20deg). Young-medium age alluvial fan Grey to brown, variable weathered, silty sub angular gravel & sand forming alluvial fans(slope 1-20deg); some gully dissection. Old river alluvium/outwash Grey brown to yellow brown, slightly-highly weathered gravel/sand/silt/clay mixtures; forms dissected river terraces; loess cover. Late Last Glacial alluvium Unweathered, brownish-grey, variable mix of gravels/ sand/silt/clay in low river terraces; locally up to 2m silt (or loess) cap. Active dune (beach sand) Active sand dunes; wind-deposited beach sand. Late Last Glacial dune Dunes of slightly weathered wind-deposited river sand Young dune deposit Dunes of unweathered, wind-deposited sand Young beach deposit Unweathered sand in bay head beach deposits Young swamp deposit Peat, silt and sand; in swales between dunes and abandoned river channels. Young estuarine deposit Sand, silt and peat of lagoons and estuaries. Anthropic deposits Engineered ll; reclaimed land Loess Yellow-brown windblown silt deposits, locally with ne sand or clay; >3m thick & commonly in multiple layers; thicker downslope. Governors Bay Andesite Flow-banded plagioclase-pyroxene-olivine porphyritic andesitic lava ows. Rakaia TZ1 greywacke Well indurated, massive or bedded, sandstone & siltstone (greywacke) with subordinate mudstone and chert. Allandale Rhyolite Flow-banded porphyritic rhyolite & dacite lava ows & domes; local rhyolite breccias around dome bases; rare tuffs and obsidian. Charteris Bay Sandstone Massive, light grey/yellow-brown, medium to ne, quartzose (qtz-cemented) sandstone; locally glauconitic with thin beds of mst. Lyttleton volcanics Basaltic (hawaiite) to trachytic lava ows interbedded with tuff and breccia (including lahars), many dikes & minor lava domes. Diamond Harbour volcanics Basaltic (basinite, basalt, hawaiite) ows, dikes, vent plugs, sills; & a dome, interbeds of breccia, congl, sst, carbonac mst. Bradley/View Hill Volc/Marine Dr White, medium quartzose sandstone; also coarse to small pebble sst. Includes Eocene tuffaceous sst & gritty sst in NW. Mt Herbert volcanics Basaltic lava ows & plugs; minor interbedded volcaniclastic breccia, conglomerate, sst, siltstone, carbonaceous mst, & tuff. Akaroa volcanics Basaltic to trachytic lava ows (mainly hawaiite composition) intercalated with tuff, pyroclastic breccia, and agglomerate.

Main Soil Types

Sand A loose granular substance, resulting from the erosion of siliceous and other rocks. Peat A soil-like material characteristic of boggy, acid ground, consisting of partly decomposed vegetable matter. Gravel A loose aggregation of small water-worn or pounded stones Sandstone Sedimentary rock consisting of sand or quartz grains cemented together Loess A loosely compacted yellowish-gray deposit of windblown sediment Hawaiite Hawaiite is an olivine basalt with intermediate composition between alkali olivine and mugearite. Basalt A dark, ne-grained volcanic rock that sometimes displays a columnar structure. Andesite A gray, ne-grained volcanic rock, chiey plagioclase and feldspar. Rhyolite A pale ne-grained volcanic rock of granitic composition

Sub Soil Types

Silt Fine sand, clay, or other material carried by running water and deposited as a sediment. Shingle A mass of small rounded pebbles, especially on a seashore Clay A stiff, sticky ne-grained earth, often forming an impermeable layer in the soil Mudstone A dark sedimentary rock formed from consolidated mud and lacking the laminations of shale Chert A int like form of quartz composed of chalcedony Greenstone A greenish igneous rock containing feldspar and hornblende Tuff A light, porous rock formed by consolidation of volcanic ash Breccia Rock consisting of angular fragments of stones cemented together Siltstone Fine-grained sedimentary consolidated silt Trachyte A gray ne-grained volcanic rock consisting largely of alkali feldspar. Pyroclastic Epiclastic Mechanically deposited sediments consisting of detrital material from a volcanic eruption Basanite Basanite is an igneous, volcanic (extrusive) rock with aphanitic to porphyritic texture.. Dacite A volcanic rock resembling andesite but containing free quartz. Obsidian A hard, dark, glass like volcanic rock formed by the rock consisting of

44

Late Middle (Guadalupian) (Lopingian)

D'Urville

APPENDIX
rapid solidication of lava without crystallization

International

New Zealand Makarewan Waiitian Puruhauan Flettian Aparima

YDm YDw YDp YAf

Pliocene

Late

260.4

Gelasian Piacenzian Zanclean Messinian

Nukumaruan Mangapanian Waipipian Opoitian Kapitean

Wn Wm Wp Wo Tk

Beneath the City

Sand A loose granular substance, typically pale yellowish brown, resulting from the erosion of siliceous and other rocks and forming a major constituent of beaches, riverbeds, the seabed, and deserts. Gravel A loose aggregation of small water-worn or pounded stones. Silt Fine sand, clay, or other material carried by running water and deposited as a sediment, found especially in a channel or harbour. Loose Boulders
270.6

Capitanian Wordian Roadian Kungurian Artinskian

6 200 300 400 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Permian

Barrettian Mangapirian Telfordian

YAr

5.3
YAm YAt

Early

3.6

Early (Cisuralian)

Late

Taranaki

NEOGENE

Sakmarian Asselian Gzhelian

Tortonian

Tongaporutuan

Tt

500 600 700 800

299.0

11.2

Waiauan

Pennsylvanian

Miocene

Sw

Kasimovian Moscovian Bashkirian

CENOZOIC

Middle

Serravallian

Southland

Lillburnian Clifdenian

Sl Sc Pl Po Lw Ld Lwh Ar Ak Ab Dp Dh Dm Dw

900 1000

Langhian Pareora

Carboniferous

318.1

16.4
Serpukhovian
F

Early

Burdigalian

Altonian

Otaian Aquitanian Waitakian Landon Duntroonian

Whaingaroan Runangan Kaiatan

Mississippian

Oligocene Early Late

Visean

23.8 28.5

Chattian Rupelian

PALEOGENE

Eocene

Middle

Arnold

33.7 37.0
Tournasian

Late

Priabonian Bartonian Lutetian Ypresian Thanetian Selandian

Danian

Bortonian Porangan Heretaungan Mangaorapan Waipawan

Early

385.3

Early Late

Frasnian Givetian

Paleocene

Shingle
Devonian

Late

Famennian

JU

55.5

Dannevirke

Very large aggregation of stones

359.2

49.0

Middle

PALE O Z O I C

A mass of small rounded pebbles, found especially on a seashore Clay A stiff, sticky ne-grained earth, typically yellow, red, or bluish-gray in colour and often forming an impermeable layer in the soil. Pug

JM

61.0 65.0

Teurian

Dt

Eifelian Emsian

397.5

Maastrichtian Mata

Jem
Campanian

Haumurian

Mh

Early

Late

Pragian

Jpr

Santonian
Coniacian
Raukumara

Piripauan Teratan

Mp Rt
Rm

Cretaceous

Lochkovian

Jlo

Turonian

Mangaotanean Arowhanan
Ngaterian Motuan Urutawan

Ra Cn
Cm Cu

417.2

Cenomanian
Clarence

Pridoli

Epr Elu Ewe

99.6

Silurian

Ludlow Wenlock Llandovery

Albian

423.5

Early

443.2

Taitai

Loam or clay mixed into a soft, plastic condition without air pockets. Peat

Korangan Aptian
Barremian

Uk

Ela

Hirnantian Bolindan
Vbo

Hauterivian
Valanginian

Undifferentiated Taitai Series

Late

Stage 6

Upper

MESOZOIC

Middle

Middle

460.5

Ordovician

A soil-like material characteristic of boggy, acid ground, consisting of partly decomposed vegetable matter.

Eastonian Gisbornian Darriwilian Yapeenian Castlemainian Chewtonian Bendigonian

Vea Vgi Vda Vya Vca Vch Vbe

Berriasian

Oteke

145.5
Tithonian

Puaroan

Op

Stage 5 Darriwilian Stage 3

Late

Ohauan

Ko

Kimmeridgian
Oxfordian Callovian Heterian Kawhia Kh

472.0

157.0

Stage 2 Lower

Jurassic

Middle

Early

Bathonian

Lancefieldian

Vla

Temaikan

Kt

Bajocian
Aalenian Toarcian

Tremadocian

490.0

Stage 6

Paibian

Stage 4

Xbo Xun Xfl

Early

501

pre-Lancefieldian Datsonian Payntonian Iverian Idamean Mindyallan Boomerangian Undillan Floran

Vpl Xda Xpa Xiv Xid Xmi

175.6

Pliensbachian
Sinemurian Hettangian

Herangi

Late

Ururoan

Hu

Aratauran Otapirian Balfour

Warepan Otamitan

Ha Bo Bw Bm Br Gk

Middle

Cambrian

Stage 3 Stage 2

199.6

Rhaetian Late
Norian

Stage 1

Ordian/Lower Templetonian

Xor

Triassic

510

Oretian Carnian
Middle Kaihikuan

Early

XL

237.0

Gore

Ladinian
Anisian

Etalian

Ge Gm Gn

542
Precambrian
Z

Early

245.0 251.0

Malakovian Olenekian Induan

Nelsonian

New Zealand geological time scale (after Cooper 2004).

45

Castlecliffian

Ypt

Haweran

Wuchiapingian

Wanganui

Holocene Pleistocene

Quaternary

251.0

Changhsingian

Age (Ma) 0.01

International

New Zealand Haweran Castlecliffian Wq Wc

Age Oxygen New (ka) isotope Zealand events stages 0 100 12 3 4 5

1.8

TOKYO, 1923
Post Earthquake cities Statistics
Tokyo: current population: 13 Million Population 1920: 3.7 Million Population 1925: 4.49 Million

1923 Kanto Earthquake: Magnitude: 7.9 Richter Scale Epicentre: under Izu shima, about 110km from Tokyo CBD Date: 11:58:44 am JST on September 1, 1923 Casualties: 100,000 conrmed, 44000 missing. 570,000 Homes destroyed.

AMUR PLATE OKHOTSK PLATE

The re raged for 3 days after quake. Fire was the most destructive element. A typhoon hit at the same time, the winds of which fed the ames and pushed them through the city rapidly.

TOKYO PACIFIC PLATE OKINAWA PLATE 1923 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER

Key

YANGTZE PLATE

PHILIPPINE PLATE

46

Map of Tokyo, 1910

Map of Earthquake damage: Fire damage and re origins.

Urban plan before the earthquake: dense and haphazard

Traditional Japanese in Tokyo was densely packed timber houses, which were a great re risk, particularly considering the narrow streets of the time.

Burnt 1st September, 1923 Burnt 2nd September Burnt 3rd September Government Railway Busses and other transport lines Typhoon hit zones Origins of fires Large fire origins eg: warehouses

Map of Tokyo, 1945

Reconstruction plan: showing major infra structural improvements.

Urban plan after the earthquake: Modernized for cars and re barriers

After the 1923 earthquake, the architecture and buildings became much more re conscious: mortar and reproof materials became prominent as in the left hand image, and mortar grain storehouses were used on the border of canals as in the right hand image as a re barrier to stop the spread of re.

Existing Government Railway Proposed inner city private subway Motorways and major car routes Propoesed Municipal Subway Lines Busses Projected

47