Tomorrow will mark four years since a huge 7.8 magnitude earthquake rocked North Canterbury. As well as severely damaging homes and roads, it left some hill country farms in the area with up to 40 percent of their land unusable. Four years on, sheep and beef farmers are finding new ways to work. Rural reporter, Maja Burry and cameraman Nate McKinnon have the story.
An inquiry into the Earthquake Commission has found it was poorly prepared for the Canterbury earthquakes - and has left people with a "deep mistrust of government" that will take years to overcome. The government has this morning released findings from the inquiry, chaired by Dame Silvia Cartwright. Our Christchurch reporter, Conan Young, has been reading through the details and spoke with Māni Dunlop.
EQC was ill-prepared to deal with the wide spread damage of the Christchurch Earthquakes and as a consequence its reputation been left in tatters with many seeing the commission as uncaring, miserly and inefficient. That is according to the findings of the inquiry into EQC and its handling of quake claims in Canterbury and Kaikōura. Inquiry Chair Dame Silvia Cartwright lays out a raft of inadequacies including EQC not being equiped to handle a mass scale managed repair programme - leading to multiple mistakes, poor staffing decisions and inadequate quality control. Damage assessments were the root of claimants disputes time and time again. Dame Silvia Cartwright described to Checkpoint the way claimants have been treated by EQC.
Field surveys and experimental studies have shown that light steel or timber framed plasterboard partition walls are particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage prompting the overarching objective of this research, which is to further the development of low damage seismic systems for non-structural partition walls in order to facilitate their adoption by industry to assist with reducing the losses associated with the maintenance and repair cost of buildings across their design life. In particular, this study focused on the behaviour of steel-framed partition walls systems with novel detailing that aim to be “low-damage” designed according to common practice for walls used in commercial and institutional buildings in New Zealand. This objective was investigated by (1) investigating the performance of a flexible track system proposed by researchers and industry by experimental testing of full-scale specimens; (2) investigating the performance of the seismic gap partition wall systems proposed in a number of studies, further developed in this study with input from industry, by experimental testing of full-scale specimens; and (3) investigating the potential implications of using these systems compared with traditionally detailed partition wall systems within multi-storey buildings using the Performance Based Earthquake Engineering loss assessment methodology. Three full-scale testing frames were designed in order to replicate, under controlled laboratory conditions, the effects of seismic shaking on partition walls within multi-storey buildings by the application of quasi-static uni-directional cyclic loading imposing an inter-storey drift. The typical configuration for test specimens was selected to be a unique “y-shape”, including one angled return wall, with typical dimensions of approximately 2400 mm along the main wall and 600 mm along (approximately) the returns walls with a height of 2405 mm from floor to ceiling. The specimens were aligned within test frames at an oblique angle to the direction of loading in order to investigate bi- directional effects. Three wall specimens with flexible track detailing, two identical plane specimens and the third including a doorway, were tested. The detailing involved removing top track anchors within the proximity of wall intersections, thus allowing the tracks to ‘bow’ out at these locations. Although the top track anchors were specified to be removed the proximity of wall intersections, a construction error was made whereby a single top track slab to concrete anchor was left in at the three-way wall junction. Despite this error, the experimental testing was deemed worthwhile since such errors will also occur in practice and because the behaviour of the wall can be examined with this fixing in mind. The specimens also included an acoustic/fire sealant at the top lining to floor boundary. In addition to providing drift capacities, the force-displacement behaviour is also reported, the dissipated energy was computed, and the parameters of the Wayne-Stewart hysteretic model were fitted to the results. The specimen with the door opening behaved significantly different to the plane specimens: damage to the doorway specimen began as cracking of the wallboard propagating from the corners of the doorway following which the L- and Y- shaped junctions behaved independently, whereas damage to the plane specimens began as cracking of the wallboard at the top of the L-junction and wall system deformed as a single unit. The results suggest that bi-directional behaviour is important even if its impact cannot be directly quantified by the experiments conducted. Damage to sealant implies that the bond between plasterboard and sealant is important for its seismic performance. Careful quality control is advised as defects in the bond may significantly impact its ability to withstand seismic movement. Two specimens with seismic gap detailing were tested: a steel stud specimen and a timber stud specimen. Observed drift capacities were significantly greater than traditional plasterboard partition systems. Equations were used to predict the drift at which damage state 1 (DS1) and damage state 2 (DS2) would initiate. The equation used to estimate the drift at the onset of DS1 accurately predicted the onset of plaster cracking but overestimated the drift at which the gap filling material was damaged. The equation used to predict the onset of DS2 provided a lower bound for both specimens and also when used to predict results of previous experimental tests on seismic gap systems. The gap-filling material reduced the drift at the onset of DS1, however, it had a beneficial effect on the re-centring behaviour of the linings. Out-of-plane displacements and return wall configuration did not appear to significantly impact the onset of plaster cracking in the specimens. A loss assessment according to the PBEE methodology was conducted on four steel MRF case study buildings: (1) a 4-storey building designed for the Christchurch region, (2) a 4-storey building designed for the Wellington region, (3) a 12-storey building designed for the Christchurch region, and (4) a 12- storey building designed for the Wellington region. The fragility parameters for a traditional partition system, the flexible track partition system, and the seismic gap steel stud and timber stud partition systems were included within the loss assessment. The order (lowest to highest) of each system in terms of the expected annual losses of each building when incorporating the system was, (1) the seismic gap timber stud system, (2) the seismic gap steel stud system, (3) the traditional/baseline system, and (4) the flexible track system. For the seismic gap timber stud system, which incurred the greatest reduction in expected annual losses for each case study building, the reduction in expected annual losses in comparison to the losses found when using the traditional system ranged from a 5% to a 30% reduction. This reinforces the fact that while there is a benefit to the using low damage partition systems in each building the extent of reduction in expected annual losses is significantly dependent on the particular building design and its location. The flexible track specimens had larger repair costs at small hazard levels compared to the traditional system but smaller repair costs at larger hazard levels. However, the resulting expected annual losses for the flexible track system was higher than the traditional system which reinforces findings from past studies which observed that the greatest contribution to expected annual losses arises from low to moderate intensity shaking seismic events (low hazard levels).