As part of a seismic retrofit scheme, surface bonded glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) fabric was applied to two unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings located in Christchurch, New Zealand. The unreinforced stone masonry of Christchurch Girls’ High School (GHS) and the unreinforced clay brick masonry Shirley Community Centre were retrofitted using surface bonded GFRP in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Much of the knowledge on the seismic performance of GFRP retrofitted URM was previously assimilated from laboratory-based experimental studies with controlled environments and loading schemes. The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence provided a rare opportunity to evaluate the GFRP retrofit applied to two vintage URM buildings and to document its performance when subjected to actual design-level earthquake-induced shaking. Both GFRP retrofits were found to be successful in preserving architectural features within the buildings as well as maintaining the structural integrity of the URM walls. Successful seismic performance was based on comparisons made between the GFRP retrofitted GHS building and the adjacent nonretrofitted Boys’ High School building, as well as on a comparison between the GFRP retrofitted and nonretrofitted walls of the Shirley Community Centre building. Based on detailed postearthquake observations and investigations, the GFRP retrofitted URM walls in the subject buildings exhibited negligible to minor levels of damage without delamination, whereas significant damage was observed in comparable nonretrofitted URM walls. AM - Accepted Manuscript
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
