A multi-disciplinary geo-structural-environmental engineering project funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is being carried out at the University of Canterbury. The project aims at developing an eco-friendly seismic isolation foundation system which will improve the seismic performance of medium-density low-rise buildings. Such system is characterized by two main elements: 1) granulated scrap rubber mixed with gravelly soils to be placed beneath the structure, with the goal damping part of the seismic energy before it reaches the superstructure; and 2) a basement raft made of steel-fibre reinforced rubberised concrete (SFRRuC) to enhance the flexibility and toughness of the foundation, looking at better accommodating the displacement demand. In this paper, the main objectives, scope and methodology of the project will be briefly described. A literature review of the engineering properties of steel-fibre reinforced rubberised concrete (RuC) will be presented. Then, preliminary results on concrete mixes with different rubber and steel fibres content will be exhibited.
Recent earthquakes in New Zealand proved that a shift is necessary in the current design practice of structures to achieve better seismic performance. Following such events, the number of new buildings using innovative technical solutions (e.g. base isolation, controlled rocking systems, damping devices, etc.), has increased, especially in Christchurch. However, the application of these innovative technologies is often restricted to medium-high rise buildings due to the maximum benefit to cost ratio. In this context, to address this issue, a multi-disciplinary geo-structural-environmental engineering project funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is being carried out at the University of Canterbury. The project aims at developing a foundation system which will improve the seismic performance of medium-density low-rise buildings. Such foundation is characterized by two main elements: 1) granulated tyre rubber mixed with gravelly soils to be placed beneath the structure, with the goal of damping part of the seismic energy before it reaches the superstructure; and 2) a basement raft made of steel-fibre rubberised concrete to enhance the flexibility of the foundation under differential displacement demand. In the first part of this paper, the overarching objectives, scope and methodology of the project will be briefly described. Then, preliminary findings on the materials characterization, i.e., the gravel-rubber mixtures and steel-fibre rubberised concrete mixes, will be presented and discussed with focus on the mechanical behaviour.
Disaster recovery involves the restoration, repair and rejuvenation of both hard and soft infrastructure. In this report we present observationsfrom seven case studies of collaborative planning from post-earthquake Canterbury, each of which was selected as a means of better understanding ‘soft infrastructure for hard times’. Though our investigation is located within a disaster recovery context, we argue that the lessons learned are widely applicable. Our seven case studies highlighted that the nature of the planning process or journey is as important as the planning objective or destination. A focus on the journey can promote positive outcomes in and of itself through building enduring relationships, fostering diverse leaders, developing new skills and capabilities, and supporting translation and navigation. Collaborative planning depends as much upon emotional intelligence as it does technical competence, and we argue that having a collaborative attitude is more important than following prescriptive collaborative planning formulae. Being present and allowing plenty of time are also key. Although deliberation is often seen as an improvement on technocratic and expertdominated decision-making models, we suggest that the focus in the academic literature on communicative rationality and discursive democracy has led us to overlook other more active forms of planning that occur in various sites and settings. Instead, we offer an expanded understanding of what planning is, where it happens and who is involved. We also suggest more attention be given to values, particularly in terms of their role as a compass for navigating the terrain of decision-making in the collaborative planning process. We conclude with a revised model of a (collaborative) decision-making cycle that we suggest may be more appropriate when (re)building better homes, towns and cities.
