Millions of urban residents around the world in the coming century will experience severe landscape change – including increased frequencies of flooding due to intensifying storm events and impacts from sea level rise. For cities, collisions of environmental change with mismatched cultural systems present a major threat to infrastructure systems that support urban living. Landscape architects who address these issues express a need to realign infrastructure with underlying natural systems, criticizing the lack of social and environmental considerations in engineering works. Our ability to manage both society and the landscapes we live in to better adapt to unpredictable events and landscape changes is essential if we are to sustain the health and safety of our families, neighbourhoods, and wider community networks.
When extreme events like earthquakes or flooding occur in developed areas, the feasibility of returning the land to pre-disturbance use can be questioned. In Christchurch for example, a large expanse of land (630 hectares) within the city was severely damaged by the earthquakes and judged too impractical to repair in the short term. The central government now owns the land and is currently in the process of demolishing the mostly residential houses that formed the predominant land use. Furthermore, cascading impacts from the earthquakes have resulted in a general land subsidence of .5m over much of eastern Christchurch, causing disruptive and damaging flooding. Yet, although disasters can cause severe social and environmental distress, they also hold great potential as a catalyst to increasing adaption. But how might landscape architecture be better positioned to respond to the potential for transformation after disaster?
This research asks two core questions: what roles can the discipline of landscape architecture play in improving the resilience of communities so they become more able to adapt to change? And what imaginative concepts could be designed for alternative forms of residential development that better empower residents to understand and adapt the infrastructure that supports them?
Through design-directed inquiry, the research found landscape architecture theory to be well positioned to contribute to goals of social-ecological systems resilience. The discipline of landscape architecture could become influential in resilience-oriented multi disciplinary collaborations, with our particular strengths lying in six key areas: the integration of ecological and social processes, improving social capital, engaging with temporality, design-led innovation potential, increasing diversity and our ability to work across multiple scales. Furthermore, several innovative ideas were developed, through a site-based design exploration located within the residential red zone, that attempt to challenge conventional modes of urban living – concepts such as time-based land use, understanding roads as urban waterways, and landscape design and management strategies that increase community participation and awareness of the temporality in landscapes.
Seismically vulnerable buildings constitute a major problem for the safety of human beings. In many parts of the world, reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings designed and constructed with substandard detailing, no consideration of capacity design principles, and improper or no inclusion of the seismic actions, have been identified. Amongst those vulnerable building, one particular typology representative of the construction practice of the years previous to the 1970’s, that most likely represents the worst case scenario, has been widely investigated in the past. The deficiencies of that building typology are related to non-ductile detailing in beam column joints such as the use of plain round bars, the lack of stirrups inside the joint around the longitudinal reinforcement of the column, the use of 180° end hooks in the beams, the use of lap splices in potential ‘plastic hinge’ regions, and substandard quality of the materials. That type of detailing and the lack of a capacity design philosophy create a very fragile fuse in the structure where brittle inelastic behaviour is expected to occur, which is the panel zone region of exterior beam column joints. The non-ductile typology described above was extensively investigated at the University of Canterbury in the context of the project ‘Retrofit Solutions for New Zealand Multi-Storey Buildings’ (2004-2011), founded by the ‘Foundation for Research, Science and Technology’ Tūāpapa Rangahau Pūtaiao. The experimental campaign prior to the research carried out by the author consisted of quasi-static tests of beam column joint subassemblies subjected to lateral loading regime, with constant and varying axial load in the column. Most of those specimens were representative of a plane 2D frame (knee joint), while others represented a portion of a space 3D frame (corner joints), and only few of them had a floor slab, transverse beams, and lap splices. Using those experiments, several feasible, cost-effective, and non-invasive retrofit techniques were developed, improved, and refined. Nevertheless, the slow motion nature of those experiments did not take into account the dynamical component inherent to earthquake related problems. Amongst the set of techniques investigated, the use of FRP layers for strengthening beam column joints is of particular interest due to its versatility and the momentum that its use has gained in the current state of the practice. That particular retrofit technique was previously used to develop a strengthening scheme suitable for plane 2D and space 3D corner beam column joints, but lacking of floor slabs. In addition, a similar scheme was not developed for exterior joints of internal frames, referred here as ‘cruciform’. In this research a 2/5 scale RC frame model building comprising of two frames in parallel (external and internal) joined together by means of floor slabs and transverse beams, with non-ductile characteristics identical to those of the specimens investigated previously by others, and also including lap splices, was developed. In order to investigate the dynamic response of that building, a series of shake table tests with different ground motions were performed. After the first series of tests, the specimen was modified by connecting the spliced reinforcement in the columns in order to capture a different failure mode. Ground motions recorded during seismic events that occurred during the initial period of the experimental campaign (2010) were used in the subsequent experiments. The hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events in the panel zone region were evaluated in an extended version of the bending moment-axial load (M-N) performance domain developed by others. That extension was required due to the asymmetry in the beam cross section introduced by the floor slab. In addition, the effect of the torsion resistance provided by the spandrel (transverse beam) was included. In order to upgrade the brittle and unstable performance of the as-built/repaired specimen, a practical and suitable ad-hoc FRP retrofit intervention was developed, following a partial retrofit strategy that aimed to strengthen exterior beam column joints only (corner and cruciform). The ability of the new FRP scheme to revert the sequence of events in the panel zone region was evaluated using the extended version of the M-N performance domain as well as the guidelines for strengthening plane joints developed by others. Weakening of the floor slab in a novel configuration was also incorporated with the purpose of reducing the flexural capacity of the beam under negative bending moment (slab in tension), enabling the damage relocation from the joint into the beam. The efficacy of the developed retrofit intervention in upgrading the seismic performance of the as-built specimen was investigated using shake table tests with the input motions used in the experiments of the as-built/repaired specimen. Numerical work aimed to predict the response of the model building during the most relevant shake table tests was carried out. By using a simple numerical model with concentrated plasticity elements constructed in Ruaumoko2D, the results of blind and post-experimental predictions of the response of the specimen were addressed. Differences in the predicted response of the building using the nominal and the actual recorded motions of the shake table were investigated. The dependence of the accuracy of the numerical predictions on the assumed values of the parameters that control the hysteresis rules of key structural members was reviewed. During the execution of the experimental campaign part of this thesis, two major earthquakes affected the central part of Chile (27 of February 2010 Maule earthquake) and the Canterbury region in New Zealand (22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquake), respectively. As the author had the opportunity to experience those events and investigate their consequences in structures, the observations related to non-ductile detailing and drawbacks in the state of the practice related to reinforced concrete walls was also addressed in this research, resulting in preliminary recommendations for the refinement of current seismic code provisions and assessment guidelines. The investigations of the ground motions recorded during those and other earthquakes were used to review the procedures related to the input motions used for nonlinear dynamic analysis of buildings as required by most of the current code provisions. Inelastic displacement spectra were constructed using ground motions recorded during the earthquakes mentioned above, in order to investigate the adequacy of modification factors used to obtain reduced design spectra from elastic counterparts. Finally a simplified assessment procedure for RC walls that incorporates capacity compatible spectral demands is proposed.
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
