This thesis describes the strategies for earthquake strengthening vintage clay bricks unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. URM buildings are well known to be vulnerable to damage from earthquake-induced lateral forces that may result in partial or full building collapse. The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes are the most recent destructive natural disaster that resulted in the deaths of 185 people. The earthquake events had drawn people’s attention when URM failure and collapse caused about 39 of the fatality. Despite the poor performance of URM buildings during the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a number of successful case study buildings were identified and their details research in-depth. In order to discover the successful seismic retrofitting techniques, two case studies of retrofitted historical buildings located in Christchurch, New Zealand i.e. Orion’s URM substations and an iconic Heritage Hotel (aka Old Government Building) was conducted by investigating and evaluating the earthquake performance of the seismic retrofitting technique applied on the buildings prior to the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and their performance after the earthquakes sequence. The second part of the research reported in this thesis was directed with the primary aim of developing a cost-effective seismic retrofitting technique with minimal interference to the vintage clay-bricks URM buildings. Two retrofitting techniques, (i) near-surface mounted steel wire rope (NSM-SWR) with further investigation on URM wallettes to get deeper understanding the URM in-plane behaviour, and (ii) FRP anchor are reported in this research thesis.
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) has been widely studied during the last decades. The influence of the properties of the ground motion, the structure and the soil have been addressed. However, most of the studies in this field consider a stand-alone structure. This assumption is rarely justifiable in dense urban areas where structures are built close to one another. The dynamic interaction between adjacent structures has been studied since the early 1970s, mainly using numerical and analytical models. Even though the early works in this field have significantly contributed to understanding this problem, they commonly consider important simplifications such as assuming a linear behaviour of the structure and the soil. Some experimental works addressing adjacent structures have recently been conducted using geotechnical centrifuges and 1g shake tables. However, further research is needed to enhance the understanding of this complex phenomenon. A particular case of SSI is that of structures founded in fine loose saturated sandy soil. An iconic example was the devastating effects of liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand, during the Canterbury earthquake in 2011. In the case of adjacent structures on liquefiable soil, the experimental evidence is even scarcer. The present work addresses the dynamic interaction between adjacent structures by performing multiple experimental studies. The work starts with two-adjacent structures on a small soil container to expose the basics of the problem. Later, results from tests considering a more significant number of structures on a big laminar box filled with sand are presented. Finally, the response of adjacent structures on saturated sandy soil is addressed using a geotechnical centrifuge and a large 1g shake table. This research shows that the acceleration, lateral displacement, foundation rocking, damping ratio, and fundamental frequency of the structure of focus are considerably affected by the presence of neighbouring buildings. In general, adjacent buildings reduced the dynamic response of the structure of focus on dry sand. However, the acceleration was amplified when the structures had a similar fundamental frequency. In the case of structures on saturated sand, the presence of adjacent structures reduced the liquefaction potential. Neighbouring structures on saturated sand also presented larger rotation of the footing and lateral displacement of the top mass than that of the stand-alone case.
During the 21st century, New Zealand has experienced increasing public concern over the quality of the design and appearance of new developments, and their effects on the urban environment. In response to this, a number of local authorities developed a range of tools to address this issue, including urban design panels to review proposals and provide independent advice. Following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the commitment to achieve high quality urban design within Christchurch was given further importance, with the city facing the unprecedented challenge of rebuilding a ‘vibrant and successful city’.
The rebuild and regeneration reinforced the need for independent design review, putting more focus and emphasis on the role and use of the urban design panel; first through collaboratively assisting applicants in achieving a better design outcome for their development by providing an independent set of eyes on their design; and secondly in assisting Council officers in forming their recommendations on resource consent decisions. However, there is a perception that urban design and the role of the urban design panel is not fully understood, with some stakeholders arguing that Council’s urban design requirements are adding cost and complexity to their developments.
The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding on the role of the Christchurch urban design panel post-earthquake in the central city; its direct and indirect influence on the built environment; and the deficiencies in the broader planning framework and institutional settings that it might be addressing. Ultimately, the perceived role of the Panel is understood, and there is agreement that urban design is having a positive influence on the built environment, albeit viewed differently amongst the varying groups involved. What has become clear throughout this research is that the perceived tension between the development community and urban design well and truly exists, with the urban design panel contributing towards this. This tension is exacerbated further through the cost of urban design to developers, and the drive for financial return from their investments.
The panel, albeit promoting a positive experience, is simply a ‘tick box’ exercise for some, and as the research suggests, groups or professional are determining themselves what constitutes good urban design, based on their attitude, the context in which they sit and the financial constraints to incorporate good design elements. It is perhaps a bleak time for urban design, and more about building homes.
