The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, and the resulting extensive data sets on damaged buildings that have been collected, provide a unique opportunity to exercise and evaluate previously published seismic performance assessment procedures. This poster provides an overview of the authors’ methodology to perform evaluations with two such assessment procedures, namely the P-58 guidelines and the REDi Rating System. P-58, produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the United States, aims to facilitate risk assessment and decision-making by quantifying earthquake ground shaking, structural demands, component damage and resulting consequences in a logical framework. The REDi framework, developed by the engineering firm ARUP, aids stakeholders in implementing resilience-based earthquake design. Preliminary results from the evaluations are presented. These have the potential to provide insights on the ability of the assessment procedures to predict impacts using “real-world” data. However, further work remains to critically analyse these results and to broaden the scope of buildings studied and of impacts predicted.
1. INTRODUCTION. Earthquakes and geohazards, such as liquefaction, landslides and rock falls, constitute a major risk for New Zealand communities and can have devastating impacts as the Canterbury 2010/2011 experience shows. Development patterns expose communities to an array of natural hazards, including tsunamis, floods, droughts, and sea level rise amongst others. Fostering community resilience is therefore vitally important. As the rhetoric of resilience is mainstreamed into the statutory framework, a major challenge emerges: how can New Zealand operationalize this complex and sometimes contested concept and build ‘community capitals’? This research seeks to provide insights to this question by critically evaluating how community capitals are conceptualized and how they can contribute to community resilience in the context of the Waimakariri District earthquake recovery and regeneration process.
The research presented in this thesis investigated the environmental impacts of structural design decisions across the life of buildings located in seismic regions. In particular, the impacts of expected earthquake damage were incorporated into a traditional life cycle assessment (LCA) using a probabilistic method, and links between sustainable and resilient design were established for a range of case-study buildings designed for different seismic performance objectives. These links were quantified using a metric herein referred to as the seismic carbon risk, which represents the expected environmental impacts and resource use indicators associated with earthquake damage during buildings’ life. The research was broken into three distinct parts: (1) a city-level evaluation of the environmental impacts of demolitions following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand, (2) the development of a probabilistic framework to incorporate earthquake damage into LCA, and (3) using case-study buildings to establish links between sustainable and resilient design. The first phase of the research focused on the environmental impacts of demolitions in Christchurch, New Zealand following the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. This large case study was used to investigate the environmental impact of the demolition of concrete buildings considering the embodied carbon and waste stream distribution. The embodied carbon was considered here as kilograms of CO2 equivalent that occurs on production, construction, and waste management stage. The results clearly demonstrated the significant environmental impacts that can result from moderate and large earthquakes in urban areas, and the importance of including environmental considerations when making post-earthquake demolition decisions. The next phase of the work introduced a framework for incorporating the impacts of expected earthquake damage based on a probabilistic approach into traditional LCA to allow for a comparison of seismic design decisions using a carbon lens. Here, in addition to initial construction impacts, the seismic carbon risk was quantified, including the impacts of seismic repair activities and total loss scenarios assuming reconstruction in case of non-reparability. A process-based LCA was performed to obtain the environmental consequence functions associated with structural and non-structural repair activities for multiple environmental indicators. In the final phase of the work, multiple case-study buildings were used to investigate the seismic consequences of different structural design decisions for buildings in seismic regions. Here, two case-study buildings were designed to multiple performance objectives, and the upfront carbon costs, and well as the seismic carbon risk across the building life were compared. The buildings were evaluated using the framework established in phase 2, and the results demonstrated that the seismic carbon risk can significantly be reduced with only minimal changes to the upfront carbon for buildings designed for a higher base shear or with seismic protective systems. This provided valuable insight into the links between resilient and sustainable design decisions. Finally, the results and observations from the work across the three phases of research described above were used to inform a discussion on important assumptions and topics that need to be considered when quantifying the environmental impacts of earthquake damage on buildings. These include: selection of a non-repairable threshold (e.g. a value beyond which a building would be demolished rather than repaired), the time value of carbon (e.g. when in the building life the carbon is released), the changing carbon intensity of structural materials over time, and the consideration of deterministic vs. probabilistic results. Each of these topics was explored in some detail to provide a clear pathway for future work in this area.
Following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a renewed focus has been directed across New Zealand to the hazard posed by the country‘s earthquake-vulnerable buildings, namely unreinforced masonry (URM) and reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with potentially nonductile components that have historically performed poorly in large earthquakes. The research reported herein was pursued with the intention of addressing several recommendations made by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Inquiry which were classified into the following general categories: Identification and provisional vulnerability assessment of URM and RC buildings and building components; Testing, assessment, and retrofitting of URM walls loaded out-of-plane, with a particular focus on highly vulnerable URM cavity walls; Testing and assessment of RC frame components, especially those with presumably non-ductile reinforcement detailing; Portfolio management considering risks, regulations, and potential costs for a portfolio that includes several potentially earthquake-vulnerable buildings; and Ongoing investigations and proposed research needs. While the findings from the reported research have implications for seismic assessments of buildings across New Zealand and elsewhere, an emphasis was placed on Auckland given this research program‘s partnership with the Auckland Council, the Auckland region accounting for about a third each of the country‘s population and economic production, and the number and variety of buildings within the Auckland building stock. An additional evaluation of a historic building stock was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay, and additional experimental testing was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay and Christchurch.
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research.
