The city of Christchurch has experienced over 10,000 aftershocks since the 4th of September 2010 earthquake of which approximately 50 have been greater than magnitude 5. The damage caused to URM buildings in Christchurch over this sequence of earthquakes has been well documented. Due to the similarity in age and construction of URM buildings in Adelaide, South Australia and Christchurch (they are sister cities, of similar age and heritage), an investigation was conducted to learn lessons for Adelaide based on the Christchurch experience. To this end, the number of URM buildings in the central business districts of both cities, the extent of seismic strengthening that exists in both cities, and the relative earthquake hazards for both cities were considered. This paper will report on these findings and recommend strategies that the city of Adelaide could consider to significantly reduce the seismic risk posed by URM buildings in future earthquake.
As a result of the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the more damaging 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, considerable damage occurred to a significant number of buildings in Christchurch. The damage that occurred to the Christchurch Roman Catholic Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament (commonly known as the Christchurch Basilica) as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes is reported, and the observed failure modes are identified. A previous strengthening intervention is outlined and the estimated capacity of the building is discussed. This strengthening was completed in 2004, and addressed the worst aspects of the building's seismic vulnerability. Urgent work was undertaken post-earthquake to secure parts of the building in order to limit damage and prevent collapse of unstable parts of the building. The approach taken for this securing is outlined, and the performance of the building and the previously installed earthquake strengthening intervention is evaluated.A key consideration throughout the project was the interaction between the structural securing requirements that were driven by the requirement to limit damage and mitigate hazards, and the heritage considerations. Lessons learnt from the strengthening that was carried out, the securing work undertaken, and the approach taken in making the building "safe" are discussed. Some conclusions are drawn with respect to the effectiveness of strengthening similar building types, and the approach taken to secure the building under active seismic conditions. AM - Accepted Manuscript
