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.
This paper presents preliminary results of an experimental campaign on three beam-column joint subassemblies extracted from a 22-storey reinforced concrete frame building constructed in late 1980s at the Christchurch’s Central Business District (CBD) area, damaged and demolished after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes sequence (CES). The building was designed following capacity design principles. Column sway (i.e., soft storey) mechanisms were avoided, and the beams were provided with plastic hinge relocation details at both beam-ends, aiming at developing plastic hinges away from the column faces. The specimens were tested under quasi-static cyclic displacement controlled lateral loading. One of the specimens, showing no visible residual cracks was cyclically tested in its as-is condition. The other two specimens which showed residual cracks varying between hairline and 1.0mm in width, were subjected to cyclic loading to simulate cracking patterns consistent with what can be considered moderate damage. The cracked specimens were then repaired with an epoxy injection technique and subsequently retested until reaching failure. The epoxy injection techniques demonstrated to be quite efficient in partly, although not fully, restoring the energy dissipation capacities of the damaged specimens at all beam rotation levels. The stiffness was partly restored within the elastic range and almost fully restored after the onset of nonlinear behaviour.
During the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill (RCFMI) buildings were subjected to significant lateral loads. A survey conducted by Christchurch City Council (CCC) and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) documented 10,777 damaged buildings, which included building characteristics (building address, the number of storeys, the year of construction, and building use) and post-earthquake damage observations (building safety information, observed damage, level of damage, and current state of the buildings). This data was merged into the Canterbury Earthquake Building Assessment (CEBA) database and was utilised to generate empirical fragility curves using the lognormal distribution method. The proposed fragility curves were expected to provide a reliable estimation of the mean vulnerability for commercial RCFMI buildings in the region. http://www.13thcms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Symposium-Info-and-Presentation-Schedule.pdf VoR - Version of Record
Capacity design and hierarchy of strength philosophies at the base of modern seismic codes allow inelastic response in case of severe earthquakes and thus, in most traditional systems, damage develops at well-defined locations of reinforced concrete (RC) structures, known as plastic hinges. The 2010 and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes have demonstrated that this philosophy worked as expected. Plastic hinges formed in beams, in coupling beams and at the base of columns and walls. Structures were damaged permanently, but did not collapse. The 2010 and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes also highlighted a critical issue: the reparability of damaged buildings. No methodologies or techniques were available to estimate the level of subsequent earthquakes that RC buildings could still sustain before collapse. No repair techniques capable of restoring the initial condition of buildings were known. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of an eventual repair intervention, when compared with a new building, was unknown. These aspects, added to nuances of New Zealand building owners’ insurance coverage, encouraged the demolition of many buildings. Moreover, there was a perceived strong demand from government and industry to develop techniques for assessing damage to steel reinforcement bars embedded in cracked structural concrete elements. The most common questions were: “Have the steel bars been damaged in correspondence to the concrete cracks?”, “How much plastic deformation have the steel bars undergone?”, and “What is the residual strain capacity of the damaged bars?” Minimally invasive techniques capable of quantifying the level and extent of plastic deformation and residual strain capacity are not yet available. Although some studies had been recently conducted, a validated method is yet to be widely accepted. In this thesis, a least-invasive method for the damage-assessment of steel reinforcement is developed. Based on the information obtained from hardness testing and a single tensile test, it is possible to estimate the mechanical properties of earthquake-damaged rebars. The reduction in the low-cycle fatigue life due to strain ageing is also quantified. The proposed damage assessment methodology is based on empirical relationships between hardness and strain and residual strain capacity. If damage is suspected from in situ measurements, visual inspection or computer analysis, a bar may be removed and more accurate hardness measurements can be obtained using the lab-based Vickers hardness methodology. The Vickers hardness profile of damaged bars is then compared with calibration curves (Vickers hardness versus strain and residual strain capacity) previously developed for similar steel reinforcement bars extracted from undamaged locations. Experimental tests demonstrated that the time- and temperature-dependent strain-ageing phenomenon causes changes in the mechanical properties of plastically deformed steels. In particular, yield strength and hardness increases, whereas ductility decreases. The changes in mechanical properties are quantified and their implications on the hardness method are highlighted. Low-cycle fatigue (LCF) failures of steel reinforcing bars have been observed in laboratory testing and post-earthquake damage inspections. Often, failure might not occur during a first seismic event. However, damage is accumulated and the remaining fatigue life is reduced. Failure might therefore occur in a subsequent seismic event. Although numerous studies exist on the LCF behaviour of steel rebars, no studies had been conducted on the strain-ageing effects on the remaining fatigue life. In this thesis, the reduction in fatigue life due to this phenomenon is determined through a number of experimental tests.
This section considers forms of collaboration in situated and community projects embedded in important spatial transformation processes in New Zealand cities. It aims to shed light on specific combinations of material and semantic aspects characterising the relation between people and their environment. Contributions focus on participative urban transformations. The essays that follow concentrate on the dynamics of territorial production of associations between multiple actors belonging both to civil society and constituted authority. Their authors were directly engaged in the processes that are reported and conceptualised, thereby offering evidence gained through direct hands-on experience. Some of the investigations use case studies that are conspicuous examples of the recent post-traumatic urban development stemming from the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010-2011. More precisely, these cases belong to the early phases of the programmes of the Christchurch recovery or the Wellington seismic prevention. The relevance of these experiences for the scope of this study lies in the unprecedented height of public engagement at local, national and international levels, a commitment reached also due to the high impact, both emotional and concrete, that affected the entire society.
Earthquakes are insured only with public sector involvement in high-income countries where the risk of earthquakes is perceived to be high. The proto-typical examples of this public sector involvement are the public earthquake insurance schemes in California, Japan, and New Zealand (NZ). Each of these insurance programs is structured differently, and the purpose of this paper is to examine these differences using a concrete case-study, the sequence of earthquakes that occurred in the Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2011. This event turned out to have been the most heavily insured earthquake event in history. We examine what would have been the outcome of the earthquakes had the system of insurance in NZ been different. In particular, we focus on the public earthquake insurance programs in California (the California Earthquake Authority - CEA), and in Japan (Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance - JER). Overall, the aggregate cost to the public insurer in NZ was $NZ 11.1 billion in its response to the earthquakes. If a similar-sized disaster event had occurred in Japan and California, homeowners would have received $NZ 2.5 billion and $NZ 1.4 billion from the JER and CEA, respectively. We further describe the spatial and distributive patterns of these different scenarios.
This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
