A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
The paper presents preliminary findings from comprehensive research studies on the liquefaction-induced damage to buildings and infrastructure in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. It identifies key factors and mechanisms of damage to road bridges, shallow foundations of CBD buildings and buried pipelines, and highlights the implications of the findings for the seismic analysis and design of these structures.
© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. Prediction of building collapse due to significant seismic motion is a principle objective of earthquake engineers, particularly after a major seismic event when the structure is damaged and decisions may need to be made rapidly concerning the safe occupation of a building or surrounding areas. Traditional model-based pushover analyses are effective, but only if the structural properties are well understood, which is not the case after an event when that information is most useful. This paper combines hysteresis loop analysis (HLA) structural health monitoring (SHM) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) methods to identify and then analyse collapse capacity and the probability of collapse for a specific structure, at any time, a range of earthquake excitations to ensure robustness. This nonlinear dynamic analysis enables constant updating of building performance predictions following a given and subsequent earthquake events, which can result in difficult to identify deterioration of structural components and their resulting capacity, all of which is far more difficult using static pushover analysis. The combined methods and analysis provide near real-time updating of the collapse fragility curves as events progress, thus quantifying the change of collapse probability or seismic induced losses very soon after an earthquake for decision-making. Thus, this combination of methods enables a novel, higher-resolution analysis of risk that was not previously available. The methods are not computationally expensive and there is no requirement for a validated numerical model, thus providing a relatively simpler means of assessing collapse probability immediately post-event when such speed can provide better information for critical decision-making. Finally, the results also show a clear need to extend the area of SHM toward creating improved predictive models for analysis of subsequent events, where the Christchurch series of 2010–2011 had significant post-event aftershocks.
Recurrent liquefaction in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence created a wealth of shallow subsurface intrusions with geometries and orientations governed by (1) strong ground motion severity and duration, and (2) intrinsic site characteristics including liquefaction susceptibility, lateral spreading severity, geomorphic setting, host sediment heterogeneity, and anthropogenic soil modifications. We present a suite of case studies that demonstrate how each of these characteristics influenced the geologic expressions of contemporary liquefaction in the shallow subsurface. We compare contemporary features with paleo-features to show how geologic investigations of recurrent liquefaction can provide novel insights into the shaking characteristics of modern and paleo-earthquakes, the influence of geomorphology on liquefaction vulnerability, and the possible controls of anthropogenic activity on the geologic record. We conclude that (a) sites of paleo-liquefaction in the last 1000-2000 years corresponded with most severe liquefaction during the Canterbury earthquake sequence, (b) less vulnerable sites that only liquefied in the strongest and most proximal contemporary earthquakes are unlikely to have liquefied in the last 1000-2000 years or more, (c) proximal strong earthquakes with large vertical accelerations favoured sill formation at some locations, (d) contemporary liquefaction was more severe than paleoliquefaction at all study sites, and (e) stratigraphic records of successive dike formation were more complete at sites with severe lateral spreading, (f) anthropogenic fill suppressed surface liquefaction features and altered subsurface liquefaction architecture.
A wide range of reinforced concrete (RC) wall performance was observed following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, with most walls performing as expected, but some exhibiting undesirable and unexpected damage and failure characteristics. A comprehensive research programme, funded by the Building Performance Branch of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and involving both numerical and experimental studies, was developed to investigate the unexpected damage observed in the earthquakes and provide recommendations for the design and assessment procedures for RC walls. In particular, the studies focused on the performance of lightly reinforced walls; precast walls and connections; ductile walls; walls subjected to bi-directional loading; and walls prone to out-of-plane instability. This paper summarises each research programme and provides practical recommendations for the design and assessment of RC walls based on key findings, including recommended changes to NZS 3101 and the NZ Seismic Assessment Guidelines.
None
None
A photograph of a resource room in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a staff room in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a toppled bookcase in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering and the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
This paper discusses the seismic performance of the standard RC office building in Christchurch that is given as a structural design example in NZS3101, the concrete structures seismic standard in New Zealand. Firstly the push-over analysis was carried out to evaluate the lateral load carrying capacity of the RC building and then to compare that carrying capacity with the Japanese standard law. The estimated figures showed that the carrying capacity of the New Zealand standard RC office building of NZS3101:2006 was about one third of Japanese demanded carrying capacity. Secondly, time history analysis of the multi-mass system was performed to estimate the maximum response story drift angle using recorded ground motions. Finally, a three-dimensional analysis was carried out to estimate the response of the building to the 22nd February, 2011 Canterbury earthquake. The following outcomes were obtained. 1) The fundamental period of the example RC building is more than twice that of Japanese simplified calculation, 2) The example building’s maximum storey drift angle reached 2.5% under the recorded ground motions. The main purpose of this work is to provide background information of seismic design practice for the reconstruction of Christchurch.
The objective of this project is to collect perishable seismic response data from the baseisolated Christchurch Women's Hospital. The strong and continuing sequence of aftershocks presents a unique opportunity to capture high-fidelity data from a modern base-isolated facility. These measurements will provide quantitative information required to assess the mechanisms at play in this and in many other seismically-isolated structures.
The performance of conventionally designed reinforced concrete (RC) structures during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake has demonstrated that there is greater uncertainty in the seismic performance of RC components than previously understood. RC frame and wall structures in the Christchurch central business district were observed to form undesirable cracks patterns in the plastic hinge region while yield penetration either side of cracks, and into development zones, were less than theoretical predictions. The implications of this unexpected behaviour: (i) significantly less available ductility; (ii) less hysteretic energy dissipation; and (iii) the localization of peak reinforcement strains, results in considerable doubt for the residual capacity of RC structures. The significance of these consequences has prompted a review of potential sources of uncertainty in seismic experimentation with the intention to improve the current confidence level for newly designed conventional RC structures. This paper attempts to revisit the principles of RC mechanics, in particular, to consider the influence of loading history, concrete tensile strength, and reinforcement ratio on the performance of ‘real’ RC structures compared to experimental test specimens.
Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, lightly reinforced wall structures in the Christchurch central business district were observed to form undesirable crack patterns in the plastic hinge region, while yield penetration either side of cracks and into development zones was less than predicted using empirical expressions. To some extent this structural behaviour was unexpected and has therefore demonstrated that there may be less confidence in the seismic performance of conventionally designed reinforced concrete (RC) structures than previously anticipated. This paper provides an observation-based comparison between the behaviour of RC structural components in laboratory testing and the unexpected structural behaviour of some case study buildings in Christchurch that formed concentrated inelastic deformations. The unexpected behaviour and poor overall seismic performance of ‘real’ buildings (compared to the behaviour of laboratory test specimens) was due to the localization of peak inelastic strains, which in some cases has arguably led to: (i) significantly less ductility capacity; (ii) less hysteretic energy dissipation; and (iii) the fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement. These observations have raised concerns about whether lightly reinforced wall structures can satisfy the performance objective of “Life Safety” at the Ultimate Limit State. The significance of these issues and potential consequences has prompted a review of potential problems with the testing conditions and procedures that are commonly used in seismic experimentations on RC structures. This paper attempts to revisit the principles of RC mechanics, in particular, the influence of loading history, concrete tensile strength, and the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement on the performance of real RC structures. Consideration of these issues in future research on the seismic performance of RC might improve the current confidence levels in newly designed conventional RC structures.