2019 Seminar series details can be found here
QuakeCoRE's seminar series supports our multidisciplinary research and encourages collaboration
...
Jason Ingham, PI,
University of Auckland
...
Flagship 3
Researchers from Flagship 3 are combining empirical data from the Canterbury earthquakes with shaking simulations provided by researchers from Flagship 1. Communities across New Zealand, but more specifically in the South Island, are being visited as part of the exercise of developing asset inventories and understanding the role of early unreinforced masonry buildings in the character and economic prosperity of the community. Drone footage is being used to generate point clouds of entire precincts of buildings, and numerical models are being developed to simulate building failure mechanisms. In time, the intent is that geotechnical information from Flagship 2 will be incorporated so that liquefaction and soil-structure interaction are included in the simulations. The goal is to forecast building damage response including debris fall zones, in such a way that fatality forecasts can be attempted when accounting for pedestrian counts. The debris data will also be helpful for forecasting cordon zones. The effects of seismic retrofit strategies can then also be simulated. The longer-term aspiration is to explore the viability of using gaming software to provide visual representation of building damage for an entire community of buildings, with the information being scientifically robust. The thinking is that such simulations will assist decision makers in planning for future earthquake scenarios.
...
...
Project AF8 (Alpine Fault Magnitude 8)
Project AF8 (Alpine Fault magnitude 8) is three-year initiative with the goal of improving the response capability and readiness of South Island communities for a future Alpine Fault magnitude 8 earthquake. As a boundary organization, Project AF8 connects the emergency management and Alpine Fault science communities and acts as a vehicle to engage widely across CDEM and partner agencies, lifelines organisations, government and communities. It is co-funded by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Resilience to Nature’s Challenges (Rural Priority Laboratory), QuakeCoRE and EQC. A major contribution from the science team was the development a robust, scientifically credible Alpine Fault scenario, which describes the hazard footprint of a predicted event. Detailed impact assessments of the potential damage to buildings, casualties and injuries, and restoration timeframes have also been undertaken. The science team has provided more than forty presentations to a range of agencies, including DOC, Ministry of Health, Mayoral Forums, Chinese Embassy, Red Cross, Local Government, Ministry of Transport, emergency services and CDEM groups over the past 18 months.
...
...
Characterisation and screening of New Zealand stopbank networks: Phase 1 outputs
...
...
...
Impacts of the Alpine Fault earthquake on government productivity
The Kaikoura earthquakes took Wellington by surprise. Tens of thousands of Wellington workers were affected, many of these in Government departments which had to be relocated for an extended period due to damaged buildings. What level of disruption would an Alpine Fault earthquake have on the government sector in Wellington? Current economic models being used to assess the impact on Wellington of a big earthquake are not well calibrated with respect to the productivity of the government sector. Even a small change in productivity could have a resulting large economic impact, particularly given the importance of the government sector and supporting services to the Wellington economy. In this project, we have leveraged work being undertaken by Flagship 4, developing updated fragility curves for commercial buildings, and the RiskScape modelling of impacts in wellington; in addition to Kaikoura productivity impacts research already being undertaken under a Natural Hazards Research Platform (NHRP), to understand productivity impacts from an Alpine Fault scenario. This presentation will cover the findings of our post-Kaikoura case studies and the translation of those results into a government productivity module in MERIT (Modelling the Economic Resilience of Infrastructure Tool)
...
...
The role of iwi management plans in managing natural hazards and informing our research
Iwi management plans provide a valuable strategic tool for natural hazard management, however their potential influence and role within Council planning and the research community is not being realised. Key findings of this research include that:
- IMPs provide an opportunity to include information on natural hazards, their preferred management options, action points for reducing risks, and engagement processes to assist with the transfer of natural hazard science and mitigation measures. They provide a valuable strategic tool for natural hazard management, however their potential influence and role is uncertain.
- IMPs are legislated under the RMA, and therefore have the potential to provide very strong guidance to users of IMPs. IMPs can contribute to the co-management and/or co-governance tools available to both iwi and local government by providing important guidance as to priorities, issues, actions, and engagement processes.
- Underpinning IMPs is mātauranga Māori; it is therefore essential that researchers, scientists, and council staff understand what mātauranga Māori is, and how the transfer of knowledge between iwi and others can benefit all those involved in natural hazard management, including Māori communities.
- IMPs provide an initial ‘first step’ as an engagement tool with iwi. They may outline principles for engaging with their iwi; a process for engaging on policy development and resource consents; information requirements; the iwi’s process for assessing proposals; and may stipulate a preferred method of contact.
2019 Seminar series details can be found here
2018 Seminar series details and recordings can be found here
...
...
Presentation on TP2 activities
The aim of Technology Platform 2 is to provide a basis for the efficient implementation of field-based research projects, the development of standardised method statements and software, and effective training of researchers. This Technology Platform has two main thrust areas, Field Testing and Monitoring, and these have a structural and geotechnical engineering focus. It has built on New Zealand leadership in field testing and monitoring to further the development of capabilities in these areas. Experimental field testing and monitoring equipment at several QuakeCoRE institutions is currently being utilised by researchers for multi-institutional research, and strong partnerships with stakeholders means that the New Zealand environment provides researchers with access to infrastructure at a level that is not available internationally. This presentation will provide an overview of the development of capabilities and the research activities that have been enabled through QuakeCoRE’s Technology Platform 2. These developments will be linked to applications across a range of QuakeCoRE projects, including post-Kaikōura earthquake reconnaissance and research activities.
...
...
Tim Sullivan,
University of Canterbury
...
Cost-effective consideration of non-structural elements
Non-structural elements have been seen to perform poorly in earthquakes for decades and therefore much of the non-structural damage observed during the Canterbury earthquakes was to be expected. However, by closely examining the performance of a 22-storey steel framed building in Christchurch subject to various earthquakes over the past seven years, it is shown that a number of lessons can be learnt regarding the cost-effective consideration of non-structural elements. The first point that is made in this work is the relevance of non-structural elements on the costs associated with repairing steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF) links. For the case study building in question it is noted that the decommissioning or rerouting of non-structural elements in the vicinity of damaged links attributed to approximately half the total cost of their repair. Such costs could be significantly reduced or possibly even avoided if, as part of the building’s original design, the positioning of non-structural elements took account of the likely need to repair the EBF links. The second point highlighted is the role that non-structural pre-cast cladding apparently played on the distribution and type of damage in the building. Loss estimates obtained following the FEMA P-58 framework are seen to vary considerably when cladding is or isn’t modelled, both because of changes to drift demands up the height of the building and because certain types of subsequent damage are likely to be cheaper to repair than others. Finally, it is noted that costly repairs to non-structural partition walls were required not only after the moment magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 2010 but also in multiple aftershocks in the years that followed. The repair costs associated with such aftershock events can exceed those from the main event, emphasizing both the need to consider aftershocks within modern performance-based earthquake engineering assessments and also the opportunity that exists to make more cost-effective repair strategies following damaging earthquakes.
...
...
Annual Meeting instead for Sept
...
Scrutiny of Simplified Liquefaction Triggering Procedures Using Liquefaction Observations From Historical New Zealand Earthquakes
Following the 2010-2011 earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, a number of studies have been undertaken to scrutinize the accuracy of simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures in predicting liquefaction triggering (manifestation) and associated damage. Liquefaction damage indices such as LSN were calculated, utilising the simplified liquefaction triggering procedures, for 20,000 CPT in Christchurch and compared with the liquefaction observations. In addition to the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, liquefaction has been also been documented for upwards of 12 other recent and historical earthquakes in New Zealand, including the 1855 Wairarapa, 1931 Napier, 1968 Inangahua, 1987 Edgecumbe and 2016 Kaikoura earthquakes. Liquefaction observations from these case-history events have been collated and CPT data has also been collated to develop a more representative New Zealand-wide liquefaction case history dataset from a variety of earthquake events with magnitudes ranging from 5.7 to 8.1. Liquefaction damage indices have been calculated for these case histories and similar to the results from the Christchurch studies, the conclusions are that that the liquefaction indices are capable of depicting general trends in the liquefaction damage, but there were a significant number of cases where the predictions from the simplified methods are inconsistent with observations. Importantly, biases in the predictions are seen in which systematic over-prediction of liquefaction occurrence or miss-prediction is observed in specific areas, and for certain types of soils and stratification of deposits
For all these case histories, key differences are examined in the deposit characteristics of sites where liquefaction has historically occurred with sites where liquefaction has not occurred, even though the simplified liquefaction triggering methods predict that liquefaction should have occurred. The results show that sites where liquefaction occurred typically exhibit thick deep deposits of material with soil behaviour type index (IC) values less than 2, whereas sites where liquefaction did not occur typically exhibit highly stratified sites where low IC soil deposits are frequently interlayered with silty and clayey soils with much higher IC values. The likely reason that the simplified liquefaction triggering methods are over-predicting in the highly stratified soils is because in the simplified procedures each soil layer is considered in isolation, and a factor of safety against liquefaction triggering and volumetric strains are estimated separately for each soil layer. Liquefaction damage indices, such as LSN and LPI use weighting functions to quantify the damage potential of liquefying layers, but in these calculations, interactions between different layers in the pore water pressure re-distribution and water flow are ignored. Hence, the key mechanisms of system-response of liquefying soil layers that potentially contribute to liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface are not accounted for in the simplified procedures.
...
...
Erica Seville, Garry McDonald and Michele Daly,
...
MERIT (Measuring the Economics of Resilient Infrastructure Tool) – Research Opportunities and Use
For many of us, the economy can be a bit of a black box. We know of the drivers that influence economic activity, but how these interact and how the economy actually responds is inevitably complex. Throw various kinds of disruption into the mix (such as a water outage, a power cut, or even an earthquake) and anticipating how the disrupted economy will respond becomes even more challenging. Here’s where MERIT can help. MERIT is an integrated decision-support tool, that models the socio-economic impacts of disruption events. It takes all the moving parts of the economy, such as commodity prices, household spending, labour availability, industry output, and GDP, and models how each component changes over time. By understanding the inner workings of a disrupted economy, it enables us to explore ways to reduce the impact of future shocks. In this presentation we will provide an overview of the MERIT tool, the types of projects it has been used in, and reflect on our journey thus far in applying the MERIT suite of tools to real-world challenges. We will also discuss future research opportunities for others to engage in the ongoing MERIT development process and to use MERIT as part of their research.
...