An evaluation of successfully seismically retrofitted URM buildings in New Zealand and their relevance to Australia.
The poor performance of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in past earthquakes throughout the world in locations such as California (Galloway and Ingham 2015), Italy (Indirli et al. 2013), Chile (Astroza, Ruiz, and Astroza 2012), and Nepal (Dizhur et al. 2016) is well documented. Australia has a history of earthquakes that have resulted in damage to URM buildings, including the 1954 [M.sub.w] 5.6 Adelaide earthquake (Kerr-Grant 1955), the 1968 [M.sub.w] 6.8 Meckering earthquake (Everingham 1968), the 1989 [M.sub.w] 5.6 Newcastle earthquake (Griffith 1991), and the 2010 [M.sub.w] 5.0 Kalgoorlie-Boulder earthquake (Edwards et al. 2010) (Figure 1). While there is a low probability of earthquakes in Australia, they can have significant consequences due to the country's large population and the numerous URM structures in towns and cities (Howlader et al. 2016).
The seismic performance of URM buildings in Australia was documented following the 1989 Newcastle earthquake. Primary causes of damage to these buildings included out-of-plane failure of parapets, gables, and walls; in-plane wall failure; concentrated damage due to vertical and horizontal irregularities of buildings; and damage caused by the failure of neighbouring buildings (e.g. parapet failure of one building causing bricks to fall through the roof of a neighbouring building) (Griffith 1991).
The poor performance of URM buildings during the main shocks of the Canterbury earthquakes, the September 2010 [M.sub.w] 7.1 Darfield earthquake, and the February 2011 [M.sub.w] 6.2 Christchurch earthquake has also been widely reported (Dizhur et al. 2010, 2011; Ingham and Griffith 2011a, 2011b; Moon et al. 2014). The Christchurch earthquake was significantly more destructive than the Darfield earthquake, despite having a lower magnitude, due to the proximity of the epicentre (10 km), which caused greater shaking intensity in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). Peak horizontal ground accelerations of up to 1.41 g were recorded in the Christchurch CBD during the 22 February 2011 earthquake (Bradley et al. 2014). This magnitude of acceleration was significantly higher than the acceleration specified in design standards for buildings in the area (Standards New Zealand 2004). Moon et al. (2014) presented failure mechanisms for URM buildings observed following the Canterbury earthquake sequence similar to those observed following the 1989 Newcastle earthquake. The authors also documented seismic performance of retrofitted URM buildings following the Canterbury earthquakes, presenting the overall observation that building damage was reduced and life safety improved for buildings that were seismically retrofitted prior to the events (Moon et al. 2014).
In the Christchurch CBD, over 90% of the unretrofitted URM buildings and over 70% of URM buildings that were seismically retrofitted to levels similar to the case-study buildings presented herein have been demolished since the Canterbury earthquake sequence (Moon et al. 2014). The reasons for the demolition of these buildings vary and are not necessarily directly associated with the level of earthquake damage a building sustained. Damaged buildings with estimated repair costs of approximately 75% of the replacement costs were generally demolished. Other buildings were demolished for safety reasons before cost estimates could be made (King et al. 2014). The high proportion of demolished URM buildings, particularly those that were retrofitted, raises concerns about the performance, safety, and economic feasibility of such buildings that may experience future earthquake-induced shaking.
The Canterbury earthquake sequence provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the true success of a retrofit after an earthquake in terms of structural, economic, and heritage aspects. Case studies of two 'typical' URM buildings whose seismic retrofits were considered successful following the Canterbury earthquake sequence are presented herein.
2. URM construction in Australia and New Zealand
Early buildings in Australia and New Zealand share many attributes because the countries have closely linked colonisation histories. European settlement of Australia and New Zealand began with the arrival of the British First Fleet at Sydney, New South Wales in 1788. New Zealand began its colonisation with an extension of New South Wales and became a separate colony in 1841 (Smith 2012). Early settlements in both colonies were comprised primarily of timber rather than masonry structures because timber was widely available and there was an overall lack of the time and skills required for masonry construction (Guy 2006; Shaw 1997; Hodgson 1992). However, because masonry structures represented a sense of permanency for colonists and are more fire-resistant than timber structures, masonry construction became prevalent as the colonies were established and building materials became more readily available (Guy 2006; Hodgson 1992). Clay-brick construction was a popular form of masonry construction because the bricks were inexpensive to manufacture and provided a good alternative to stone when no quarries were located nearby (Guy 2006; Oliver 2006). Similar construction techniques were used in Australia and New Zealand, displaying the propensity to emulate British architecture. Australian architects designed many early New Zealand buildings (Shaw 1997).
The construction of URM buildings in New Zealand was implicitly discouraged through legislation as early as 1935, largely because of the poor performance of this building type in the 1931 [M.sub.w] 7.4 Hawke's Bay earthquake (New Zealand Standards Institute 1935). As a result, URM construction significantly declined during the 1930s (Russell and Ingham 2010). In 1965, NZSS 1900, the New Zealand Standard Model Building Bylaw, explicitly prohibited URM construction in most of the country. Because Australia has lower seismic hazard compared to New Zealand (Burbidge 2012; Stirling et al. 2012), URM construction is permitted when designed in accordance with AS 3700 (2001) and loading standard AS 1170.4 (2007).
Case studies of retrofitted URM buildings with good performance in the Canterbury earthquakes are used to illustrate best practices for seismic retrofitting. Case-study buildings were selected based on a general consensus of their successful structural performance as well as overall information about successful heritage and economic factors of the seismic retrofits. Property files that included structural and architectural plans and specifications were obtained from Christchurch City Council for the selected buildings, and interviews were conducted with building engineers, property owners, and project architects to further evaluate the overall retrofit.
Case-study buildings were evaluated in terms of seismic structural design, architectural appeal, heritage preservation, observed performance, and cost. Evaluation criteria for the case studies were adapted from the assessment tool for seismic strengthening of heritage buildings presented in Pattinson and Egbelakin (2016).
Two 'typical' URM commercial buildings were selected as examples using the aforementioned process. A typical URM building is considered to be a low-rise (one to two stories) clay-brick building that is either stand-alone or part of a row of buildings. These criteria were determined because a majority of URM buildings in New Zealand and Australia are low-rise structures (Russell and Ingham 2010; Howlader et al. 2016).
4. Case study 1: 367 Moorhouse Avenue (Grosvenor Tavern)
The two-storey, stand-alone structure located at 367 Moorhouse Avenue on the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Madras Street in Christchurch CBD was formally known as Grosvenor Tavern. The building was constructed using loadbearing clay-brick URM exterior walls, timber-framed interior partition walls, timber floor and roof diaphragms, and Oamaru stone ornaments (Figure 2(a,b)). The building is approximately 18 m x 14.5 m along the south and west elevations, respectively, with a chamfered corner to the southwest and a re-entrant corner of about 8 m x 4.5 m to the northeast (Figure 3(a)). The masonry walls change in thickness from three wythes (350 mm) at the ground floor to two wythes (230 mm) at the first floor.
4.1. History and heritage
The building at 367 Moorhouse Avenue was designed in 1877 by Samuel Farr, Canterbury's first architect, and served as a tavern on the ground floor and a hotel on the first floor. Grosvenor Tavern was a popular location for railway workers in the early to mid-20th century and retained its function as a hotel and tavern under a number of owners (Symons 2002). The building is listed as a Group 4 heritage item in the Christchurch City Plan due to its historical status as a colonial hotel on an inner-city site. This building was constructed in the early commercial classicism style and exhibits many architectural features common to buildings designed by Samuel Farr. The corner location of the once popular tavern in the CBD imparts the building landmark value in addition to public recognition value (Christchurch City Council 1995).
The interior of the building has been significantly altered since the original construction, but the street-facing facades maintain a high degree of architectural integrity. Notable exterior features include a heavily corbelled parapet inlaid with wreath motifs, single arch-topped windows simply finished with a keystone, and large segmental pediments that sit above the door cases on the corner and the Moorhouse Avenue frontage (Figure 2(a,b)). Alterations to the building during the 1970s tended to be architecturally insensitive and included the construction of two single-storey, concrete-block annexes, an ungainly fire escape on the exterior, and several interior walls that severely segmented the space. Work during the 1970s involved removing 1200 mm of the original parapet, restraining the remaining parapet, replacing the central staircase with exterior staircases, and completely remodelling the first floor. An interior wall on the ground floor that was thought to be a partition wall was removed during renovations in this period. The removal caused parts of the building to sag so a large steel beam was installed to prevent further damage (Symons 2002). In 2001, the building was determined to be unsafe due to land subsidence that caused differential settlement and multiple interior alterations that resulted in load paths that could not be clearly identified. The building stood empty until 2010 when new owners purchased the property and committed to restoring the building to its former glory.
4.2. Structural seismic upgrades
The seismic upgrade of the building combined several retrofit methods, including the installation of vertically oriented steel trusses, new reinforced concrete masonry (RCM) walls, new exterior timber-framed walls, new floor and roof diaphragms, and new parapet restraints (Figure 3(a,b)). The first stage of the seismic retrofit involved reducing the seismic weight of the building. To accomplish this, the heavy clay-tile roof was removed and replaced with a lightweight iron roof; lath and plaster were removed from the interior walls; and two single-storey, concrete-block annexes were demolished. The seismic retrofit was designed to resist a lateral load of 0.47 g.
4.2.1. Vertical steel trusses and posts
Vertical steel trusses composed of 100 x 100 x 6 mm square hollow section (SHS) posts with 75 x 75 x 5 mm SHS braces offer a displacement-compatible solution that provides additional in-plane stiffness to the masonry walls (Figures 3(b) and 4(a)). The two-storey vertical steel trusses were prefabricated and lowered through the roof during a stage of construction when the ceiling was removed. New heavily reinforced concrete foundations were constructed along the perimeter of the building and attached to the existing foundations with 16-mm high-yield reinforcement (H16) steel fixings that were epoxy anchored 200-mm deep at 600-mm centres to resist the significant uplift forces caused by the new vertical trusses. The vertical trusses are positioned such that the steel members sit against the three-wythe walls on the ground floor and are offset with blocking from the two-wythe walls on the first floor. Singular 100 x 100 x 6 mm SHS posts are installed in selected URM piers to provide the walls with out-of-plane stability. These posts, which are not part of the vertical steel trusses, follow the step in the masonry from the ground floor to the first floor (Figure 3(b)). Both the steel posts and vertical steel trusses are connected to the URM walls with steel bolts that pass through the walls and are anchored to round steel end plates on the exterior (Figure 4(b)).
4.2.2. RCM and timber walls
A shear core composed of 190-mm RCM walls with vertical H16 reinforcing bars at 400-mm centres and horizontal H12 reinforcing bars at 400-mm centres was constructed around a new centrally located staircase to provide the building further lateral support (Figures 3(a) and 4(c)). The walls extend from the ground floor to roof truss level and are topped with a 150-mm-thick concrete lid that is reinforced with H12 bars at 200-mm centres vertically and horizontally to further increase the rigidity of the core. New timber stud-braced walls were constructed on the northernmost exterior wall and east side of the re-entrant corner to replace the deteriorated existing timber walls (Figure 3(a)). New reinforced concrete footings were constructed under the new RCM walls and timber walls.
4.2.3. Roof and floor diaphragms
The original first-floor diaphragm consists of timber tongue-and-groove flooring over 350 mm x 50 mm joists spaced at 460-mm centres. A new floor diaphragm composed of 17-mm-thick plywood on 45-mm battens was installed over the existing flooring with 2.8-mm nails at 100-mm centres, and solid blocking was installed between each joist at 450-mm centres. New horizontal 200-mm deep parallel flange channels (200 PFC) were bolted between the vertical steel trusses and posts directly beneath the first-floor joists (Figure 3(b)) and connected to the new blocking with cleats to transfer forces into the new lateral load-resistant system of vertical trusses. The existing roof was removed and replaced with gang nail trusses spaced at 900-mm centres with a 12-mm-thick plywood overlay fixed to the bottom cord of the roof trusses. The diaphragm and truss cords were connected to horizontal 200 x 100 x 4 mm steel rectangular hollow sections bolted between the vertical steel trusses and posts (Figure 3(b)).
4.2.4. Parapet restraint
The parapet restraints from the 1970s renovation were removed and replaced with new 33.7 x 3.2 mm circular hollow section braces. The braces were epoxy anchored into a concrete cap beam that extends along the URM parapet with two 200-mm-long, 16-mm-diameter threaded anchor bolts (M16) and were bolted to 100 x 100 x 6 mm angles that were attached with at least three screws through roof purlins into the new timber roof trusses (Figure 3(b)).
The 2010 retrofit of Grosvenor Tavern exhibited a more sensitive approach regarding the heritage features and overall functionality of the space than previous alterations. Structural elements were strategically placed to allow for the removal of most interior partition walls, and the use of vertical steel trusses on exterior walls maximised usable floor area and created open space to permit flexible tenancy throughout the building. The exterior staircases were removed, and a new staircase was installed in a central location to provide a clear path to the upper storey.
Heritage features of the facade were accentuated with bright white paint that contrasts with the grey masonry (Figure 2(b)). In addition, the anchor end plates connecting the steel frames to the masonry wall were painted to match the facade so that they are hardly noticeable from a distance (Figure 4(b)). The vertical steel trusses are evenly spaced between windows to retain views from the building. Windows in the new timber walls are detailed in such a way that they are nearly identical to the facade windows.
4.4. Observed performance
Grosvenor Tavern was in the initial stages of retrofit work when the September 2010 earthquake occurred. The brick facade experienced minor cracking (Figure 5 (a)), but no further damage was reported. After the earthquake, the retrofit work quickly resumed, and the vertical steel trusses were installed in November 2010. The building was undamaged in the February 2011 earthquake. The vertical steel trusses remained attached to the masonry walls, and no differential movement between the walls and floor diaphragm was observed (Figure 5(b)). The building received a green placard upon post-earthquake inspection, which allowed seismic retrofit work and building alterations to continue as scheduled. The retrofit was fully completed in June 2011, and the building is currently operational.
The property was purchased in 2010 at a reported capital value of NZ$650,000 (QV 2016). The owners reported they have invested approximately NZ$1 million in the property for the retrofit and fit out. Given inflation, the owner invested approximately NZ $1,844,000 in 2017 dollars. The average rent cost for office space in Christchurch CBD is between NZ $365-NZ$425 per square metre per annum, and the average prime yield is between 6.5% and 7.5% (Colliers International 2015). The total floor area of the building is 490 [m.sup.2], and the building has been fully tenanted since completion of the retrofit. Assuming the building falls on the lower end of the average rent and yield range, it has a valuation of approximately $2,385,000, increasing capital value by NZ$541,000. Because the building was vacant when the owner purchased it in 2010, the seismic retrofit and fit out also resulted in an estimated net income gain of NZ$178,850 per annum.
Grosvenor Tavern is an exemplar retrofit because it was designed well and has good performance based on the described multidisciplinary criteria (i.e. observed performance, seismic design, architectural appeal, heritage preservation, and economic viability). The seismic structural system of the retrofit was proven effective even before construction was complete, as the building was reported to have little to no damage following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The building was awarded a Civic Trust award in 2011 for significant restoration of a heritage building and maximisation of complimentary use of a heritage building (Christchurch Civil Trust 2011). The use of vertical steel trusses and posts as a retrofit solution allowed the interior brickwork to be maintained, whereas reinforced concrete skin walls would have permanently covered interior brickwork. Steel trusses and posts are generally considered to be a heritage-friendly intervention that is reversible if new and less invasive technology becomes available (Robinson and Bowman 2000). The building has been fully tenanted since 2011, and the owners have increased the capital value of their investment.
5. Case study 2: 650 ferry road (the smokehouse)
The Smokehouse is a two-storey, stand-alone clay-brick masonry building located at 650 Ferry Road on the corner of Ferry Road and Catherine Street in Woolston, Christchurch. The original building footprint measures approximately 10 x 13 m with a chamfered corner to the north. The building was constructed using loadbearing clay-brick URM exterior walls, URM interior walls on the ground floor, timber-framed interior partition walls on the first floor, and timber floor and roof diaphragms. The exterior URM walls change in thickness from 350 mm (three wythes) on the ground floor to 230 mm (two wythes) on the first floor.
5.1. History and heritage
The Smokehouse building was constructed in 1903 in the Victorian style as a combined shop-residence for a coal merchant and carter. The site continued to house a coal yard until the 1960s and a cartage firm until the 1980s. The building remained in near original condition until 2007, when work began on a building extension and seismic retrofit. The building at 650 Ferry Road is listed as a Group 4 heritage building by the Christchurch City Council (May 2006). The unpretentious facade has large windows on the street-facing corner of the ground floor, a chambered entry, and detailed brickwork comprising corbelled eaves and a string course (Figure 6(a,b)). The relatively simple architecture of the red clay-brick masonry structure is given prominence by the corner location of the building on a major suburban arterial route.
5.2. Structural seismic upgrades
The building at 650 Ferry Road underwent major upgrades in 2007 that included the seismic retrofit of the original building and the addition of a new extension, which provided approximately 346 [m.sup.2] of additional ground floor area (Figure 7(a,b,c)). Large portions of the original exterior URM walls were removed to create openings that provide access between the original building and the extension (Figures 7(c) and 8(a)).
The extension is seismically independent of the existing building and thus its lateral load-resisting system is not discussed here. Seismic retrofit work to the original building included the installation of new steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) in the newly created openings and stiffening of the first-floor and roof diaphragms. Work also included infilling one window on the second floor, repointing the original lime-based mortar, and moving the staircase closer to the main street entrance. The existing masonry building was retrofitted to withstand peak ground acceleration of approximately 0.46 g.
5.2.1. Steel moment-resisting frames
New openings were created in the original southeast and southwest exterior ground-level URM walls, and MRFs comprised of universal columns (200 UC 52) were installed to support the lateral and gravity loads of the new openings (Figure 8(a,b)). The MRFs were designed to be sufficiently stiff such that they are displacement compatible with the existing masonry walls. The beams were each topped with a 400 x 10 mm mild steel flat bar that is epoxy anchored to the existing masonry with 300-mm M12 anchor bolts at 600-mm centres (Figure 8(b)), and the columns were secured to the existing masonry walls with 300-mm epoxy anchor bolts. The thickness of the original wall foundations under the new MRFs was increased on both sides with 400 mm of new concrete secured with 12-mm-diameter steel reinforcing Grade 300 bars (D12) epoxy set into the existing foundation at 200-mm centres at the top and bottom. An additional MRF composed of 250 PFCs was constructed on the northeast wall. New beams (250 UB 31 or 200 UB 30) were installed under the existing floor joists in locations where interior masonry walls were removed.
5.2.2. Roof and floor diaphragms
The first-floor diaphragm was retrofitted by removing the existing flooring and installing a 12-mm-thick plywood diaphragm over the existing floor joists (Figure 8(b)). The original lath-and-plaster ceiling was retained in some areas of the building, and 12-mm plaster board was fixed to the underside of the floor joists with metal battens in areas where the ceiling was not of heritage significance. The original timber-framed roof was retained, and the existing tile roof was removed and replaced with a corrugated iron roof.
The existing red clay-brick masonry and new steel frames were left exposed to provide a cohesive transition between the existing building and the new extension (Figure 7(c)). The removal of internal masonry walls and fireplaces maximised usable space, and the many windows and a skylight allowed abundant natural light to enter the building. Heritage features such as the original parlour ceiling rose and cornice were retained, and authentically sized Rimu flooring boards were recycled from a hospital in Auckland. Brick from the demolished parts of the walls was recycled to construct a column and wall at the new entry on the west side of the building (Figures 7(b) and 8(a)). The new Catherine Street entry was set back approximately one metre from the existing facade in order to retain the original sight line of the building from Ferry Road. The red clay brick masonry walls of the existing building are complemented by the red tin exterior of the extension.
5.4. Observed performance
The exterior brickwork of the Smokehouse building did not experience any visible cracking during the 4 September 2010 earthquake. However, vertical cracks at the front corner section, minor horizontal cracks above one of the piers on the second level, and minor cracks around the in-fill window were found on the interior. Repair work was underway when the 22 February 2011 earthquake occurred (Figure 9(a)). Additional cracking on the interior and new damage to the exterior brickwork was found after this earthquake (Figures 9(b,c)), and the building received a yellow placard, which restricted use and granted only short-term entry. The damage was readily repaired, and the Smokehouse building reopened soon after the earthquake.
The property was purchased for NZ$400,000 in 2005, and the 2007 retrofit cost approximately NZ$750,000. Given inflation, the owner invested approximately NZ $1,400,000 in 2017 dollars. The building has an area of 640 [m.sup.2], with about half functioning as office/retail space and half functioning as a smokehouse. The owner occupies the smokehouse and the upstairs office space. The remaining 150 [m.sup.2] of office/retail space is rented for $230 per square metre per annum. If the remaining office space and smokehouse area were rented at the same rate and assuming a yield of 8.0% for office/retail space outside of Christchurch CBD, the building can be valued at NZ$1,868,000, increasing in capital value by approximately $468,000.
The seismic retrofit of the building at 650 Ferry Road was identified as successful because its innovative architectural and seismic structural design performed well in the Canterbury earthquakes. The floor and roof diaphragms were strengthened and MRFs were used to strengthen URM walls and create openings between the existing building and a new addition. The Smokehouse building won a New Zealand Architectural Award in 2008 for initiative, enterprise, and restoration (Christchurch Civil Trust 2008). The design of the retrofit displays a high level of attention to the details of the heritage features. The retrofit was completed during renovation work to convert a small retail/office space to a functional smokehouse with additional office/retail space. The good performance of the retrofitted building during the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes resulted in only minimal interruption of business operations. The building has had only short vacancies in the leased office/retail space since the completion of the retrofit, and overall, the building has increased in capital value.
The paper describes two typical clay-brick masonry commercial buildings that were seismically retrofitted prior to the Canterbury earthquake sequence and performed well during these events. These retrofits were identified as exemplar based on multidisciplinary criteria that accounted for seismic design, architectural appeal, heritage preservation, economic viability, and observed performance. The seismic retrofit of the building at 367 Moorhouse Avenue utilised an RCM shear core, vertically oriented steel trusses, new floor and roof diaphragms, and new parapet restraints. The seismic retrofit of the building at 650 Ferry Road utilised steel MRFs and new floor and roof diaphragms. Both retrofit designs won awards for architecture and heritage consideration, and both had minimal to no damage following the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes. The buildings have increased in capital value and remained tenanted since their retrofits.
Received 21 November 2017
Accepted 11 June 2018
This project was supported by QuakeCoRE, a New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission-funded Centre. This is QuakeCoRE publication number 0055. The authors would like to thank the advisory team of Christchurch engineers: Stuart Oliver (Holmes Consulting Group), Will Parker (Opus International Consultants), and Andrew Marriot (Marriot Consulting). The authors are also grateful to the building owners, engineers, and architects who graciously took time to provide input to the work presented herein.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
This work was supported by the QuakeCoRE, New Zealand Centre for Earthquake Resilience [Grant number 16074]
Notes on contributors
Shannon Abeling is a PhD Candidate at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research interests are in the risks related to the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings. Shannon is a scholar funded by QuakeCoRE, the New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence for Earthquake Resilience, and is president of the QuakeCoRE Emerging Researchers Auckland Chapter.
Dmytro Dizhur received his PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Auckland in 2012. He is drawn towards research and implementation in earthquake risk reduction. He is actively involved in research and consulting work related to the seismic performance and retrofit of existing masonry buildings. Dmytro has co-developed and experimentally validated a number of innovative, cost-effective and aesthetically sympathetic seismic retrofit techniques for the most earthquake vulnerable class of buildings that has now been implemented in masonry buildings across New Zealand and internationally.
Jason Ingham obtained his doctorate from the University of California San Diego in 1995 and is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Auckland. His research interests are primarily focused on the seismic behaviour of existing masonry and concrete buildings. He led the collection of data related to the performance of masonry buildings following the Canterbury earthquakes, with evidence subsequently presented at the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. He is currently the president of the Structural Engineering Society of NZ (SESOC), a past president of the NZ Concrete Society (NZCS), a past member of the management committee of the NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE), and is a Fellow of Engineering New Zealand. He is also a member of the leadership team for QuakeCoRE, the New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence for Earthquake Resilience.
Shannon Abeling (iD) http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-4367
Dmytro Dizhur (iD) http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0926-4980
Jason Ingham (iD) http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0989-9097
Astroza, M., S. Ruiz, and R. Astroza. 2012. "Damage Assessment and Seismic Intensity Analysis of the 2010 (Mw 8.8) Maule Earthquake." Earthquake Spectra 28 (S1): S145-S64. doi:10.1193/1.4000027.
Bradley, B. A., M. C. Quigley, R. J. V. Dissen, and N. J. Litchfield. 2014. "Ground Motion and Seismic Source Aspects of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence." Earthquake Spectra 30 (1): 1-15. doi:10.1193/ 030113EQS060M.
Burbidge, D. R., M. Leonard, D. Robinson, and D. Gray. 2012. "The 2012 Australian Earthquake Hazard Maps." In The 2012 Australian Earthquake Hazard Map, edited by D. R. Burbidge, Geoscience Australia Record 2012/71, 108-16.
Christchurch City Council. 1995. Listed Historic Building Place or Object: 367 Moorhouse Avenue. Report toChristchurch City Council.
Christchurch Civil Trust. 2008. "Newsletter October 2008." Accessed 2 August 2016. http://www.christchurchcivic trust.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/news/0ctober-2008-Newsletter1.pdf.
Christchurch Civil Trust. 2011. "Newsletter November 2011." Accessed 2 August 2016. http://www.christchurch civictrust.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/news/November-2011-Newsletter1.pdf.
Colliers International. 2015. NZ CBD Office Report 2015. Report to Colliers International Research.
Dizhur, D., J. Ingham, L. Moon, M. Griffith, A. Schultz, I. Senaldi, G. Magenes et al. 2011. "Performance of Masonry Buildings and Churches in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44 (4): 279-296.
Dizhur, D., N. Ismail, C. Knoz, R. Lumantarna, and J. M. Ingham. 2010. "Performance of Unreinforced and Retrofitted Masonry Buildings during the 2010 Darfield Earthquake." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43 (4): 321-339.
Dizhur, D., R. Dhakal, J. Bothara, and J. Ingham. 2016. "Building Typologies and Failure Modes Observed in the 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 49 (2): 211-232.
Edwards, M., M. Griffith, M. Wehner, N. Lam, N. Corby, M. Jakab, and N. Habili. 2010. "The Kalgoorlie Earthquake of the 20th April 2010: Preliminary Damage Survey Outcomes." Paper presented at Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference, Perth, Australia, 26-28 November.
Everingham, I. B. 1968. "Preliminary Report on the 14 October 1968 Earthquake at Meckering, Western Australia." 1968/ 142. Report to Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1105114
Galloway, B., and J. M. Ingham. 2015. "The 2014 South Napa Earthquake and its Relevance for New Zealand." SESOC Journal 28 (1): 69-94.
Griffith, M. C. 1991. Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings during the Newcastle Earthquake, Australia. Report to Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Adelaide.
Guy, J. L. 2006. "Building Construction Practice in the Colony of New South Wales from the Arrival of the First Fleet to the End of the Primitive Era and its Influence in Later Time." Paper presented at Second International Congress on Construction History, Cambridge, England, 29 March-2 April.
Hodgson, T. 1992. The Heart of Colonial Auckland 1865-1910. Auckland, New Zealand: Random Century.
Howlader, M., M. Masia, M. C. Griffith, J. M. Ingham, and B. Jordan. 2016. "Characterisation of Heritage Masonry Construction in NSW--State Heritage Register." Paper presented at Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2016 Conference, Melbourne, Victoia, Australia, 25-27 November.
Indirli, M., L. A. S. Kouris, A. Formisano, R. P. Borg, and F. M. Mazzolani. 2013. "Seismic Damage Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Structures after the Abruzzo 2009 Earthquake: The Case Study of the Historical Centers of L'Aquila and Castelvecchio Subequo." International Journal of Architectural Heritage 7 (5): 536-578. doi:10.1080/15583058.2011.654050.
Ingham, J. M., and M. C. Griffith. 2011a. The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm. Report to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquake.
Ingham, J. M., and M. C. Griffith. 2011b. The Performance of Earthquake Strengthened URM Buildings in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 Earthquake. Report to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquake.
Kerr-Grant, C. 1955. "The Adelaide Earthquake of 1st March, 1954." Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 79: 177-185.
King, A., D. Middleton, C. Brown, D. Johnston, and S. Johal. 2014. "Insurance: Its Role in Recovery from the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence." Earthquake Spectra 30 (1): 475-491. doi:10.1193/ 022813EQS058M.
May, J. 2006. "Application for Land Use Consent: 650 Ferry Road, Christchurch--Heritage Assessment." RMA 20021745. Report to Heritage Management Services Ltd.
Moon, L., D. Dizhur, I. Senaldi, H. Derakhshan, M. C. Griffith, G. Magenes, and J. Ingham. 2014. "The Demise of the URM Building Stock in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence." Earthquake Spectra 30 (1): 253-2769. doi:10.1193/022113EQS044M.
New Zealand Standards Institute. 1935. NZSS No. 95: 1935, Model Building By-Law. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Standards Institute.
Oliver, J. 2006. John Oliver's Brick Book. 2nd ed. Auckland, New Zealand: Lifetime Books.
Pattinson, M. S., and T. K. Egbelakin. 2016. "An Assessment tool for seismic strengthening of heritage buildings". Paper presented at New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1-3.
QV. 2016. Property Report: 367 Moorhouse Avenue, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8011. Report to QV.
Robinson, L., and I. Bowman. 2000. Guidelines for Earthquake Strengthening. Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Historic Places Trust/Pouhere Taonga.
Russell, A. P., and J. M. Ingham. 2010. "Prevalence of New Zealand's Unreinforced Masonry Buildings." Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43 (3): 182-202.
Shaw, P. 1997. A History of New Zealand Architecture. 2nd ed. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett Publishers Limited.
Smith, P. M. 2012. "Australia and New Zealand--Shared Colonial History." Te Ara--the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, Accessed 1 December 2016. http://www.TeAra. govt.nz/en/australia-and-new-zealand.
Standards New Zealand. 2004. Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions-New Zealand. Wellington: Standards New Zealand.
Stirling, M. W., G. H. McVerry, M. C. Gerstenberger, N. J. Litchfield, R. J. Van Dissen, K. R. Berryman, P. Barnes, et al. 2012. "National Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand: 2010 Update." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 102 (4): 1514-1542. doi:10.1785/ 0120110170.
Symons, S. 2002. "Grosvenor Hotel." In The Watering Holes--an historical essay, https://poddimok.word press.com/087-the-watering-holes-an-historical-essay/ grosvenor-hotel (accessed November 14, 2016).
Shannon Abeling (iD), Dmytro Dizhur (iD) and Jason Ingham (iD)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
CONTACT Shannon Abeling ([mail]) email@example.com
Caption: Figure 1. Damaged URM buildings in (a) the 1954 [M.sub.w] 5.6 Adelaide Earthquake image source: David Love), (b) the 1968 [M.sub.w] 6.8 Meckering Earthquake (image source: C. Wadley), (c) the 1989 [M.sub.w] 5.6 Newcastle Earthquake (image source: Cultural Collections, University of Newcastle), and (d) the 2010 [M.sub.w] 5.0 Kalgoorlie-Boulder Earthquake (image source: Dr. Michael Griffith).
Caption: Figure 2. 367 Moorhouse Avenue--(a) Before retrofit, June 2010 and (b) after retrofit, September 2011.
Caption: Figure 3. 367 Moorhouse Avenue--(a) Ground floor plan, showing retrofit and (b) east elevation, showing retrofit VT = vertical truss.
Caption: Figure 4. 367 Moorhouse Avenue retrofit--(a) Vertical steel truss, (b) wall anchors painted to match facade, and (c) RCM block shear walls.
Caption: Figure 5. 367 Moorhouse Avenue observed performance--(a) Cracking in exterior facade, after 4 September 2010 and (b) undamaged building, days after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
Caption: Figure 6. 650 Ferry Road before retrofit--(a) Exterior view of the north corner and (b) exterior view of the west corner.
Caption: Figure 7. 650 Ferry Road after retrofit--(a) Exterior view of the north corner, (b) exterior view of the northwest elevation, and (c) interior view looking east.
Caption: Figure 8. 650 Ferry Road showing retrofit--(a) Ground floor plan and (b) details of MRF.
Caption: Figure 9. 650 Ferry Road observed performance--(a) Exterior repairs underway, after 22 February 2011 and (b, c) cracks in exterior walls, after 22 February 2011.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Abeling, Shannon; Dizhur, Dmytro; Ingham, Jason|
|Publication:||Australian Journal of Structural Engineering|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2018|
|Previous Article:||Structural performance of riveted connections in cold-formed steel wall stud.|