Unreinforced masonry churches in New Zealand, similarly to everywhere else in the word have proven to be highly vulnerable to earthquakes, because of their particular construction features. The Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, 2010-2011 caused an invaluable loss of local architectural heritage and of churches, as regrettably, some of them were demolished instead of being repaired. It is critical for New Zealand to advance the data collection, research and understanding pertaining to the seismic performance and protection of church buildings, with the aim to:
Existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are often composed of traditional construction techniques, with poor connections between walls and diaphragms that results in poor performance when subjected to seismic actions. In these cases the application of the common equivalent static procedure is not applicable because it is not possible to assure “box like” behaviour of the structure. In such conditions the ultimate strength of the structure relies on the behaviour of the macro-elements that compose the deformation mechanisms of the whole structure. These macroelements are a single or combination of structural elements of the structure which are bonded one to each other. The Canterbury earthquake sequence was taken as a reference to estimate the most commonly occurring collapse mechanisms found in New Zealand URM buildings in order to define the most appropriate macroelements.
Case study unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings that were seismically retrofitted prior to the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquake sequence and exhibited successful performance during these earthquakes are presented herein. Selected buildings were divided into the following categories based on size and complexity: (1) simple, single storey box type buildings (i.e. electrical substations), (2) common and simple commercial buildings, and (3) large and complex clay brick and stone URM buildings. The retrofitted case study URM buildings were evaluated based on overall structural seismic performance as well as the categories of initial seismic design, heritage preservation, architectural appeal, and cost. Detailed observations of 4 representative case study buildings and a summary of findings are reported herein. http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2017/Orals.htm
