New Zealand's devastating Canterbury earthquakes provided an opportunity to examine the efficacy of existing regulations and policies relevant to seismic strengthening of vulnerable buildings. The mixed-methods approach adopted, comprising both qualitative and quantitative approaches, revealed that some of the provisions in these regulations pose as constraints to appropriate strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. Those provisions include the current seismic design philosophy, lack of mandatory disclosure of seismic risks and ineffective timeframes for strengthening vulnerable buildings. Recommendations arising from these research findings and implications for pre-disaster mitigation for future earthquake and Canterbury's post-disaster reconstruction suggest: (1) a reappraisal of the requirements for earthquake engineering design and construction, (2) a review and realignment of all regulatory frameworks relevant to earthquake risk mitigation, and (3) the need to develop a national programme necessary to achieve consistent mitigation efforts across the country. These recommendations are important in order to present a robust framework where New Zealand communities such as Christchurch can gradually recover after a major earthquake disaster, while planning for pre-disaster mitigation against future earthquakes. AM - Accepted Manuscript
Whole document is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland until Feb. 2014. The increasing scale of losses from earthquake disasters has reinforced the need for property owners to become proactive in seismic risk reduction programs. However, despite advancement in seismic design methods and legislative frameworks, building owners are often reluctant to adopt mitigation measures required to reduce earthquake losses. The magnitude of building collapses from the recent Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand shows that owners of earthquake prone buildings (EPBs) are not adopting appropriate risk mitigation measures in their buildings. Owners of EPBs are found unwilling or lack motivation to adopt adequate mitigation measures that will reduce their vulnerability to seismic risks. This research investigates how to increase the likelihood of building owners undertaking appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce their vulnerability to earthquake disaster. A sequential two-phase mixed methods approach was adopted for the research investigation. Multiple case studies approach was adopted in the first qualitative phase, followed by the second quantitative research phase that includes the development and testing of a framework. The research findings reveal four categories of critical obstacles to building owners‘ decision to adopt earthquake loss prevention measures. These obstacles include perception, sociological, economic and institutional impediments. Intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are proposed as incentives for overcoming these barriers. The intrinsic motivators include using information communication networks such as mass media, policy entrepreneurs and community engagement in risk mitigation. Extrinsic motivators comprise the use of four groups of incentives namely; financial, regulatory, technological and property market incentives. These intrinsic and extrinsic interventions are essential for enhancing property owners‘ decisions to voluntarily adopt appropriate earthquake mitigation measures. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations that earthquake risk mitigation managers, city councils and stakeholders involved in risk mitigation in New Zealand and other seismic risk vulnerable countries could consider in earthquake risk management. Local authorities could adopt the framework developed in this study to demonstrate a combination of incentives and motivators that yield best-valued outcomes. Consequently, actions can be more specific and outcomes more effective. The implementation of these recommendations could offer greater reasons for the stakeholders and public to invest in building New Zealand‘s built environment resilience to earthquake disasters.
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/
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
Territorial authorities in New Zealand are responding to regulatory and market forces in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to assess and retrofit buildings determined to be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Pending legislation may shorten the permissible timeframes on such seismic improvement programmes, but Auckland Council’s Property Department is already engaging in a proactive effort to assess its portfolio of approximately 3500 buildings, prioritise these assets for retrofit, and forecast construction costs for improvements. Within the programme structure, the following varied and often competing factors must be accommodated: * The council’s legal, fiscal, and ethical obligations to the people of Auckland per building regulations, health and safety protocols, and economic growth and urban development planning strategies; * The council’s functional priorities for service delivery; * Varied and numerous stakeholders across the largest territorial region in New Zealand in both population and landmass; * Heritage preservation and community and cultural values; and * Auckland’s prominent economic role in New Zealand’s economy which requires Auckland’s continued economic production post-disaster. Identifying those buildings most at risk to an earthquake in such a large and varied portfolio has warranted a rapid field assessment programme supplemented by strategically chosen detailed assessments. Furthermore, Auckland Council will benefit greatly in time and resources by choosing retrofit solutions, techniques, and technologies applicable to a large number of buildings with similar configurations and materials. From a research perspective, the number and variety of buildings within the council’s property portfolio will provide valuable data for risk modellers on building typologies in Auckland, which are expected to be fairly representative of the New Zealand building stock as a whole.
