Following the Christchurch earthquake of 22 February 2011 a number of researchers were sent to Christchurch, New Zealand to document the damage to masonry buildings as part of “Project Masonry”. Coordinated by the Universities of Auckland and Adelaide, researchers came from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Italy, Portugal and the US. The types of masonry investigated were unreinforced clay brick masonry, unreinforced stone masonry, reinforced concrete masonry, residential masonry veneer and churches; masonry infill was not part of this study. This paper focuses on the progress of the unreinforced masonry (URM) component of Project Masonry. To date the research team has completed raw data collection on over 600 URM buildings in the Christchurch area. The results from this study will be extremely relevant to Australian cities since URM buildings in New Zealand are similar to those in Australia.
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.
The sequence of earthquakes that has affected Christchurch and Canterbury since September 2010 has caused damage to a great number of buildings of all construction types. Following post-event damage surveys performed between April 2011 and June 2011, the damage suffered by unreinforced stone masonry buildings is reported and different types of observed failures are described. A detailed technical description of the most prevalently observed failure mechanisms is provided, with reference to recognised failure modes for unreinforced masonry structures. The observed performance of existing seismic retrofit interventions is also provided, as an understanding of the seismic response of these interventions is of fundamental importance for assessing the vulnerability of similar strengthening techniques when applied to unreinforced stone masonry structures.
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. Also, details are provided of retrofit techniques that were implemented within relevant Christchurch URM buildings prior to the 22nd February earthquake. In addition to presenting a summary of Project Masonry, the broader research activity at the University of Auckland pertaining to the seismic assessment and improvement of unreinforced masonry buildings is outlined. The purpose of this outline is to provide an overview and bibliography of published literature and to communicate on-going research activity that has not yet been reported in a complete form. http://sesoc.org.nz/conference/programme.pdf
The performance of retrofitted unreinforced masonry (URM) bearing wall buildings in Christchurch is examined, considering ground motion recordings from multiple events. Suggestions for how the experiences in Christchurch might be relevant to retrofit practices common to New Zealand, U.S. and Canada are also provided. Whilst the poor performance of unretrofitted URM buildings in earthquakes is well known, much less is known about how retrofitted URM buildings perform when subjected to strong ground shaking.
Following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake a comprehensive damage survey of the unreinforced masonry (URM) building stock of Christchurch city, New Zealand was undertaken. Because of the large number of aftershocks associated with both the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and the earlier 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, and the close proximity of their epicentres to Christchurch city, this earthquake sequence presented a unique opportunity to assess the performance of URM buildings and the various strengthening methods used in New Zealand to increase the performance of these buildings in earthquakes. Because of the extent of data that was collected, a decision was made to initially focus exclusively on the earthquake performance of URM buildings located in the central business district (CBD) of Christchurch city. The main objectives of the data collection exercise were to document building characteristics and any seismic strengthening methods encountered, and correlate these attributes with observed earthquake damage. In total 370 URM buildings in the CBD were surveyed. Of the surveyed buildings, 62% of all URM buildings had received some form of earthquake strengthening and there was clear evidence that installed earthquake strengthening techniques in general had led to reduced damage levels. The procedure used to collect and process information associated with earthquake damage, general analysis and interpretation of the available survey data for the 370 URM buildings, the performance of earthquake strengthening techniques, and the influence of earthquake strengthening levels on observed damage are reported within. http://15ibmac.com/home/
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.
The Catholic Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament is a category 1 listed heritage building constructed largely of unreinforced stone masonry, and was significantly damaged in the recent Canterbury earthquakes. The building experienced ground shaking in excess of its capacity leading to block failures and partial collapse of parts of the building, which left the building standing but still posing a significant hazard. In this paper we discuss the approach to securing the building, and the interaction of the structural, heritage and safety demands involved in a dynamic seismic risk environment. We briefly cover the types of failures observed and the behaviour of the structure, and investigate the performance of both strengthened and un-strengthened parts of the building. Seismic strengthening options are investigated at a conceptual level. We draw conclusions as to how the building performed in the earthquakes, comment on the effectiveness of the strengthening and securing work and discuss the potential seismic strengthening methods.
