Many buildings with relatively low damage from the 2010-2011 Canterbury were deemed uneconomic to repair and were replaced [1,2]. Factors that affected commercial building owners’ decisions to replace rather than repair, included capital availability, uncertainty with regards to regional recovery, local market conditions and ability to generate cash flow, and repair delays due to limited property access (cordon). This poster provides a framework for modeling decision-making in a case where repair is feasible but replacement might offer greater economic value – a situation not currently modeled in engineering risk analysis.
The 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, which involved widespread damage during the February 2011 event and ongoing aftershocks near the Christchurch Central Business District, left this community with more than $NZD 40 billion in losses (~20 % GDP), demolition of approximately 60 % of multi-storey concrete buildings (3 storeys and up), and closure of the core business district for over 2 years. The aftermath of the earthquake sequence has revealed unique issues and complexities for the owners of commercial and multi-storey residential buildings in relation to unexpected technical, legal, and financial challenges when making decisions regarding the future of their buildings impacted by the earthquakes. The paper presents a framework to understand the factors influencing post-earthquake decisions (repair or demolish) on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch. The study, conducted in 2014, includes in-depth investigations on 15 case-study buildings using 27 semi-structured interviews with various property owners, property managers, insurers, engineers, and government authorities in New Zealand. The interviews revealed insights regarding the multitude of factors influencing post-earthquake decisions and losses. As expected, the level of damage and repairability (cost to repair) generally dictated the course of action. There is strong evidence, however, that other variables have significantly influenced the decision on a number of buildings, such as insurance, business strategies, perception of risks, building regulations (and compliance costs), and government decisions. The decision-making process for each building is complex and unique, not solely driven by structural damage. Furthermore, the findings have put the spotlight on insurance policy wordings and the paradoxical effect of insurance on the recovery of Christchurch, leading to other challenges and issues going forward.
On 14 November 2016 a magnitude Mw 7.8 earthquake struck the upper South Island of New Zealand with effects also being observed in the capital city, Wellington. The affected area has low population density but is the largest wine production region in New Zealand and also hosts the main national highway and railway routes connecting the country’s three largest cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with Marlborough Port in Picton providing connection between the South and North Islands. These transport facilities sustained substantial earthquake related damage, causing major disruptions. Thousands of landslides and multiple new faults were counted in the area. The winery facilities and a large number of commercial buildings and building components (including brick masonry veneers, historic masonry construction, and chimneys), sustained damage due to the strong vertical and horizontal acceleration. Presented herein are field observations undertaken the day immediately after the earthquake, with the aim to document earthquake damage and assess access to the affected area.
The latest two great earthquake sequences; 2010- 2011 Canterbury Earthquake and 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake, necessitate a better understanding of the New Zealand seismic hazard condition for new building design and detailed assessment of existing buildings. It is important to note, however, that the New Zealand seismic hazard map in NZS 1170.5.2004 is generalised in effort to cover all of New Zealand and limited to a earthquake database prior to 2001. This is “common” that site-specific studies typically provide spectral accelerations different to those shown on the national map (Z values in NZS 1170.5:2004); and sometimes even lower. Moreover, Section 5.2 of Module 1 of the Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Practice series provide the guidelines to perform site- specific studies.
