Application of the Recommendations of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission to the Design,Construction,and Evaluation of Buildings and Seismic Risk Mitigation Policies in the United States
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2014
Application of the Recommendations of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission to the Design,Construction,and Evaluation of Buildings and Seismic Risk Mitigation Policies in the United States
An unprecedented level of data concerning building performance in the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010–2011 has been collected by the Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission of Inquiry. In addition to data from a technical investigation undertaken by the New Zealand Department of Building and Housing on four specific buildings, the Royal Commission has collected data from many other invited reports, international peer reviews of reports, submitted testimony, and oral testimony and examination at public hearings. Contained in the Commission's seven-volume final report are 189 specific recommendations for improvements in design codes and standards, hazard mitigation policy, post-earthquake building safety and occupancy tagging, and other topics. Some of these recommendations are unique to New Zealand's system of government, engineering practice, or codes and standards, but many are applicable in the United States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Concrete Institute, (ACI), 2005. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-05), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 31, Reston, VA.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2007. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 4-07, Reston, VA.
4.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
5.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-13, Reston, VA.
6.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Earthquake Aftershocks - Entering Damaged Buildings, ATC-TB-2, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
7.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2005. Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, ATC 20-1, Post-earthquake Damage and Safety Evaluation of Buildings, ATC 20 (1989), Addendum to the ATC-20 Post-earthquake Building Safety Evaluation Procedures, ATC 20-2, Redwood City, CA.
8.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2010. Here Today-Here Tomorrow: The road to Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Resilience in San Francisco—Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements, ATC 52-4, part of the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety Project, Redwood City, CA.
9.
ArnoldC., 1998. The Reconstruction of Pacific Garden Mall, Santa Cruz After the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, Lessons Learned Over Time, Vol. 1, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
10.
Attorney General (AG), 1985. John K. Van de Kamp, California Attorney General's Opinion No. 85-208 in response to Senator Leroy F. Greene, 68 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 250, September 17, Sacramento, CA.
11.
BakerJ. W., 2011. Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 322–331.
12.
BlumeJ. A., NewmarkN. M., and CorningL., 1961. Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Association, Chicago, IL.
13.
BozorgniaY., and CampbellK. W., 2004. The vertical-to-horizontal response spectral ratio and tentative procedures for developing simplified V/H and vertical design spectra, Journal of Earthquake Engineering8, 175–207.
14.
BozorgniaY., AbrahamsonN. A., CampbellK. W., RowshandelB., and ShantzT., 2012. NGA-West2: A comprehensive research program to update ground motion prediction equations for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions, Fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
15.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2009. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-750, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C.
16.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2015. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., in preparation.
17.
California Building Officials (CALBO), 2004. Adoption of Placards, Recommended Placarding Ordinance for Local Governments by the California Building Officials, Sacramento, CA, www.calbo.org/documents/PlacardingOrdinanceFinalDraft.pdf.
18.
California Building Officials (CALBO), 2013. Draft CALBO Interim Guidance for Barricading, Cordoning, Emergency Evaluation, and Stabilization of Buildings with Substantial Damage in Disasters, Sacramento, CA.
19.
California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), 2010. State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Sacramento, CA.
20.
California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), 2012. Safety Assessment Program Coordinator Student Manual, Sacramento, CA.
21.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, Sacramento, CA.
22.
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 1994. A Compendium of Background Reports on the Northridge Earthquake for Executive Order W-78-94, Report No.SSC 94-08, Sacramento, CA.
23.
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 1995. Turning Loss to Gain, Report to Governor Pete Wilson in response to Governor's Executive Order W-78-94, Report No. SSC 95-01, Sacramento, CA.
24.
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 2004. Seismic Safety in California's Schools, Sacramento, CA.
25.
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 2006. Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, SSC 2006-04, Sacramento, CA.
26.
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (CERC), 2012. Final Report Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, Volumes 1–7, Wellington, New Zealand.
27.
CharlesonA. W., TaylorM., and PrestonJ., 2001. Envisioning earthquake architecture in New Zealand, NZSEE Conference 2001, Wellington, NZ.
28.
CornellC. A., 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America58, 1583–1606.
29.
Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), 2001. Setting Up and Running Commissions of Inquiry, New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, NZ.
30.
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), 2007. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment, Open File Report 0-07-02, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR.
31.
DupuisM., BestT., ElwoodK., and AndersonD., 2013. Seismic performance of shear wall buildings with permanent lateral demands, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, under review.
32.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1998. Planning for Seismic Rehabilitation: Societal Issues, FEMA 275, Washington, D. C.
33.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes, P774, Washington, D. C.
34.
FrankelA. D., StephensonW. J., CarverD. L., WilliamsR. A., OdumJ. K., and RheaS., 2007. Seismic hazard maps for Seattle, Washington, Incorporating 3-D Sedimentary Basin Effects, Nonlinear Site Response, and Rupture Directivity, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1175, Reston, VA.
35.
GallowayB., HareJ., BrunsdonD., WoodP., LizundiaB., and StannardM., 2014. Lessons from the post-earthquake evaluation of damaged buildings in Christchurch, Earthquake Spectra30, 451–474.
36.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2007. Design and Construction of Continuous Flight Auger Piles, Geo-technical Engineering Circular No. 8, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
37.
GerstenbergerM. C., RhoadesD. A., BerrymanK., McVerryG. H., StirlingM. W., and WebbT., 2011. Update of the Z-factor for Christchurch considering earthquake clustering following the Darfield earthquake, GNS Science Report 2011/29, Lower Hutt, Wellington, NZ.
38.
International Code Council (ICC), 2006. International Existing Building Code, Country Club Hills, IL.
39.
International Code Council (ICC), 2012a. International Existing Building Code, International Code Council. Country Club Hills, IL.
40.
International Code Council (ICC), 2012b. International Codes—Adoption by State, International Code Council Web site, December, Country Club Hills, IL, available at http://www.ICCSafe.org.
41.
International Code Council (ICC), 2013. California Existing Building Code, California Building Standards Commission, California Building Standards Commission, published by International Code Council, and prior editions back to 1992, Sacramento, CA.
42.
KamW., and PampaninS., 2011. General Building Performance in the Christchurch CBD: a contextual report, New Zealand Department of Building and Housing, Wellington, NZ.
43.
MasekJ., and RidgeR., 2009. Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
44.
McGuireR. K., 2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
45.
MeachamB. (Editor), 2010. Performance-Based Building Regulatory Systems, Principles and Experiences, Report of the Inter-Jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee, Canberra, Australia, available at http://www.irccbuildingregulations.org/pdf/A1163909.pdf.
MoonL., DizhurD., SenaldiI., DerakhshanH., GriffithM., MagenesG., and InghamJ., 2014. The demise of the URM building stock in Christchurch during the 2010–2011 Canter-bury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra30, 253–276.
48.
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), 2012. NIST's Responsibilities Under the National Construction Safety Team Act, available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies.
49.
New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, (NZSEE), 2006. Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes, Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings, Wellington, NZ.
50.
Nevada, 2004. State of Nevada Standard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno, NV.
51.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2012. Seismic Retrofit Program, Sacramento, CA.
52.
Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (Oregon), 2012. Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, Salem, OR.
53.
ParkR., and PaulayT., 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
54.
PetersenM., FrankelA., HarmsenS., MuellerC., HallerK., WheelerR., WessonR., ZengY., BoydO., PerkinsD., LucoN., FieldE., WillsC., and RukstalesK., 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128, Reston, VA.
55.
ReiterL., 1990. Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
56.
Rutherford + Chekene, (R+C; Editors), 1996. Building Case Studies Project, SSC 94-06, Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento, CA.
57.
San Francisco, City of (SF), 2012. Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements, Administrative Bulletins, AB-098, AB-099, and AB-100, Department of Building Inspection, San Francisco, CA.
58.
SchmidtJ., 2005. Structural Engineering Regulation in the United States, National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, NCSEA, Chicago, IL.
59.
Standards New Zealand (NZS), 2004. Structural design actions—Part 5: Earthquake actions NZS 1170.5:2004, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
60.
State of California, 1986. The Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, Government Code Section 8875 et. seq. Sacramento, CA, www.leginfo.ca.gov.
61.
StirlingM., McVerryG., GerstenbergerM., LitchfieldN., Van DissenR., BerrymanK., BarnesP., WallaceL., VillamorP., LandgridgeR., LamarcheG., NodderS., ReynersM., BradleyB., RhoadesD., SmithW., NicolA., PettingaJ., ClarkK., and JacobsK., 2012. National seismic hazard model for New Zealand: 2010 update, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102, 1514–1542.
62.
Standards New Zealand (NZS), 2006. Concrete Structures Standard NZS 3101.1&2:2006, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
63.
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), 2012. SEAONC's earthquake performance rating system: Translating ASCE 31-03, 2012 Convention Proceedings, Sacramento, CA.
64.
Task Force, 2007. Task Force Report—Geotechnical Guidelines for Buildings on Liquefiable Sites in Accordance with the NBC 2005 for Greater Vancouver, 8 May 2007.
65.
TurnerF., 2004. Seventy years of the Riley Act and its effect on California's building stock, in Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC.
66.
U.S. Resiliency Council (USRC), 2013. http://usrc.org, San Francisco, CA.
67.
Utah Department of Public Safety (Utah), 2011. Utah Hazard Mitigation Plan, Salt Lake City, UT.
68.
van BallegooyS., MalanP., LacrosseV., JackaM. E., CubrinovskiM., BrayJ. D., O'RourkeT. D., CrawfordS. A., and CowanH., 2014. Assessment of liquefaction-induced land damage for residential Christchurch, Earthquake Spectra30, 31–35.
69.
Washington Emergency Management Division (Washington), 2010. Washington State Enhanced Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, Seattle, WA.
70.
WessonR., 2006. Issues and alternatives for incorporating time-dependent probabilities in national ground-motion mapping, and USGS preliminary plan, Third ATC-35/USGS National Earthquake Ground-Motion Mapping Workshop, San Mateo, CA.
71.
WongI., LundW., DurossC., ArabaszW., PechmannJ., CroneA., LucoN., PersoniusS., PetersenM., OligS., and SchwartzD., 2011. The Working Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities (WGUEP): Background and goals, Seismological Research Letters82, 345–346.
72.
WotherspoonL., OrenseR., JackaM., GreenR., CoxB., and WoodC., 2014. Seismic performance of improved ground sites during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra30, 111–129.
