Many large-scale earthquakes all over the world have highlighted the impact of soil liquefaction to the built environment, but the scale of liquefaction-induced damage experienced in Christchurch and surrounding areas following the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) was unparalleled, especially in terms of impact to an urban area. The short time interval between the large earthquakes presented a very rare occasion to examine liquefaction mechanism in natural deposits. The re-liquefaction experienced by the city highlighted the high liquefaction susceptibility of soil deposits in Christchurch, and presented a very challenging problem not only to the local residents but to the geotechnical engineering profession. This paper summarises the lessons learned from CES, and the impacts of the observations made to the current practice of liquefaction assessment and mitigation.
Between September 4, 2010 and December 23, 2011, a series of earthquakes struck the South Island of New Zealand including the city of Christchurch producing heavy damage. During the strongest shaking, the unreinforced masonry (URM) building stock in Christchurch was subjected to seismic loading equal to approximately 150-200% of code values. Post-earthquake reconnaissance suggested numerous failures of adhesive anchors used for retrofit connection of roof and floor diaphragms to masonry walls. A team of researchers from the Universities of Auckland (NZ) and Minnesota (USA) conducted a field investigation on the performance of new adhesive anchors installed in existing masonry walls. Variables included adhesive type, anchor diameter, embedment length, anchor inclination, and masonry quality. Buildings were selected that had been slated for demolition but which featured exterior walls that had not been damaged. A summary of the deformation response measured during the field tests are presented. AM - Accepted Manuscript
The Global Earthquake Model’s (GEM) Earthquake Consequences Database (GEMECD) aims to develop, for the first time, a standardised framework for collecting and collating geocoded consequence data induced by primary and secondary seismic hazards to different types of buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and population, and relate this data to estimated ground motion intensity via the USGS ShakeMap Atlas. New Zealand is a partner of the GEMECD consortium and to-date has contributed with 7 events to the database, of which 4 are localised in the South Pacific area (Newcastle 1989; Luzon 1990; South of Java 2006 and Samoa Islands 2009) and 3 are NZ-specific events (Edgecumbe 1987; Darfield 2010 and Christchurch 2011). This contribution to GEMECD represented a unique opportunity for collating, comparing and reviewing existing damage datasets and harmonising them into a common, openly accessible and standardised database, from where the seismic performance of New Zealand buildings can be comparatively assessed. This paper firstly provides an overview of the GEMECD database structure, including taxonomies and guidelines to collect and report on earthquake-induced consequence data. Secondly, the paper presents a summary of the studies implemented for the 7 events, with particular focus on the Darfield (2010) and Christchurch (2011) earthquakes. Finally, examples of specific outcomes and potentials for NZ from using and processing GEMECD are presented, including: 1) the rationale for adopting the GEM taxonomy in NZ and any need for introducing NZ-specific attributes; 2) a complete overview of the building typological distribution in the Christchurch CBD prior to the Canterbury earthquakes and 3) some initial correlations between the level and extent of earthquake-induced physical damage to buildings, building safety/accessibility issues and the induced human casualties.
The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for adhesive anchor connections than for through-bolt connections (i.e. anchorages having plates on the exterior façade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragm. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation and the use of metal mesh sleeve. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5o to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a snapshot of the performed experimental program and the test results and a preliminary proposed pull-out capacity of adhesive anchors are presented herein. http://www.confer.co.nz/nzsee/ VoR - Version of Record
Following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes the seismic design of buildings with precast concrete panels has received significant attention. Although this form of construction generally performed adequately in Christchurch, there were a considerable number of precast concrete panel connection failures. This observation prompted a review of more than 4700 panel details from 108 buildings to establish representative details used in both existing and new multi-storey and low rise industrial precast concrete buildings in three major New Zealand cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Details were collected from precast manufacturers and city councils and were categorised according to type. The detailing and quantity of each reviewed connection type in the sampled data is reported, and advantages and potential deficiencies of each connection type are discussed. The results of this survey provide a better understanding of the relative prevalence of common detailing used in precast concrete panels and guidance for the design of future experimental studies. http://www.nzsee.org.nz/publications/nzsee-quarterly-bulletin/
Case study unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings that were seismically retrofitted prior to the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquake sequence and exhibited successful performance during these earthquakes are presented herein. Selected buildings were divided into the following categories based on size and complexity: (1) simple, single storey box type buildings (i.e. electrical substations), (2) common and simple commercial buildings, and (3) large and complex clay brick and stone URM buildings. The retrofitted case study URM buildings were evaluated based on overall structural seismic performance as well as the categories of initial seismic design, heritage preservation, architectural appeal, and cost. Detailed observations of 4 representative case study buildings and a summary of findings are reported herein. http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2017/Orals.htm
Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes contains selected papers presented at the New Zealand – Japan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes (Auckland, New Zealand, 2-3 December 2013). The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand and the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake in Japan have caused significant damage to many residential houses due to varying degrees of soil liquefaction over a very wide extent of urban areas unseen in past destructive earthquakes. While soil liquefaction occurred in naturally-sedimented soil formations in Christchurch, most of the areas which liquefied in Tokyo Bay area were reclaimed soil and artificial fill deposits, thus providing researchers with a wide range of soil deposits to characterize soil and site response to large-scale earthquake shaking. Although these earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan caused extensive damage to life and property, they also serve as an opportunity to understand better the response of soil and building foundations to such large-scale earthquake shaking. With the wealth of information obtained in the aftermath of both earthquakes, information-sharing and knowledge-exchange are vital in arriving at liquefaction-proof urban areas in both countries. Data regarding the observed damage to residential houses as well as the lessons learnt are essential for the rebuilding efforts in the coming years and in mitigating buildings located in regions with high liquefaction potential. As part of the MBIE-JSPS collaborative research programme, the Geomechanics Group of the University of Auckland and the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory of the University of Tokyo co-hosted the workshop to bring together researchers to review the findings and observations from recent large-scale earthquakes related to soil liquefaction and discuss possible measures to mitigate future damage. http://librarysearch.auckland.ac.nz/UOA2_A:Combined_Local:uoa_alma21151785130002091
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
