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.
This is an interim report from the research study performed within the NHRP Research Project “Impacts of soil liquefaction on land, buildings and buried pipe networks: geotechnical evaluation and design, Project 3: Seismic assessment and design of pipe networks in liquefiable soils”. The work presented herein is a continuation of the comprehensive study on the impacts of Christchurch earthquakes on the buried pipe networks presented in Cubrinovski et al. (2011). This report summarises the performance of Christchurch City’s potable water, waste water and road networks through the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES), and particularly focuses on the potable water network. It combines evidence based on comprehensive and well-documented data on the damage to the water network, detailed observations and interpretation of liquefaction-induced land damage, records and interpretations of ground motion characteristics induced by the Canterbury earthquakes, for a network analysis and pipeline performance evaluation using a GIS platform. The study addresses a range of issues relevant in the assessment of buried networks in areas affected by strong earthquakes and soil liquefaction. It discusses performance of different pipe materials (modern flexible pipelines and older brittle pipelines) including effects of pipe diameters, fittings and pipeline components/details, trench backfill characteristics, and severity of liquefaction. Detailed breakdown of key factors contributing to the damage to buried pipes is given with reference to the above and other relevant parameters. Particular attention is given to the interpretation, analysis and modelling of liquefaction effects on the damage and performance of the buried pipe networks. Clear link between liquefaction severity and damage rate for the pipeline has been observed with an increasing damage rate seen with increasing liquefaction severity. The approach taken here was to correlate the pipeline damage to LRI (Liquefaction Resistance Index, newly developed parameter in Cubrinovski et al., 2011) which represents a direct measure for the soil resistance to liquefaction while accounting for the seismic demand through PGA. Key quality of the adopted approach is that it provides a general methodology that in conjunction with conventional methods for liquefaction evaluation can be applied elsewhere in New Zealand and internationally. Preliminary correlations between pipeline damage (breaks km-1), liquefaction resistance (LRI) and seismic demand (PGA) have been developed for AC pipes, as an example. Such correlations can be directly used in the design and assessment of pipes in seismic areas both in liquefiable and non-liquefiable areas. Preliminary findings on the key factors for the damage to the potable water pipe network and established empirical correlations are presented including an overview of the damage to the waste water and road networks but with substantially less detail. A comprehensive summary of the damage data on the buried pipelines is given in a series of appendices.
Mr Wayne Tobeck, Director of Southrim Group (SRG), sponsored this 2013 MEM Project titled; A Technical and Economic Feasibility Study for the Integration of GSHP Technology in the Christchurch Rebuild. Following the recent Christchurch earthquakes, a significant amount of land has become too unstable to support traditional building foundations. This creates an opportunity to implement new and unique foundation designs previously unconsidered due to high costs compared to traditional methods. One such design proposes that an Injection Micro-Piling technique could be used. This can also be coupled with HVAC technology to create a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) arrangement in both new buildings and as retrofits for building requiring foundation repair. The purpose of this study was to complete a feasibility study on the merits of SRG pursuing this proposed product. A significant market for such a product was found to exist, while the product was also found to be technically and legally feasible. However, the proposed product was found to not be economically feasible with respect to Air Source Heat Pumps due to the significantly higher capital and installation costs required. Further analysis suggests GSHPs may become more economically attractive in operating temperatures lower than -9oC, though the existence of markets with this climate in NZ has not been studied. It is therefore suggested that SRG do not proceed with plans to develop a GSHP coupled foundation solution for the Christchurch rebuild.
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.
