The region in and around Christchurch, encompassing Christchurch city and the Selwyn and Waimakariri districts, contains more than 800 road, rail, and pedestrian bridges. Most of these bridges are reinforced concrete, symmetric, and have small to moderate spans (15–25 m). The 22 February 2011 moment magnitude (Mw) 6.2 Christchurch earthquake induced high levels of localized ground shaking (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011, page 853 of this issue; Guidotti et al. 2011, page 767 of this issue; Smyrou et al. 2011, page 882 of this issue), with damage to bridges mainly confined to the central and eastern parts of Christchurch. Liquefaction was evident over much of this part of the city, with lateral spreading affecting bridges spanning both the Avon and Heathcote rivers.
The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence was extremely damaging to structures in Christchurch and continues to have a large economic and social impact on the city and surrounding regions. In addition to strong ground shaking (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011 SRL; Bradley 2012 SDEE), extensive liquefaction was observed, particularly in the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Cubrinovski et al. 2010 BNZSEE; 2011 SRL). Large observed vertical ground motion amplitudes were recorded in the events in this sequence, with vertical peak ground accelerations of over 2.2g being observed at the Heathcote Valley Primary School during the Christchurch earthquake, and numerous other vertical motions exceeding 1.0g (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011 SRL; Bradley 2012 SDEE; Fry et al 2011 SRL). Vertical peak ground accelerations of over 1.2g were observed in the Darfield earthquake.
In the early morning of 4th September 2010 the region of Canterbury, New Zealand, was subjected to a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. The epicentre was located near the town of Darfield, 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. This was the country’s most damaging earthquake since the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake (GeoNet, 2010). Since 4th September 2010 the region has been subjected to thousands of aftershocks, including several more damaging events such as a magnitude 6.3 aftershock on 22nd February 2011. Although of a smaller magnitude, the earthquake on 22nd February produced peak ground accelerations in the Christchurch region three times greater than the 4th September earthquake and in some cases shaking intensities greater than twice the design level (GeoNet, 2011; IPENZ, 2011). While in September 2010 most earthquake shaking damage was limited to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in February all types of buildings sustained damage. Temporary shoring and strengthening techniques applied to buildings following the Darfield earthquake were tested in February 2011. In addition, two large aftershocks occurred on 13th June 2011 (magnitudes 5.7 and 6.2), further damaging many already weakened structures. The damage to unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake has already been reported by Ingham and Griffith (2011) and Dizhur et al. (2010b). A brief review of damage from the 22nd February 2011 earthquake is presented here
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings have repeatedly been shown to perform poorly in large magnitude earthquakes, with both New Zealand and Australia having a history of past earthquakes that have resulted in fatalities due to collapsed URM buildings. A comparison is presented here of the URM building stock and the seismic vulnerability of Christchurch and Adelaide in order to demonstrate the relevance to Australian cities of observations in Christchurch resulting from the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake swarm. It is shown that the materials, architecture and hence earthquake strength of URM buildings in both countries is comparable and that Adelaide and other cities of Australia have seismic vulnerability sufficient to cause major damage to their URM buildings should a design level earthquake occur. Such an earthquake is expected to cause major building damage, and fatalities should be expected.
None
This paper provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the Christchurch central business district in the 4 September 2010 Mw7.1 Darfield, and 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquakes with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. Despite Tokyo being located approximately 110km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were strong enough to cause structural damage in Tokyo and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo bay. Comparisons include the strong motion time histories, response spectra, significant durations and arias intensity. The implications for large earthquakes in New Zealand are also briefly discussed.
This paper describes the performance of (or damage to) ceilings in buildings during the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and the subsequent aftershocks. In buildings that suffered severe structural damage, ceilings and other non-structural components (rather expectedly) failed, but even in buildings with little damage to their structural systems, ceilings were found to be severely damaged. The extent of ceiling damage, where the ceilings were subject to severe shaking, depended on the type of the ceiling system, the size and weight of the ceilings and the interaction of ceilings with other elements. The varieties and extent of observed ceiling damage are discussed in this paper with the help of photographs taken after the earthquake.
The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2-6.3 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings, and most of the city lifelines and infrastructure. This manuscript presents an overview of observed geotechnical aspects of this earthquake as well as some of the completed and on-going research investigations. A unique aspect, which is particularly emphasized, is the severity and spatial extent of liquefaction occurring in native soils. Overall, both the spatial extent and severity of liquefaction in the city was greater than in the preceding 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake, including numerous areas that liquefied in both events. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, variable over both large and short spatial scales, affected commercial structures in the Central Business District (CBD) in a variety of ways including: total and differential settlements and tilting; punching settlements of structures with shallow foundations; differential movements of components of complex structures; and interaction of adjacent structures via common foundation soils. Liquefaction was most severe in residential areas located to the east of the CBD as a result of stronger ground shaking due to the proximity to the causative fault, a high water table approximately 1m from the surface, and soils with composition and states of high susceptibility and potential for liquefaction. Total and differential settlements, and lateral movements, due to liquefaction and lateral spreading is estimated to have severely compromised 15,000 residential structures, the majority of which otherwise sustained only minor to moderate damage directly due to inertial loading from ground shaking. Liquefaction also had a profound effect on lifelines and other infrastructure, particularly bridge structures, and underground services. Minor damage was also observed at flood stop banks to the north of the city, which were more severely impacted in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake. Due to the large high-frequency ground motion in the Port hills numerous rock falls and landslides also occurred, resulting in several fatalities and rendering some residential areas uninhabitable.
This paper describes the pounding damage sustained by buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Approximately 6% of buildings in Christchurch CBD were observed to have suffered some form of serious pounding damage. Typical and exceptional examples of building pounding damage are presented and discussed. Almost all building pounding damage occurred in unreinforced masonry buildings, highlighting their vulnerability to this phenomenon. Modern buildings were found to be vulnerable to pounding damage where overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components were installed in existing building separations. Soil variability is identified as a key aspect that amplifies the relative movement of buildings, and hence increases the likelihood of pounding damage. Building pounding damage is compared to the predicted critical pounding weaknesses that have been identified in previous analytical research.
In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch was shaken by a series of strong earthquakes including the MW7.1 4 September 2010, Mw 6.2 22 February 2011, MW6.2 13 June 2011 and MW6.0 23 December 2011 earthquakes. These earthquakes produced very strong ground motions throughout the city and surrounding areas that resulted in soil liquefaction and lateral spreading causing substantial damage to buildings, infrastructure and the community. The stopbank network along the Kaiapoi and Avon River suffered extensive damage with repairs projected to take several years to complete. This presented an opportunity to undertake a case-study on a regional scale of the effects of liquefaction on a stopbank system. Ultimately, this information can be used to determine simple performance-based concepts that can be applied in practice to improve the resilience of river protection works. The research presented in this thesis draws from data collected following the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011 earthquakes. The stopbank damage is categorised into seven key deformation modes that were interpreted from aerial photographs, consultant reports, damage photographs and site visits. Each deformation mode provides an assessment of the observed mechanism of failure behind liquefaction-induced stopbank damage and the factors that influence a particular style of deformation. The deformation modes have been used to create a severity classification for the whole stopbank system, being ‘no or low damage’ and ‘major or severe damage’, in order to discriminate the indicators and factors that contribute to ‘major to severe damage’ from the factors that contribute to all levels of damage a number of calculated, land damage, stopbank damage and geomorphological parameters were analysed and compared at 178 locations along the Kaiapoi and Avon River stopbank systems. A critical liquefiable layer was present at every location with relatively consistent geotechnical parameters (cone resistance (qc), soil behaviour type (Ic) and Factor of Safety (FoS)) across the study site. In 95% of the cases the critical layer occurred within two times the Height of the Free Face (HFF,). A statistical analysis of the geotechnical factors relating to the critical layer was undertaken in order to find correlations between specific deformation modes and geotechnical factors. It was found that each individual deformation mode involves a complex interplay of factors that are difficult to represent through correlative analysis. There was, however, sufficient data to derive the key factors that have affected the severity of deformation. It was concluded that stopbank damage is directly related to the presence of liquefaction in the ground materials beneath the stopbanks, but is not critical in determining the type or severity of damage, instead it is merely the triggering mechanism. Once liquefaction is triggered it is the gravity-induced deformation that causes the damage rather than the shaking duration. Lateral spreading and specifically the depositional setting was found to be the key aspect in determining the severity and type of deformation along the stopbank system. The presence or absence of abandoned or old river channels and point bar deposits was found to significantly influence the severity and type of deformation. A review of digital elevation models and old maps along the Kaiapoi River found that all of the ‘major to severe’ damage observed occurred within or directly adjacent to an abandoned river channel. Whilst a review of the geomorphology along the Avon River showed that every location within a point bar deposit suffered some form of damage, due to the depositional environment creating a deposit highly susceptible to liquefaction.
This paper describes the pounding damage sustained by buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Approximately 6% of buildings in Christchurch CBD were observed to have suffered some form of serious pounding damage. Typical and exceptional examples of building pounding damage are presented and discussed. Almost all building pounding damage occurred in unreinforced masonry buildings, highlighting their vulnerability to this phenomenon. Modern buildings were found to be vulnerable to pounding damage where overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components were installed in existing building separations. Soil variability is identified as a key aspect that amplifies the relative movement of buildings, and hence increases the likelihood of pounding damage. Building pounding damage is compared to the predicted critical pounding weaknesses that have been identified in previous analytical research.
None
The aim of this poster is to examine the seismic response of two structural systems when subjected to observed and simulated ground motions (GMs) for the 22 February 2011 (22Feb2011) Christchurch earthquake (Razafindrakoto et al. (2018)) via an automated workflow. The layout and technical details of the automated workflow are described at Motha et. al. (2019).
This paper describes pounding damage sustained by buildings and bridges in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Approximately 6% of buildings in Christchurch CBD were observed to have suffered some form of serious pounding damage. Almost all of this pounding damage occurred in masonry buildings, further highlighting their vulnerability to this phenomenon. Modern buildings were found to be vulnerable to pounding damage where overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components were installed in existing building separations. Soil variability is identified as a key aspect that amplifies the relative movement of buildings, and hence increases the likelihood of pounding damage. Pounding damage in bridges was found to be relatively minor and infrequent in the Christchurch earthquake.
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.
This report examines and compares case studies of labour market policy responses in APEC economies to natural disasters. It first reviews the policies and practice within APEC economies and internationally in managing the labour market effects of natural disasters. By using comparative case studies, the report then compares recent disaster events in the Asia-Pacific region, including: - the June 2013 Southern Alberta floods in Canada; - the 2010 and 2011 Queensland floods in Australia; - the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand; - the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan; and - the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China.
Earthquakes are insured only with public sector involvement in high-income countries where the risk of earthquakes is perceived to be high. The proto-typical examples of this public sector involvement are the public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand (NZ). Each of these insurance programs is structured differently, and the purpose of this paper is to examine these differences using a concrete case-study, the sequence of earthquakes that occurred in the Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2011. This event turned out to have been the most heavily insured earthquake event in history. We examine what would have been the outcome of the earthquakes had the system of insurance in NZ been different. In particular, we focus on the public earthquake insurance programs in California (the California Earthquake Authority - CEA), and in Japan (Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance - JER). Overall, the aggregate cost to the public insurer in NZ was $NZ 11.1 billion in its response to the earthquakes. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received $NZ 2.5 billion and $NZ 1.4 billion from the JER and CEA, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive patterns of these different scenarios.
This paper presents preliminary field observations on the performance of selected steel structures in Christchurch during the earthquake series of 2010 to 2011. This comprises 6 damaging earthquakes, on 4 September and 26 December 2010, February 22, June 6 and two on June 13, 2011. Most notable of these was the 4 September event, at Ms7.1 and MM7 (MM as observed in the Christchurch CBD) and most intense was the 22 February event at Ms6.3 and MM9-10 within the CBD. Focus is on performance of concentrically braced frames, eccentrically braced frames, moment resisting frames and industrial storage racks. With a few notable exceptions, steel structures performed well during this earthquake series, to the extent that inelastic deformations were less than what would have been expected given the severity of the recorded strong motions. Some hypotheses are formulated to explain this satisfactory performance. http://db.nzsee.org.nz/SpecialIssue/44%284%290297.pdf
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
Two days after the 22 February 2011 M6.3 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, three of the authors conducted a transect of the central city, with the goal of deriving an estimate of building damage levels. Although smaller in magnitude than the M7.1 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, the ground accelerations, ground deformation and damage levels in Christchurch central city were more severe in February 2011, and the central city was closed down to the general public. Written and photographic notes of 295 buildings were taken, including construction type, damage level, and whether the building would likely need to be demolished. The results of the transect compared favourably to Civil Defence rapid assessments made over the following month. Now, more than one year and two major aftershocks after the February 2011 earthquake these initial estimates are compared to the current demolition status to provide an updated understanding of the state of central Christchurch.
On 22 February 2011，a magnitude Mw 6.3 earthquake occurred with an epicenter located near Lyttelton at about 10km from Christchurch in Canterbury region on the South Island of New Zealand (Figure 1). Since this earthquake occurred in the midst of the aftershock activity which had continued since the 4 September 2010 Darfield Earthquake occurrence, it was considered to be an aftershock of the initial earthquake. Because of the short distance to the city and the shallower depth of the epicenter, this earthquake caused more significant damage to pipelines, traffic facilities, residential houses/properties and multi-story buildings in the central business district than the September 2010 Darfield Earthquake in spite of its smaller earthquake magnitude. Unfortunately, this earthquake resulted in significant number of casualties due to the collapse of multi-story buildings and unreinforced masonry structures in the city center of Christchurch. As of 4 April, 172 casualties were reported and the final death toll is expected to be 181. While it is extremely regrettable that Christchurch suffered a terrible number of victims, civil and geotechnical engineers have this hard-to-find opportunity to learn the response of real ground from two gigantic earthquakes which occurred in less than six months from each other. From geotechnical engineering point of view, it is interesting to discuss the widespread liquefaction in natural sediments, repeated liquefaction within short period and further damage to earth structures which have been damaged in the previous earthquake. Following the earthquake, an intensive geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted to capture evidence and perishable data from this event. The team included the following members: Misko Cubrinovski (University of Canterbury, NZ, Team Leader), Susumu Yasuda (Tokyo Denki University, Japan, JGS Team Leader), Rolando Orense (University of Auckland, NZ), Kohji Tokimatsu (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan), Ryosuke Uzuoka (Tokushima University, Japan), Takashi Kiyota (University of Tokyo, Japan), Yasuyo Hosono (Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan) and Suguru Yamada (University of Tokyo, Japan).
In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch (New Zealand) and its surroundings were hit by a series of strong earthquakes including six significant events, all generated by local faults in proximity to the city: 4 September 2010 (Mw=7.1), 22 February 2011 (Mw=6.2), 13 June 2011 (Mw=5.3 and Mw=6.0) and 23 December 2011 (M=5.8 and (M=5.9) earthquakes. As shown in Figure 1, the causative faults of the earthquakes were very close to or within the city boundaries thus generating very strong ground motions and causing tremendous damage throughout the city. Christchurch is shown as a lighter colour area, and its Central Business District (CBD) is marked with a white square area in the figure. Note that the sequence of earthquakes started to the west of the city and then propagated to the south, south-east and east of the city through a set of separate but apparently interacting faults. Because of their strength and proximity to the city, the earthquakes caused tremendous physical damage and impacts on the people, natural and built environments of Christchurch. The 22 February 2011 earthquake was particularly devastating. The ground motions generated by this earthquake were intense and in many parts of Christchurch substantially above the ground motions used to design the buildings in Christchurch. The earthquake caused 182 fatalities, collapse of two multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, collapse or partial collapse of many unreinforced masonry structures including the historic Christchurch Cathedral. The Central Business District (CBD) of Christchurch, which is the central heart of the city just east of Hagley Park, was practically lost with majority of its 3,000 buildings being damaged beyond repair. Widespread liquefaction in the suburbs of Christchurch, as well as rock falls and slope/cliff instabilities in the Port Hills affected tens of thousands of residential buildings and properties, and shattered the lifelines and infrastructure over approximately one third of the city area. The total economic loss caused by the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes is currently estimated to be in the range between 25 and 30 billion NZ dollars (or 15% to 18% of New Zealand’s GDP). After each major earthquake, comprehensive field investigations and inspections were conducted to document the liquefaction-induced land damage, lateral spreading displacements and their impacts on buildings and infrastructure. In addition, the ground motions produced by the earthquakes were recorded by approximately 15 strong motion stations within (close to) the city boundaries providing and impressive wealth of data, records and observations of the performance of ground and various types of structures during this unusual sequence of strong local earthquakes affecting a city. This paper discusses the liquefaction in residential areas and focuses on its impacts on dwellings (residential houses) and potable water system in the Christchurch suburbs. The ground conditions of Christchurch including the depositional history of soils, their composition, age and groundwater regime are first discussed. Detailed liquefaction maps illustrating the extent and severity of liquefaction across Christchurch triggered by the sequence of earthquakes including multiple episodes of severe re-liquefaction are next presented. Characteristic liquefaction-induced damage to residential houses is then described focussing on the performance of typical house foundations in areas affected by liquefaction. Liquefaction impacts on the potable water system of Christchurch is also briefly summarized including correlation between the damage to the system, liquefaction severity, and the performance of different pipe materials. Finally, the characteristics of Christchurch liquefaction and its impacts on built environment are discussed in relation to the liquefaction-induced damage in Japan during the 11 March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.
The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence began with the 4 September 2010, Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake and includes up to ten events that induced liquefaction. Most notably, widespread liquefaction was induced by the Darfield and Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquakes. The combination of well-documented liquefaction response during multiple events, densely recorded ground motions for the events, and detailed subsurface characterization provides an unprecedented opportunity to add well-documented case histories to the liquefaction database. This paper presents and applies 50 high-quality cone penetration test (CPT) liquefaction case histories to evaluate three commonly used, deterministic, CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures. While all the procedures predicted the majority of the cases correctly, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) results in the lowest error index for the case histories analyzed, thus indicating better predictions of the observed liquefaction response.
In this paper, we perform hybrid broadband (0-10 Hz) ground motion simulations for the ten most significant events (Mw 4.7-7.1) in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Taking advantage of having repeated recordings at same stations, we validate our simulations using both recordings and an empirically-developed ground motion prediction equation (GMPE). The simulation clearly captures the sedimentary basin amplification and the rupture directivity effects. Quantitative comparisons of the simulations with both recordings and the GMPE, as well as analyses of the total residuals (indicating model bias) show that simulations perform better than the empirical GMPE, especially for long period. To scrutinize the ground motion variability, we partitioned the total residuals into different components. The total residual appears to be unbiased, and the use of a 3D velocity structure reduces the long period systematic bias particularly for stations located close to the Banks Peninsula volcanic area.
As part of the 'Project Masonry' Recovery Project funded by the New Zealand Natural Hazards Research Platform, commencing in March 2011, an international team of researchers was deployed to document and interpret the observed earthquake damage to masonry buildings and to churches as a result of the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The study focused on investigating commonly encountered failure patterns and collapse mechanisms. A brief summary of activities undertaken is presented, detailing the observations that were made on the performance of and the deficiencies that contributed to the damage to approximately 650 inspected unreinforced clay brick masonry (URM) buildings, to 90 unreinforced stone masonry buildings, to 342 reinforced concrete masonry (RCM) buildings, to 112 churches in the Canterbury region, and to just under 1100 residential dwellings having external masonry veneer cladding. In addition, details are provided of retrofit techniques that were implemented within relevant Christchurch URM buildings prior to the 22nd February earthquake and brief suggestions are provided regarding appropriate seismic retrofit and remediation techniques for stone masonry buildings. http://www.nzsee.org.nz/publications/nzsee-quarterly-bulletin/
An overview of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake is presented in the context of characterization of extreme/rare events. Focus is given to the earthquake source, observed near-source strong ground motions, and effects of site response, while structural response and consequences are mentioned for completeness. For each of the above topics comparisons and discussions are made with predictive models for each of phenomena considered. In light of the observations and predictive model comparisons, the author’s opinion on improving the characterization of such extreme/rare events, and their appropriate consideration in seismic design is presented
Following the magnitude 6.3 aftershock in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 22 February 2011, a number of researchers were sent to Christchurch as part of the New Zealand Natural Hazard Research Platform funded “Project Masonry” Recovery Project. Their goal was to document and interpret the damage to the masonry buildings and churches in the region. Approximately 650 unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the Christchurch area were surveyed for commonly occurring failure patterns and collapse mechanisms. The entire building stock of Christchurch, and in particular the unreinforced masonry building stock, is similar to that in the rest of New Zealand, Australia, and abroad, so the observations made here are relevant for the entire world.
Ingham and Biggs were in Christchurch during the M6.3, 22 February 2011 earthquake and Moon arrived the next day. They were enlisted by officials to provide rapid assessment of buildings within the Central Business District (CBD). In addition, they were asked to: 1) provide a rapid assessment of the numbers and types of buildings that had been damaged, and 2) identify indicator buildings that represent classes of structures that can be used to monitor changing conditions for each class following continuing aftershocks and subsequent damage. This paper explains how transect methodology was incorporated into the rapid damage assessment that was performed 48 hours after the earthquake. Approximately 300 buildings were assessed using exterior Level 1 reporting techniques. That data was used to draw conclusions on the condition of the entire CBD of approximately 4400 buildings. In the context of a disaster investigation, a transect involves traveling a selected path assessing the condition of the buildings and documenting the class of each building, and using the results in conjunction with prior knowledge relating to the overall population of buildings affected in the area of the study. Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412640.033
The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes have provided a unique opportunity to investigate the seismic performance of both traditional and modern buildings constructed in New Zealand. It is critical that the observed performance is examined and compared against the expected levels of performance that are outlined by the Building Code and Design Standards. In particular, in recent years there has been a significant amount of research into the seismic behaviour of precast concrete floor systems and the robustness of the support connections as a building deforms during an earthquake. An investigation of precast concrete floor systems in Christchurch has been undertaken to assess both the performance of traditional and current design practice. The observed performance for each type of precast floor unit was collated from a number of post-earthquake recognisance activities and compared against the expected performance determined for previous experimental testing and analysis. Possible reasons for both the observed damage, and in some cases the lack of damage, were identified. This critical review of precast concrete floor systems will assist in determining the success of current design practice as well as identify any areas that require further research and/or changes to design standards.
The 22nd February 2011, Mw 6.3 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand caused major damage to critical infrastructure, including the healthcare system. The Natural Hazard Platform of NZ funded a short-term project called “Hospital Functions and Services” to support the Canterbury District Health Board’s (CDHB) efforts in capturing standardized data that describe the effects of the earthquake on the Canterbury region’s main hospital system. The project utilised a survey tool originally developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) to assess the loss of function of hospitals in the Maule and Bío-Bío regions following the 27th February 2010, Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake in Chile. This paper describes the application of the JHU tool for surveying the impact of Christchurch earthquake on the CDHB Hospital System, including the system’s residual capacity to deliver emergency response and health care. A short summary of the impact of the Christchurch earthquake on other CDHB public and private hospitals is also provided. This study demonstrates that, as was observed in other earthquakes around the world, the effects of damage to non-structural building components, equipment, utility lifelines, and transportation were far more disruptive than the minor structural damage observed in buildings (FEMA 2007). Earthquake related complications with re-supply and other organizational aspects also impacted the emergency response and the healthcare facilities’ residual capacity to deliver services in the short and long terms.
