Following a damaging earthquake, the immediate emergency response is focused on individual collapsed buildings or other "hotspots" rather than the overall state of damage. This lack of attention to the global damage condition of the affected region can lead to the reporting of misinformation and generate confusion, causing difficulties when attempting to determine the level of postdisaster resources required. A pre-planned building damage survey based on the transect method is recommended as a simple tool to generate an estimate of the overall level of building damage in a city or region. A methodology for such a transect survey is suggested, and an example of a similar survey conducted in Christchurch, New Zealand, following the 22 February 2011 earthquake is presented. The transect was found to give suitably accurate estimates of building damage at a time when information was keenly sought by government authorities and the general public. VoR - Version of Record
Test results are presented for wall-diaphragm plate anchor connections that were axially loaded to rupture. These connection samples were extracted post-earthquake by sorting through the demolition debris from unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes. Unfortunately the number of samples available for testing was small due to the difficulties associated with sample collection in an environment of continuing aftershocks and extensive demolition activity, when personal safety combined with commercial activity involving large demolition machinery were imperatives that inhibited more extensive sample collection for research purposes. Nevertheless, the presented data is expected to be of assistance to structural engineers undertaking seismic assessment of URM buildings that have existing wall-diaphragm anchor plate connections installed, where it may be necessary to estimate the capacity of the existing connection as an important parameter linked with determining the current seismic capacity of the building and therefore influencing the decision regarding whether supplementary connections should be installed.
Churches are an important part of New Zealand's historical and architectural heritage. Various earthquakes around the world have highlighted the significant seismic vulnerability of religious buildings, with the extensive damage that occurred to stone and clay-brick unreinforced masonry churches after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes emphasising the necessity to better understand this structural type. Consequently, a country-wide inventory of unreinforced masonry churches is here identified. After a bibliographic and archival investigation, and a 10 000 km field trip, it is estimated that currently 297 unreinforced masonry churches are present throughout New Zealand, excluding 12 churches demolished in Christchurch because of heavy damage sustained during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The compiled database includes general information about the buildings, their architectural features and structural characteristics, and any architectural and structural transformations that have occurred in the past. Statistics about the occurrence of each feature are provided and preliminary interpretations of their role on seismic vulnerability are discussed. The list of identified churches is reported in annexes, supporting their identification and providing their address.
As a result of the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the more damaging 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, considerable damage occurred to a significant number of buildings in Christchurch. The damage that occurred to the Christchurch Roman Catholic Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament (commonly known as the Christchurch Basilica) as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes is reported, and the observed failure modes are identified. A previous strengthening intervention is outlined and the estimated capacity of the building is discussed. This strengthening was completed in 2004, and addressed the worst aspects of the building's seismic vulnerability. Urgent work was undertaken post-earthquake to secure parts of the building in order to limit damage and prevent collapse of unstable parts of the building. The approach taken for this securing is outlined, and the performance of the building and the previously installed earthquake strengthening intervention is evaluated.A key consideration throughout the project was the interaction between the structural securing requirements that were driven by the requirement to limit damage and mitigate hazards, and the heritage considerations. Lessons learnt from the strengthening that was carried out, the securing work undertaken, and the approach taken in making the building "safe" are discussed. Some conclusions are drawn with respect to the effectiveness of strengthening similar building types, and the approach taken to secure the building under active seismic conditions. 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.
During the recent devastating earthquakes in Christchurch, many residential houses were damaged due to widespread liquefaction of the ground. In-situ testing is widely used as a convenient method for evaluating liquefaction potential of soils. Cone penetration test (CPT) and standard penetration test (SPT) are the two popular in situ tests which are widely used in New Zealand for site characterization. The Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) method is a relatively new operating system developed in Japan consisting of a machine that drills a rod into the ground by applying torque at seven steps of axial loading. This machine can continuously measure the required torque, load, speed of penetration and rod friction during the test, and therefore can give a clear overview of the soil profile along the depth of penetration. In this paper, based on a number of SDS tests conducted in Christchurch, a correlation was developed between tip resistance of CPT test and SDS parameters for layers consisting of different fines contents. Moreover, using the obtained correlation, a chart was proposed which relates the cyclic resistance ratio to the appropriate SDS parameter. Using the proposed chart, liquefaction potential of soil can be estimated directly using SDS data. As SDS method is simpler, faster and more economical test than CPT and SPT, it can be a reliable alternative in-situ test for soil characterization, especially in residential house constructions.
