Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings have repeatedly been shown to perform poorly in large magnitude earthquakes, with both New Zealand and Australia having a history of past earthquakes that have resulted in fatalities due to collapsed URM buildings. A comparison is presented here of the URM building stock and the seismic vulnerability of Christchurch and Adelaide in order to demonstrate the relevance to Australian cities of observations in Christchurch resulting from the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake swarm. It is shown that the materials, architecture and hence earthquake strength of URM buildings in both countries is comparable and that Adelaide and other cities of Australia have seismic vulnerability sufficient to cause major damage to their URM buildings should a design level earthquake occur. Such an earthquake is expected to cause major building damage, and fatalities should be expected.
The 2010 Darfield earthquake is the largest earthquake on record to have occurred within 40 km of a major city and not cause any fatalities. In this paper the authors have reflected on their experiences in Christchurch following the earthquake with a view to what worked, what didn’t, and what lessons can be learned from this for the benefit of Australian earthquake preparedness. Owing to the fact that most of the observed building damage occurred in Unreinforced Masonry (URM) construction, this paper focuses in particular on the authors’ experience conducting rapid building damage assessment during the first 72 hours following the earthquake and more detailed examination of the performance of unreinforced masonry buildings with and without seismic retrofit interventions.
The M7.1 Darfield earthquake shook the town of Christchurch (New Zealand) in the early morning on Saturday 4th September 2010 and caused damage to a number of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. No fatalities were reported directly linked to the earthquake, but the damage to important heritage buildings was the most extensive to have occurred since the 1931 Hawke‟s Bay earthquake. In general, the nature of damage was consistent with observations previously made on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in large earthquakes, with aspects such as toppled chimneys and parapets, failure of gables and poorly secured face-loaded walls, and in-plane damage to masonry frames all being extensively documented. This report on the performance of the unreinforced masonry buildings in the 2010 Darfield earthquake provides details on typical building characteristics, a review of damage statistics obtained by interrogating the building assessment database that was compiled in association with post-earthquake building inspections, and a review of the characteristic failure modes that were observed.
Unreinforced masonry (URM) is a construction type that was commonly adopted in New Zealand between the 1880s and 1930s. URM construction is evidently vulnerable to high magnitude earthquakes, with the most recent New Zealand example being the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake. This earthquake caused significant damage to a majority of URM buildings in the Canterbury area and resulted in 185 fatalities. Many URM buildings still exist in various parts of New Zealand today, and due to their likely poor seismic performance, earthquake assessment and retrofit of the remaining URM building stock is necessary as these buildings have significant architectural heritage and occupy a significant proportion of the nation’s building stock. A collaborative research programme between the University of Auckland and Reid Construction Systems was conducted to investigate an economical yet effective solution for retrofitting New Zealand’s existing URM building stock. This solution adopts the shotcrete technique using an Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC), which is a polyvinyl alcohol fibre reinforced mortar that exhibits strain hardening characteristics. Collaborations have been formed with a number of consulting structural engineers throughout New Zealand to develop innovative and cost effective retrofit solutions for a number of buildings. Two such case studies are presented in this paper. http://www.concrete2013.com.au/technical-program/
