The impact of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence on the earthquake engineering profession in New Zealand

  • Dave Brunsdon Kestrel Group Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
  • John Hare Holmes Consulting Group, Christchurch, New Zealand
  • Mike Stannard Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Wellington, New Zealand
  • Kelvin Berryman GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
  • Graeme Beattie BRANZ, Judgeford, New Zealand
  • Nick Traylen Geotech Consulting Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract

Professional engineers have provided a range of inputs into the responses to the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence and the recovery process that has followed. This earthquake sequence has been unique in many respects, including the intensity of shaking produced in the Christchurch CBD by each of the major aftershocks in February, June and December 2011. For engineers, the heavy workload has been continuous from the response to the original 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, and will extend for several years to come.

There have been many post-earthquake challenges for seismologists and geotechnical and structural engineers, commencing with urban search and rescue responses and rapid building evaluations, and extending through the more detailed assessments and repair specifications during the recovery phase. Engineers are required to interface with owners, regulatory authorities and insurers, and face many challenges in meeting the objectives of these different sectors, which are rarely aligned.

Adding to the technical demands has been the requirement for many scientists and engineers to provide input into the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Inquiry and other investigations. The Royal Commission was set up to investigate the failure of buildings that led to the loss of 185 lives in the 22 February 2011 aftershock, and has placed close scrutiny on many aspects of engineering activities, particularly those undertaken following the 4 September 2010 earthquake. The prominent public reporting of the Royal Commission hearings has placed additional pressure on many engineers, including those who volunteered their services following the original earthquake into a role for which they had received only limited prior training. Interpreting and communicating ‘safety’ in relation to the re-occupancy (or continued occupancy) of commercial buildings continues to be a challenge in the face of liability concerns.

A more comprehensive understanding of the technical and process guidance required by engineers and authorities has resulted from the work undertaken in response to this earthquake sequence. Much of this guidance has now been produced, and will be of considerable benefit for future major earthquake events.

This paper reflects on the range of work undertaken by scientists and engineers during the response and recovery stages. The scope and implications of the various official inquiries are summarised, and the potential impacts on engineers involved in the response to and recovery from future major earthquakes are briefly discussed.

References

Applied Technology Council, (1995). ATC-20-2 Addendum to the ATC-20 Post-earthquake Building Safety Evaluation Procedures, California.

Applied Technology Council, (1999). Earthquake Aftershocks – Entering Damaged Buildings ATC Techbrief 2.

Brunsdon, D.R., (2012). Integrating Professional Engineering Within Emergency Management Planning and Response in New Zealand Submission to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, January.

Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, (2012). Part 1: Volumes 1 to 3, Seismicity, Soils and the Seismic Design of Buildings http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz, June.

Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, (2012). Part 2: Volume 4, Earthquake Prone Buildings http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz, October.

Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, (2012). Part 3: Volumes 5 to 7, Canterbury Television Building (CTV); Roles and Responsibilities http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz, December.

Department of Building and Housing, (2011). Revised guidance on repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence, November. www.dbh.govt.nz

Department of Building and Housing, (2012). Interim guidance for repairing and rebuilding foundations in Technical Category 3, April. www.dbh.govt.nz

Department of Building and Housing Expert Panel Report, (2012). Structural Performance of Christchurch CBD Buildings in the 22 February 2011 Aftershock, February.

Engineering Advisory Group, (2011/2012). Guidance on Detailed Engineering Evaluation of Non-residential buildings – Parts 1, 2 and 3 (progressively released). www.sesoc.org.nz

Environment Canterbury and GNS Science, (2012). Review of liquefaction hazard information in eastern Canterbury, including Christchurch City and parts of Selwyn, Waimakariri and Hurunui Districts Report No. R12/83.

EQC and Tonkin & Taylor Ltd., (2012). Canterbury Earthquakes 2010 and 2011 Land report as at 29 February 2012. http://www.eqc.govt.nz/canterbury-earthquakes/land-claims/land-reports/stage-3-land-report, July

Galloway, B.D. and Hare, H.J., (2012). A Review of Post-earthquake Building control Policies with respect to the Recovery of the Christchurch CBD Proc NZSEE Annual Conference, April.

Galloway, B.D., Hare, H.J., Brunsdon, D.R., Wood, P.R., Lizundia, B., and Stannard, M.C., (2013). Lessons from the Post-Earthquake Evaluation of Damaged Buildings in Christchurch, EERI Spectra Journal (in press). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/022813EQS057M

Ingham, J.M., and Griffith, M.C., (2011). The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm, May.

McLean, I., Oughton, D., Ellis, S., Wakelin, B., Rubin, C. B., (2012) Review of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Response to the 22 February Christchurch Earthquake, June. www.civildefence.govt.nz

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (2012a). Guidance on Repairing and Rebuilding Houses affected by the Canterbury Earthquakes, December.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (2012b). Building Seismic Performance – Proposals to Improve the New Zealand Earthquake-prone Building System. Consultation Document, December.

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, (2006). Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquake.

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, (2009). Building Safety Evaluation During a State of Emergency: Guidelines for Territorial Authorities, August (available from http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-building-safety-evaluation )

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, (2011). Various papers on the 22 February 2011 Christchurch (Lyttelton) earthquake and its aftershocks, Bulletin Vol 44, No. 4, December.

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, (2011). Building Safety Evaluation Following the Canterbury Earthquakes Report to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, September.

Structural Engineering Society, (2012). Interim Design Guidance – Design of Conventional Structural Systems Following the Canterbury Earthquakes, September. www.sesoc.org.nz

Townend, J., Villamor, P. and Quigley, M. (special editors), (2012). The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Special Issue of New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 55(3): 151-319.

Published
2013-03-31
How to Cite
Brunsdon, D., Hare, J., Stannard, M., Berryman, K., Beattie, G., & Traylen, N. (2013). The impact of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence on the earthquake engineering profession in New Zealand. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 46(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.46.1.56-67
Section
Articles