A linear and non-linear model are developed to analyze the structural impact and response of two single degree of freedom structures, representing adjacent buildings or bridge sections. Different impact coefficients of restitution, normalized distances between structures and a range of different structural periods are considered. The probability of impact and the displacement changes that can result from these collisions are computed. The likelihood of an increase in displacement is quantified in a probabilistic sense. A full matrix of response simulations are performed to individually investigate and delineate the effects of inter-structure gap-ratio, period ratios, structural non-linearity and impact elasticity. Column inelasticity is incorporated through the use of a Ramberg-Osgood type hysteresis rule. The minimum normalized distance, or gap-ratio, required between two structures to ensure that the likelihood of increased displacement of more than 10% for either structure for 90% of the given earthquake ground motions is assessed as one of many possible design risk bounds. Increased gap ratio, defined as a percentage of spectral displacement, is shown to reduce the likelihood of impact, as well as close structural periods. Larger differences in the relative periods of the two structures were seen to significantly increase the likelihood of impact. Inclusion of column inelasticity and higher plasticity of impact reduce displacement increases from impact and thus possible further damage to the structures. Such information can be used as a guideline to manage undesirable effects of impact in design - a factor that has been observed to be very important during the recent Canterbury, New Zealand Earthquakes.
Impact between structures of bridge sections can play a major, unexpected role in seismic structural damage. Linear and non-linear models are developed to analyze structural impact and response of two single-degree-of-freedom structures, representing adjacent buildings or bridge sections. The analyses presented assess probability of impact, displacement change due to impact, and the probability of increased displacement due to impact. These are assessed over a matrix of structural periods for each degree-of-freedom, different impact coefficients of restitution, and a probabilistically scaled suite of earthquake events. Linear versus non-linear effects are assessed using a Ramberg-Osgood non-linear model for column inelasticity. The normalized distance, or gap-ratio (GR), defined as a percentage of the summed spectral displacements, is used to create probabilistic design requirements. Increasing GR and structural periods that are similar (T2/T1~0.8-1.25) significantly decrease the likelihood of impact, and vice-versa. Including column inelasticity and decreasing coefficient of restitution decrease displacement increases due to impact and thus reduce potential damage. A minimum GR~0.5-0.9 ensures that any displacement increases will be less than 10% for 90% of ground motions over all structural period combinations (0.2-5.0sec). These results enable probabilistic design guidelines to manage undesirable effects of impact– an important factor during the recent Canterbury, New Zealand Earthquakes.
The Master of Engineering Management Project was sponsored by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and consisted of two phases: The first was an analysis of existing information detailing the effects of hazardous natural events on Canterbury Lifeline Utilities in the past 15 years. The aim of this “Lessons Learned” project was to produce an analysis report that identified key themes from the research, gaps in the existing data and to provide recommendations from these “Lessons Learned.” The Second phase was the development of a practical “Disaster Mitigation Guideline” that outlined lessons in the field of Emergency Sanitation. This research would build upon the first stage and would draw from international reference to develop a guideline that has practical implementation possibilities throughout the world.
Though there is a broad consensus that communities play a key role in disaster response and recovery, most of the existing work in this area focuses on the activities of donor agencies, formal civil defence authorities, and local/central government. Consequently, there is a paucity of research addressing the on-going actions and activities undertaken by communities and ‘emergent groups’ , particularly as they develop after the immediate civil defence or ‘response’ phase is over.
In an attempt to address this gap, this inventory of community-led recovery initiatives was undertaken approximately one year after the most devastating February 2011 earthquake. It is part of on-going project at Lincoln University documenting – and seeking a better understanding of -
various emergent communities’ roles in recovery, their challenges, and strategies for overcoming them. This larger project also seeks to better understand how collaborative work between informal and formal recovery efforts might be facilitated at different stages of the process.
This inventory was conducted over the December 2011 – February 2012 period and builds on Landcare Research’s Christchurch Earthquake Activity Inventory which was a similar snapshot taken in April 2011. The intention behind conducting this updated inventory is to gain a longitudinal perspective of how community-led recovery activities evolve over time.
Each entry is ordered alphabetically and contact details have been provided where possible. A series of keywords have also been assigned that describe the main attributes of each activity to assist searches within this document.This inventory was supported by the Lincoln University Research Fund and the Royal Society Marsden Fund.
There is strong consensus in the civil defence and emergency management literature that public participation is essential for a 'good' recovery. However, there is a paucity of research detailing how this community-led planning should be carried out in the real world. There are few processes or timelines for communities to follow when wanting to plan for themselves, nor is there a great deal of advice for communities who want to plan for their own recovery. In short, despite this consensus that community involvement is desireable, there is very little information available as to the nature of this involvement or how communities might facilitate this. It is simply assumed that communities are willing and able to participate in the recovery process and that recovery authorities will welcome, encourage, and enable this participation. This is not always the case, and the result is that community groups can be left feeling lost and ineffective when trying to plan for their own recovery.
In attempting to address this gap, my study contributes to a better understanding of community involvement in recovery planning, based on research with on particular a community group (SPRIG), who has undertaken their own form of community-led planning in a post-disaster environment. Through group observations and in-depth interviews with members of SPRIG, I was able to identify various roles for such groups in the post-disaster recovery process. My research also contributes to an enhanced understanding of the process a community group might follow to implement their own form of post-disaster recovery planning, with the main point being that any planning should be done side by side with local authorities. Finally, I discovered that a community group will face organisational, community and institutional challenges when trying to plan for their area; however, despite these challenges, opportunities exist, such as the chance to build a better future.
