An as-built reinforced concrete (RC) frame building designed and constructed according to pre-1970s code design construction practice has been recently tested on the shake table at the University of Canterbury. The specimen, 1/2.5 scaled version of the original prototype, consists of two 3-storey 2-bay asymmetric frames in parallel, one interior and one exterior, jointed together by transverse beams and floor slabs. Following the benchmark test, a retrofit intervention has been proposed to rehabilitate the tested specimen. In this paper, detailed information on the assessment and design of the seismic retrofit procedure using GFRP (glass fibre reinforced polymer) materials is given for the whole frame. Hierarchy of strength and sequence of events (damage mechanisms) in the panel zone region are evaluated using a moment-axial load (M-N) interaction performance domain, according to a performance-based retrofit philosophy. Specific limit states or design objectives are targeted with attention given to both strength and deformation limits. In addition, an innovative retrofit solution using FRP anchor dowels for the corner beam-column joints with slabs is proposed. Finally, in order to provide a practical tool for engineering practice, the retrofit procedure is provided in a step-by step flowchart fashion.
The sequence of earthquakes that has greatly affected Christchurch and Canterbury since September 2010 has again demonstrated the need for seismic retrofit of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. Commencing in April 2011, the damage to unreinforced stone masonry buildings in Christchurch was assessed and recorded with the primary objective being to document the seismic performance of these structures, recognising that they constitute an important component of New Zealand’s heritage architecture. A damage statistics database was compiled by combining the results of safety evaluation placarding and post-earthquake inspections, and it was determined that the damage observed was consistent with observations previously made on the seismic performance of stone masonry structures in large earthquakes. Details are also given on typical building characteristics and on failure modes observed. Suggestions on appropriate seismic retrofit and remediation techniques are presented, in relation also to strengthening interventions that are typical for similar unreinforced stone masonry structures in Europe.
In the early morning of 4th September 2010 the region of Canterbury, New Zealand, was subjected to a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. The epicentre was located near the town of Darfield, 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. This was the country’s most damaging earthquake since the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake (GeoNet, 2010). Since 4th September 2010 the region has been subjected to thousands of aftershocks, including several more damaging events such as a magnitude 6.3 aftershock on 22nd February 2011. Although of a smaller magnitude, the earthquake on 22nd February produced peak ground accelerations in the Christchurch region three times greater than the 4th September earthquake and in some cases shaking intensities greater than twice the design level (GeoNet, 2011; IPENZ, 2011). While in September 2010 most earthquake shaking damage was limited to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in February all types of buildings sustained damage. Temporary shoring and strengthening techniques applied to buildings following the Darfield earthquake were tested in February 2011. In addition, two large aftershocks occurred on 13th June 2011 (magnitudes 5.7 and 6.2), further damaging many already weakened structures. The damage to unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake has already been reported by Ingham and Griffith (2011) and Dizhur et al. (2010b). A brief review of damage from the 22nd February 2011 earthquake is presented here
On September the 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011
the Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by
two massive earthquakes. This paper is set broadly
within the civil defence and emergency management
literature and informed by recent work on community
participation and social capital in the building of resilient
cities. Work in this area indicates a need to recognise
both the formal institutional response to the earthquakes
as well as the substantive role communities play in their
own recovery. The range of factors that facilitate or
hinder community involvement also needs to be better
understood. This paper interrogates the assumption
that recovery agencies and officials are both willing
and able to engage communities who are themselves
willing and able to be engaged in accordance with
recovery best practice. Case studies of three community
groups – CanCERN, Greening the Rubble and Gap
Filler – illustrate some of the difficulties associated
with becoming a community during the disaster
recovery phase. Based on my own observations and
experiences, combined with data from approximately
50 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents
and representatives from community groups, the
Christchurch City Council, the Earthquake Commission
and so on, this paper outlines some practical strategies
emerging communities may use in the early disaster
recovery phase that then strengthens their ability to
‘participate’ in the recovery process.
