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
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, an inventory of the stone masonry buildings in Christchurch and surrounding areas was carried out in order to assemble a database containing the characteristic features of the building stock, as a basis for studying the vulnerability factors that might have influenced the seismic performance of the stone masonry building stock during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The damage suffered by unreinforced stone masonry buildings is reported and different types of observed failures are described using a specific survey procedure currently in use in Italy. The observed performance of seismic retrofit interventions applied to stone masonry buildings is also described, as an understanding of the seismic response of these interventions is of fundamental importance for assessing the utility of such strengthening techniques when applied to unreinforced stone masonry structures. AM - Accepted Manuscript
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
