There is very little research on total house strength that includes contributions of non-structural elements. This testing programme provides inclusive stiffness and response data for five houses of varying ages. These light timber framed houses in Christchurch, New Zealand had minor earthquake damage from the 2011 earthquakes and were lateral load tested on site to determine their strength and/or stiffness, and to identify damage thresholds. Dynamic characteristics including natural periods, which ranged from 0.14 to 0.29s were also investigated. Two houses were quasi-statically loaded up to approximately 130kN above the foundation in one direction. Another unidirectional test was undertaken on a slab-on-grade two-storey house, which was also snapback tested. Two other houses were tested using cyclic quasi-static loading, and between cycles snapback tests were undertaken to identify the natural period of each house, including foundation and damage effects. A more detailed dynamic analysis on one of the houses provided important information on seismic safety levels of post-quake houses with respect to different hazard levels in the Christchurch area. While compared to New Zealand Building Standards all tested houses had an excess of strength, damage is a significant consideration in earthquake resilience and was observed in all of the houses. http://www.aees.org.au/downloads/conference-papers/2015-2/
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.
