On 14 November 2016 a magnitude Mw 7.8 earthquake struck the upper South Island of New Zealand with effects also being observed in the capital city, Wellington. The affected area has low population density but is the largest wine production region in New Zealand and also hosts the main national highway and railway routes connecting the country’s three largest cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with Marlborough Port in Picton providing connection between the South and North Islands. These transport facilities sustained substantial earthquake related damage, causing major disruptions. Thousands of landslides and multiple new faults were counted in the area. The winery facilities and a large number of commercial buildings and building components (including brick masonry veneers, historic masonry construction, and chimneys), sustained damage due to the strong vertical and horizontal acceleration. Presented herein are field observations undertaken the day immediately after the earthquake, with the aim to document earthquake damage and assess access to the affected area.
"The nuclear meltdown at Fukushima ... the Fonterra botulism scare ... the Christchurch earthquakes – in all these recent crises the role played by scientists has been under the spotlight. What is the first duty of scientists in a crisis – to the government, to their employer, or to the wider public desperate for information? And what if these different objectives clash? In this penetrating BWB Text, leading scientist Shaun Hendy finds that in New Zealand, the public obligation of the scientist is often far from clear and that there have been many disturbing instances of scientists being silenced. Experts who have information the public seeks, he finds, have been prevented from speaking out. His own experiences have led him to conclude that New Zealanders have few scientific institutions that feel secure enough to criticise the government of the day." - Publisher information. http://librarysearch.auckland.ac.nz/UOA2_A:Combined_Local:uoa_alma21259423940002091
The susceptibility of precast hollow-core floors to sustain critical damage during an earthquake is now well-recognized throughout the structural engineering community in New Zealand. The lack of shear reinforcement in these floor units is one of the primary reasons causing issues with the seismic performance of these floors. Recent research has revealed that the unreinforced webs of these floor units can crack at drift demands as low as 0.6%. Such observation indicates that potentially many of the existing building stock incorporating hollow-core flooring systems in cities of relatively high seismic activity (e.g. Wellington and Christchurch) that probably have already experienced a level of shaking higher than 0.6% drift in previous earthquakes might already have their floor units cracked. However, there is little information available to reliably quantify the residual gravity load-carrying capacity of cracked hollow-core floor units, highlighting the need to understand the post-cracking behavior of hollow-core floor units to better quantify the extent of the risk that cracked hollow-core floor units pose.
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/
Quick and reliable assessment of the condition of bridges in a transportation network after an earthquake can greatly assist immediate post-disaster response and long-term recovery. However, experience shows that available resources, such as qualified inspectors and engineers, will typically be stretched for such tasks. Structural health monitoring (SHM) systems can therefore make a real difference in this context. SHM, however, needs to be deployed in a strategic manner and integrated into the overall disaster response plans and actions to maximize its benefits. This study presents, in its first part, a framework of how this can be achieved. Since it will not be feasible, or indeed necessary, to use SHM on every bridge, it is necessary to prioritize bridges within individual networks for SHM deployment. A methodology for such prioritization based on structural and geotechnical seismic risks affecting bridges and their importance within a network is proposed in the second part. An example using the methodology application to selected bridges in the medium-sized transportation network of Wellington, New Zealand is provided. The third part of the paper is concerned with using monitoring data for quick assessment of bridge condition and damage after an earthquake. Depending on the bridge risk profile, it is envisaged that data will be obtained from either local or national seismic monitoring arrays or SHM systems installed on bridges. A method using artificial neural networks is proposed for using data from a seismic array to infer key ground motion parameters at an arbitrary bridges site. The methodology is applied to seismic data collected in Christchurch, New Zealand. Finally, how such ground motion parameters can be used in bridge damage and condition assessment is outlined. AM - Accepted manuscript
