The man who heads California's earthquake insurance agency says Christchurch is much better placed to recover from earthquake devastation than his state.
Infrastructure damage in Lyttelton.
Rock falls in redcliffs.
Rock falls in redcliffs.
Rock falls in redcliffs.
New Bridge in Ferrymead.
Infrastructure damage in Lyttelton.
Damaged footpath in Lyttelton.
Infrastructure damage in Lyttelton.
Infrastructure damage in Lyttelton.
Collapse of Shag Rock.
Infrastructure damage in Lyttelton.
A truck dumps rubbish.
Liquefaction flooding in Travis Country.
Earthquake rubbish dump at Bottlelake Forest.
Earthquake rubbish dump at Bottlelake Forest.
Erosion scarp along North New Brighton Beach.
Damaged road around the Avon-Heathcote Estuary.
Erosion scarp along North New Brighton Beach.
Container wall protecting road from rock falls.
Erosion scarp along North New Brighton Beach.
Damaged road around the Avon-Heathcote Estuary.
Container wall protecting road from rock falls.
Container wall protecting road from rock falls.
Container wall protecting road from rock falls.
Damaged road around the Avon-Heathcote Estuary.
Erosion scarp along North New Brighton Beach.
Old damaged bridge in Ferrymead next to the new one.
This paper describes pounding damage sustained by buildings and bridges in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Approximately 6% of buildings in Christchurch CBD were observed to have suffered some form of serious pounding damage. Almost all of this pounding damage occurred in masonry buildings, further highlighting their vulnerability to this phenomenon. Modern buildings were found to be vulnerable to pounding damage where overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components were installed in existing building separations. Soil variability is identified as a key aspect that amplifies the relative movement of buildings, and hence increases the likelihood of pounding damage. Pounding damage in bridges was found to be relatively minor and infrequent in the Christchurch earthquake.
In order to provide information related to seismic vulnerability of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, and as a complementary investigation on innovative feasible retrofit solutions developed in the past six years at the University of Canterbury on pre-19170 reinforced concrete buildings, a frame building representative of older construction practice was tested on the shake table. The specimen, 1/2.5 scale, consists of two 3-storey 2-bay asymmetric frames in parallel, one interior and one exterior, jointed together by transverse beams and floor slabs. The as-built (benchmark) specimen was first tested under increasing ground motion amplitudes using records from Loma Prieta Earthquake (California, 1989) and suffered significant damage at the upper floor, most of it due to lap splices failure. As a consequence, in a second stage, the specimen was repaired and modified by removing the concrete in the lap splice region, welding the column longitudinal bars, replacing the removed concrete with structural mortar, and injecting cracks with epoxy resin. The modified as-built specimen was then tested using data recorded during Darfield (New Zealand, 2010) and Maule (Chile, 2010) Earthquakes, with whom the specimen showed remarkably different responses attributed to the main variation in frequency content and duration. In this contribution, the seismic performance of the three series of experiments are presented and compared.