Over 900 buildings in the Christchurch central business district and 10,000 residential homes were demolished following the 22nd of February 2011 Canterbury earthquake, significantly disrupting the rebuild progress. This study looks to quantify the time required for demolitions during this event which will be useful for future earthquake recovery planning. This was done using the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) demolition database, which allowed an in-depth look into the duration of each phase of the demolition process. The effect of building location, building height, and the stakeholder which initiated the demolition process (i.e. building owner or CERA) was investigated. The demolition process comprises of five phases; (i) decision making, (ii) procurement and planning, (iii) demolition, (iv) site clean-up, and (v) completion certification. It was found that the time required to decide to demolish the building made up majority of the total demolition duration. Demolition projects initiated by CERA had longer procurement and planning durations, but was quicker in other phases. Demolished buildings in the suburbs had a longer decision making duration, but had little effect on other phases of the demolition process. The decision making and procurement and planning phases of the demolition process were shorter for taller buildings, though the other phases took longer. Fragility functions for the duration of each phase in the demolition process are provided for the various categories of buildings for use in future studies.
MARK PATTERSON to the Minister of Defence: What progress has been made on the coalition Government’s commitment to expand the Limited Service Volunteer Scheme?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies and actions?
KIRITAPU ALLAN to the Minister of Finance: What discussions did he have on economic issues on his trip to South Korea and Singapore?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE to the Minister of Finance: Does he still intend for all new capital expenditure in Budget 2018 to fit within the $3.4 billion capital allowance as stated in the 2018 Budget Policy Statement?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements on the proposed Kiwibuild programme?
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN to the Minister of Statistics: How is this year’s census different from previous years?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she believe it is important for State-owned broadcasters to be independent?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all the decisions and statements he has made regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What steps has she taken to speed up the fair resolution of outstanding claims relating to the Christchurch earthquakes that occurred seven years ago?
Hon NATHAN GUY to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Hon MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by all his statements?
JO LUXTON to the Minister of Education: What concerns does he have about the future provision of vocational education in New Zealand’s regions?
Observations made in past earthquakes, in New Zealand and around the world, have highlighted the vulnerability of non-structural elements such as facades, ceilings, partitions and services. Damage to these elements can be life-threatening or jeopardise egress routes but typically, the main concern is the cost and time associated with repair works. The Insurance Council of New Zealand highlighted the substantial economic losses in recent earthquakes due to poor performance of non-structural elements. Previous inspections and research have attributed the damage to non-structural elements principally to poor coordination, inadequate or lack of seismic restraints and insufficient clearances to cater for seismic actions. Secondary issues of design responsibility, procurement and the need for better alignment of the various Standards have been identified. In addition to the compliance issues, researchers have also demonstrated that current code provisions for non-structural elements, both in New Zealand and abroad, may be inadequate. This paper first reviews the damage observed against the requirements of relevant Standards and the New Zealand Building Code, and it appears that, had the installations been compliant, the cost of repair and business interruption would have been substantially less. The second part of the paper highlights some of the apparent shortcomings with the current design process for non-structural elements, points towards possible alternative strategies and identifies areas where more research is deemed necessary. The challenge of improving the seismic performance of non-structural elements is a complex one across a diverse construction industry. Indications are that the New Zealand construction industry needs to completely rethink the delivery approach to ensure an integrated design, construction and certification process. The industry, QuakeCentre, QuakeCoRE and the University of Canterbury are presently working together to progress solutions. Indications are that if new processes can be initiated, better performance during earthquakes will be achieved while delivering enhanced building and business resilience.
