The Christchurch region of New Zealand experienced a series of major earthquakes and aftershocks between September 2010 and June 2011 which caused severe damage to the city’s infrastructure. The performance of tilt-up precast concrete buildings was investigated and initial observations are presented here. In general, tilt-up buildings performed well during all three major earthquakes, with mostly only minor, repairable damage occurring. For the in-plane loading direction, both loadbearing and cladding panels behaved exceptionally well, with no significant damage or failure observed in panels and their connections. A limited number of connection failures occurred due to large out-of-plane panel inertia forces. In several buildings, the connections between the panel and the internal structural frame appeared to be the weakest link, lacking in both strength and ductility. This weakness in the out-of-plane load path should be prevented in future designs.
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.
Recent earthquakes have shown that liquefaction and associated ground deformations are major geotechnical hazards to civil engineering infrastructures, such as pipelines. In particular, sewer pipes have been damaged in many areas in Christchurch as a result of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading near waterways and ground oscillation induced by seismic shaking. In this paper, the addition of a flexible AM liner as a potential countermeasure to increase sewer pipe capacity was investigated. Physical testing through 4-point loading test was undertaken to characterise material properties and the response of both unlined pipe and its lined counterpart. Next, numerical models were created using SAP2000 and ABAQUS to analyse buried pipeline response to transverse permanent ground displacement and to quantify, over a range of pipe segment lengths and soil parameters, the effectiveness of the AM liner in increasing displacement capacity. The numerical results suggest that the addition of the AM liner increases the deformation capacity of the unlined sewer pipe by as much as 50 times. The results confirmed that AM liner is an effective countermeasure for sewer pipes in liquefied ground not only in terms of increased deformation capacity but also the fact that AM-Liner can prevent influx of sand and water through broken pipes, making sewer pipes with liner remaining serviceable even under severe liquefaction condition.
The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
