Unreinforced masonry churches in New Zealand, similarly to everywhere else in the word have proven to be highly vulnerable to earthquakes, because of their particular construction features. The Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, 2010-2011 caused an invaluable loss of local architectural heritage and of churches, as regrettably, some of them were demolished instead of being repaired. It is critical for New Zealand to advance the data collection, research and understanding pertaining to the seismic performance and protection of church buildings, with the aim to:
The level of destruction from the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes led to changes in the New Zealand seismic building code. The destruction showed that the NZ building codes did not fully performed to expectation and needed Improvement to ensure that impact of future earthquakes would be minimised. The building codes have been amended to improve buildings resilience to earthquake and other related extreme loading conditions. Rebuilding Christchurch with the new modifications in the seismic building code comes with its own unique challenges to the entire system. This project investigates the impact of rebuilding Christchurch with the new seismic Building codes in terms of how the new changes affected the building industry and the management of construction.
Existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are often composed of traditional construction techniques, with poor connections between walls and diaphragms that results in poor performance when subjected to seismic actions. In these cases the application of the common equivalent static procedure is not applicable because it is not possible to assure “box like” behaviour of the structure. In such conditions the ultimate strength of the structure relies on the behaviour of the macro-elements that compose the deformation mechanisms of the whole structure. These macroelements are a single or combination of structural elements of the structure which are bonded one to each other. The Canterbury earthquake sequence was taken as a reference to estimate the most commonly occurring collapse mechanisms found in New Zealand URM buildings in order to define the most appropriate macroelements.
The lived reality of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes and its implications for the Waimakariri District, a small but rapidly growing district (third tier of government in New Zealand) north of Christchurch, can illustrate how community well-being, community resilience, and community capitals interrelate in practice generating paradoxical results out of what can otherwise be conceived as a textbook ‘best practice’ case of earthquake recovery. The Waimakariri District Council’s integrated community based recovery framework designed and implemented post-earthquakes in the District was built upon strong political, social, and moral capital elements such as: inter-institutional integration and communication, participation, local knowledge, and social justice. This approach enabled very positive community outputs such as artistic community interventions of the urban environment and communal food forests amongst others. Yet, interests responding to broader economic and political processes (continuous central government interventions, insurance and reinsurance processes, changing socio-cultural patterns) produced a significant loss of community capitals (E.g.: social fragmentation, participation exhaustion, economic leakage, etc.) which simultaneously, despite local Council and community efforts, hindered community well-being in the long term. The story of the Waimakariri District helps understand how resilience governance operates in practice where multi-scalar, non-linear, paradoxical, dynamic, and uncertain outcomes appear to be the norm that underpins the construction of equitable, transformative, and sustainable pathways towards the future.
New Zealand has a long tradition of using light timber frame for construction of its domestic dwellings. After the most recent earthquakes (e.g. Canterbury earthquakes sequence), wooden residential houses showed satisfactory life safety performance. However, poor performance was reported in terms of their seismic resilience. Although numerous innovative methods to mitigate damage have been introduced to the New Zealand community in order to improve wooden house performance, these retrofit options have not been readily taken up. The low number of retrofitted wooden-framed houses leads to questions about whether homeowners are aware of the necessity of seismic retrofitting their houses to achieve a satisfactory seismic performance. This study aims to explore different retrofit technologies that can be applied to wooden-framed houses in Wellington, taking into account the need of homeowners to understand the risk, likelihood and extent of damage expected after an event. A survey will be conducted in Wellington about perceptions of homeowners towards the expected performance of their wooden-framed houses. The survey questions were designed to gain an understanding of homeowners' levels of safety and awareness of possible damage after a seismic event. Afterwards, a structural review of a sample of the houses will be undertaken to identify common features and detail potential seismic concerns. The findings will break down barriers to making improvements in the performance of wooden-framed houses and lead to enhancements in the confidence of homeowners in the event of future seismic activity. This will result in increased understanding and contribute towards an accessible knowledge base, which will possibly increase significantly the use of these technologies and avoid unnecessary economic and social costs after a seismic event.
