National and International Know-how and Linkages to support the ... · Recovery of Lifelines NHRP...

Recovery of Lifelines NHRP short-term project Report: July 2012

© University of Canterbury copyright 2012 1

National and International Know-how and Linkages to

support the Recovery of Lifelines following the Canterbury (NZ) Earthquake sequence 2010-2011

“Recovery of Lifelines” NHRP Short-Term Project 43

Final Report

Fault in a 66 kV XLPE underground cable following the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Photo Credit: Orion)

Piles of liquefaction ejecta cleaned from residential properties and roads, at Bracken Street in the suburb of Avonside (Photo credit: Prof. Jarg Pettinga).

.

Authors: Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi1 (Project PI) and Dr. Thomas Wilson1 In collaboration with: Hlekiwe Kachali1 and Miau Liu1

1: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

July 2012

Recovery of Lifelines NHRP short-term project Report: December 2011


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following the Canterbury (NZ) Earthquake sequence 2010 2011, the Natural Hazard Research Platform (NHRP) of New Zealand funded various projects to support and inform the decision making process during the recovery phase.

The “Recovery of Lifeline” Project NHRP short-term project was designed to provide on-the-ground support to lifeline utility companies. Main aims of the project included the assessment of post-earthquake short- and long-term repair/restoration needs of lifelines and the facilitation of linkages and exchange of expert knowledge between lifeline utility companies and researchers in the field of lifeline earthquake engineering and management.

This report briefly outlines the way in which the researchers involved in the Recovery of Lifelines NHRP project engaged with lifelines utilities to provide expert knowledge and information that could support their short-term operational needs. Furthermore the report summarises outreaches, successes and achievements, issues and challenging encountered by the “Recovery of Lifelines” NHRP short-term project.

Issues and challenging, summarised in Section 3.5, included:

• Insufficient communication and data exchange among national researchers; • difficulties in facilitating lifelines to access data and maps reporting on observed

geotechnical induced hazards following Canterbury earthquake sequence; • lack of repositories for archiving and sharing data.

It is worth highlighting that the issues encountered by the “Recovery of Lifeline” project were in line with criticalities usually encountered internationally when trying to facilitate the access to post-earthquake hazard and damage data (EERI 2003).

Several successes and achievements, summarised throughout all the report, caracherised the “Recovery of Lifelines” project, including:

• holistic outreach targeting, lifelines and utilities managers, community (e.g. through UoC Resilience and Renewal workshop, UoC Lifelines Week), and university students;

• collection of perishable data and accounts on the seismic performance, emergency and recovery management of lifelines following the Canterbury Earthquake sequence (summarised in papers published in a scientific journal and included in conference proceedings; presented at national and international conferences);

• valued support to lifelines during the short-term response (e.g. Orion, WDC) and the long-term recovery phase (e.g. SCIRT);

• long-term connections with international lifelines experts and projects researching and working on seismic lifelines engineering and management and on infrastructure resilience enhancement;

• raised awareness on the need for further research on lifelines seismic engineering in New Zealand.



LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALA – American Lifelines Alliance

CCC – Christchurch City Council

CERA – Canterbury Earthquake Engineering Authority

CLUG – Canterbury Lifelines Utilities Group

CNRE – Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering

EQC – Earthquake Commission

MSI – Ministry of Science and Innovation

NELF – National Engineering Lifeline Forum

NHRP - Natural Hazards Research Platform

NZTA – New Zealand Transport Agency

SCIRT – Strong Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuilding Team

TCLEE - Technical Council of Lifeline Earthquake Engineering

UC – University of Canterbury

WDC – Waimakariri District Council



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Dave Brundson, and Tony Fenwick of the National Engineering Lifelines Committee and to Mark Gordon and Joanne Golden from the Canterbury Engineering Lifelines Group for their ongoing assistance. We are grateful to the utility and lifeline engineers and staff who described their systems and provided map and data: Christophe Tudo-Bornarel (Transpower); John O'Donnell, Shane Watson, Peter Elliot (Orion); Rowan Smith, Wai Yu (Contact Energy/RockGas); Pete Connors (NZ Transport Agency): Murray Sinclair (Christchurch City Council, Road); Mark Christison (Christchurch City Council, Water, Wastewater); Gerard Cleary, Gary Boot, Ric Barber (Waimakariri District Council). Our sincere thanks to interviewees: Dave Harris, (General Manager Burwood Landfill, Christchurch City Council); Peter McDonald (Pavement Liaison Engineer/Operations Manager, CCC); Lee Hautler (Maintenance Divisional Manager, Fulton Hogan Ltd); Lisa Chapman (Volunteer co-coordinator, Farmy Army/Federated Farmers); Sara Russell (New Zealand Young Farmer Manager); Jade Rutherford (club secretary/internal communications, Student Army/UCSA, University of Canterbury). We gratefully acknowledge the support of Terry Howes, Richard McCracken, and James Feary of the CCC water and wastewater unit. We gratefully acknowledge the New Zealand GeoNet project and its sponsors EQC, GNS Science and LINZ, for providing data/images used in this study. The financial support of the Natural Hazard Research Platform to the “Recovery of Lifelines” short-term project is also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, special thanks to: the 2011 HAZM 403 class at the University of Canterbury, Mark Letham, Laura Mills, Sally Mitchell, Victoria Rowe, Joanne Wallace and Sonali Weerasekara; and to Stuart Knight, student at the CNRE Department, University of Canterbury. The assistance of Matthew Hughes, Research Fellow at University of Canterbury and Anna Mason, EngD student at the University College London is gratefully acknowledged.

DISCLAIMER The authors have made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this report is reliable, but make no guarantee of its accuracy or completeness and do not accept any liability for any errors. The information contained in this report is prepared solely for its intended purpose of supporting the end-users of the Recovery of Lifelines Project, namely: National Engineering Lifelines Committee (NELC), Canterbury Lifelines Utilities Group (CLUG), Christchurch City Council (CCC), Waimakariri District Council, CCC, Strong Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuilding team (SCIRT), utility providers including, Orion, Transpower, Contact, Chorus, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

The contents of this report may be changed or updated at any time without notice.



TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 5 Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................... 5 1. Background and Project Overview...................................................................................... 8 2. Meeting Lifelines Utilities and Assessing Short-term Recovery Needs............................... 9 3. Information and Know-how in Support to Lifelines Short-term Recovery Needs .............. 12

3.1 Standards, guidelines and best-practices for repairing, retrofitting and designing earthquake-resistant lifelines systems............................................................................... 12 3.2 Best-practice for documenting and analysing the performance of affected lifelines during the Canterbury earthquake sequence .................................................................... 13 3.3 Procedures for assessing the residual/future functionality of affected components.... 15 3.4 Best-practices for estimating the seismic risk and expected performance of alternative repair and/or reconstruction strategies .............................................................................. 15 3.5 Standardised procedures for reporting/documenting the lessons learned from the earthquakes before the knowledge is lost. ........................................................................ 16

4. Scientific publications resulting from the project ............................................................... 18 5. Enhancing and Connecting Research on Lifelines Engineering in New Zealand ............. 20

5.1 Workshop on Long -Term Lifeline Research Needs.................................................... 20 5.2 Document on Long-Term Lifelines Research Needs................................................... 21 5.3 Contribution to MSI call for researches on “Hazards and Infrastructure” .................... 21 5.4 End-user oriented presentations of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project....................... 22 5.5 Undergraduate and Post-graduate Researches in support of Lifelines needs ............ 22

6. Facilitating Access to International Know-How and connecting with International experts24 6.1 Technical Council of Lifelines Engineering, TCLEE .................................................... 24 6.2 Syner-G and Global Earthquake Model, GEM project................................................. 24 6.3 Mid-American Earthquake Center Seismic Loss Assessment Tool (MAEviz)............. 24 6.4 Graphical Interactive Response Analysis for Flow Following Earthquakes (GIRAFFE)........................................................................................................................................... 24 6.5 Seismic Performance of Underground power networks .............................................. 25 6.6 Linking lifelines post-disaster recovery experiences ................................................... 25

7. Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 26 References............................................................................................................................ 27



LIST OF ANNEXES A - Bulletin of NZSEE Lifelines performance and management

B - NZSEE 2012 Paper 090 “Recovery of Lifelines”

C - NZSEE 2012 Paper 131 “Liquefaction clean-up”

D - WCEE 2012 Paper 4571 “Performance of water supply network”

E - IABMAS2012 Paper “Observed and predicted bridge damage”

F - CJUS6th Paper “Wastewater network restoration”

G - Minutes from “Long-term Lifelines Research” Workshop – June 2011

H - Document “Long-term Lifelines Research needs” – July 2011

I - Presentation “Recovery of Lifelines” - CLUG Annual meeting 2011

L - Presentation “Recovery of Lifelines and Long-term research needs and opportunities ” NELC Annual meeting 2011

M - Presentation “Resilient Lifelines” – UC Earthquake Forum – June 2012

N - Minutes from “TCLEE Reconnaissance Closing workshop” – April 2011

O - TCLEE Commitment to support recovery of lifelines in Canterbury

P - Presentation “Short-Term Recovery Projects for Lifeline Utilities”, TCLEE Closing workshop

Q - Discussions on need for research on seismic performance of power underground cables

R - SCIRT questions discussed during UC Lifelines Week.

S - Presentation “Assessing and Measuring Infrastructure Resilience”, UC Lifelines Week.



1. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW A magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the city of Christchurch at 12:51pm on Tuesday 22 February 2011. The earthquake caused more than 180 fatalities, a large number of injuries, and resulted in widespread damage to the built environment. The Christchurch earthquake badly damaged over 6,000 residential and disrupted the main lifelines systems of the city (including the road, the water and wastewater networks and the electric systems) forcing thousands to leave their homes and communities. The February event compounded some of the effects of the 4 September 2010 earthquake, which did not directly result in any fatalities but did cause widespread property and infrastructure damage.

The Natural Hazard Research Platform (NHRP) of New Zealand funded several projects to support and inform the decision making process during the recovery phase.

The “Recovery of Lifeline” Project NHRP short-term project was designed to provide on-the-ground support to lifeline utility companies. Main aims of the project included the assessment of post-earthquake short- and long-term repair/restoration needs of lifelines and the facilitation of linkages and exchange of know-how between lifeline utility companies and researchers in the field of lifeline earthquake engineering and management.

The University of Canterbury was the lead organisation for the project. Clients and end-users of the project were National Engineering Lifelines Committee (NELC), Canterbury Lifelines Utilities Group (CLUG), Christchurch City Council (CCC), Waimakariri District Council, Strong Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuilding team (SCIRT), utility providers including, Orion, Transpower, Contact, Chorus, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

The project team included: Prof. Jarg Pettinga, Prof. Misko Cubrinovski, Dr Tom Wilson, Prof. Alan Nicholson, Ass. Prof. Neville Watson (University of Canterbury); Caroline Holden (GNS Science); Helen Grant (Environment Canterbury Regional Council); Mark Gordon (Canterbury Lifelines Utility Group).

The project Principal Investigator (PI), Dr Sonia Giovinazzi acted as a liaison person between the affected the affected lifeline utilities, the National Engineering Lifeline Committee, the Canterbury Engineering Lifelines Group and the national and international research community. The PI of the project and liaison person was in close contact with the lifeline utilities to facilitate the use of the most advanced research outputs to support their recovery activities. On the other hand, the PI of the project and liaison person had the responsibility for letting the research community know about the lifeline utility needs and information requirements.

The main project activities included:

• initial meetings with each affected lifeline utility to identify specific short-term needs and to discuss long-term modelling and analysis needs;

• regular email communication with affected lifeline utilities to ensure a two-way liaison with the scientific community

• participations in workshop with all affected lifeline utilities to drive and coordinate the specific short-term needs identified;

• organisation of a workshop to connect and link researches, institutions and research projects focusing in New Zealand on lifelines and lifeline related issues;

• support and facilitate the reconnaissance from Technical Council of Lifelines Engineering (TCLEE) and organisation of a final workshop opened to lifelines utilities;



• provision of current knowledge to the lifeline utilities on earthquake likelihood during the recovery, seismic risk as well as induced geotechnical hazards, other potential hazards;

• provision of hazard maps in a format suitable and readily usable for lifelines utilities; • provision of dynamic update of the state of current knowledge according to the

outputs from other NHRP short-term projects; • provision of the state of current knowledge in response to non-hazard related short-

term needs (e.g. vulnerability issues, repair/reinstatement-engineering solutions, assessment/enhancement of the residual network functionality, system interdependencies issues);

• provision of know-how on how to analyse damages and observed vulnerabilities to network’s components.

2. MEETING LIFELINES UTILITIES AND ASSESSING SHORT-TERM RECOVERY NEEDS One of the primary objectives of the NHRP short-term project on Recovery of Lifelines was to establish and maintain communication with affected lifeline utilities to identify specific short-term needs and to discuss long-term modelling and analysis needs.

The Principal Investigator (PI) of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project, Dr Sonia Giovinazzi and the Canterbury Lifelines Utility Group, CLUG, representative, Mark Gordon, met with representatives of the main lifelines utilities to discuss with them their specific needs during the recovery phase. Meetings were held with affected lifeline utilities, in particular with representatives from power (Orion, Transpower); telecommunications (Chorus); water and wastewater (Waimakariri District Council) and transport utilities (New Zealand Transport Agency, CCC road and bridges staff).

Following each one of the meetings a report and/or an email was circulated among all the lifelines attendants summarising the research need discussed and the actions planned. From the meetings held with each utility company, specific short-terms needs were identified and discussed (Table 1). Table 1 provides, as an example, synopsis of identified research needs and suggested actions from the meetings with different organisations, including: Chorus, Orion, NZTA, Transpower.



Table 1. Examples of identified operational needs and planned actions following the meetings with lifelines organisations

Lifeline Organisation Operational Needs Planned Actions

Chorus

(in person meeting)

1.Residual/future performance of stretched copper cabling

2.Existing standards/procedures to straighten the cellular network towers out of plumb due to liquefaction

3.Scenario analysis to assess the seismic performance of alternatives solutions to replace damaged exchanges

Provide the state of current knowledge/research on this subject

Provide the state of current knowledge/research on this subject

Collect data on the performance of the asset components following 4th September and 22nd February earthquakes (Colin to facilitate the contact with the contractors and consultants that have collected the data)

Collect data on the hazard and soil condition underlying the affected components of the networks

Estimate the performance of the alternative solutions, considering the results from activities A3.1 and A3.2 above for different possible earthquake scenarios

Orion

(several in person meetings)

1.Helping Orion to better understand the causes of the damage to their network

2.Providing an estimation of the possible damage and impact on network performance for different possible earthquake events

3.Working on scenario analyses for different hazards other further than seismic ones (e.g. flooding, considering that the ground around Christchurch has subsided about 1 meter following the quake)

Identify cable damage locations following the 22nd February (and possibly the 4th September) earthquake

Overlay and compare cable damages with

- recorded ground motion (both horizontal and vertical components): - land damage: including punctual representation of surface fault ruptures and landslides liquefaction map; Correlate seismic and geotechnical hazards and the geological condition to the resulted damage extent, considering the characteristic and the vulnerability of the affected asset Perform scenario analyses

NZTA

(in person meeting)

probabilistically assess the increased risk for flooding due to the subsidy phenomena induced by the Canterbury earthquake sequence

Establish whether or not the research community (e.g. NIWA, ECan, CCC were already working on the issue

NZTA to send to Sonia any relevant Alliance (SCIRT) documents and name of possible liaison within the Alliance

Transpower

(phone converasation)

Keep them updated on on-going and planned research on seismic performance of underground cables



Table 2 summarises by sector the main and more urgent needs identified following all the meetings held with lifeline utilities as part of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project.

Table 2. Post-earthquake short-term needs of lifelines utilities identified by the “Recovery of Lifelines” project and summarised by sector.

Power • Analysis of seismic performance of underground cables and identification of the

multiple causes of the damage to the underground network • Assessment of the residual/future functionality of affected power underground cables • Seismic Scenario Analysis for assessing and comparing alternative solutions to build

permanent capacity in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch • Assessing earthquake risk to underground lines versus wind and snow-storm risk to

overhead lines • Assessing cable-bridge interactions and coordinating repair activities with road and

bridge Telecommunication

• Assessing residual/future functionality of stretched copper cabling • Existing standards/procedures to straighten the cellular network towers out of plumb

due to liquefaction • Seismic Scenario Analysis for assessing and comparing alternatives solutions to

replace damaged exchanges Highway and Urban Road

• Assessing and accounting, within repair/rebuilding designing procedures, for the increased risk of flooding induced by the ground deformation and subsidence due to repeated earthquakes

• Assessing and mitigating the rock-fall risk on roads induced by the earthquakes and following aftershocks

Water and wastewater • Documenting and analysing the seismic performance of different buried pipes

typologies (material/age) to identify the less vulnerable solutions for repairing and rebuilding

• Identifying techniques and tools to support the prioritisation of repairing/reconstruction activities and to justify costs of earthquake resistant solutions

• Defining a method and a tool for automatically mapping and assessing earthquake-induced damage to sewage network, starting from CCTV (closed circuit television) footage

Gas • Existing standards/procedures to seismically design Liquefied Petroleum Gas feed

plant



3. INFORMATION AND KNOW-HOW IN SUPPORT TO LIFELINES SHORT-TERM RECOVERY NEEDS Specific operational needs and requests from the lifelines utilities, identified as part of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project (Table 1 and Table 2) were summarised into five main topics, namely:

1) standards, guidelines and best-practices for repair/retrofitting and designing earthquake-resistant lifelines systems;

2) best-practices for documenting and analysing the performance and damage of lifelines during the Canterbury earthquake sequence;

3) procedures for assessing the residual/future functionality of affected components; 4) best-practices for estimating the expected performance and risk of alternative repair

and/or reconstruction strategies in case of further earthquakes; 5) procedures for reporting/documenting the lessons learned from the earthquakes

before the knowledge is lost.

The information and know-how provided as part of the Recovery of Lifelines NHRP short-term project in response to the aforementioned topics are briefly presented in the following sub-sections.

3.1 Standards, guidelines and best-practices for repairing, retrofitting and designing earthquake-resistant lifelines systems This section summarises what was discussed with the lifelines utilities in response to their request for existing standards and guidelines to be used as a reference for repairing, retrofitting damaged components of the lifelines systems and/or designing more earthquake-resistant components. It is worth enforcing that a complete revision of existing standards for repairing, retrofitting and designing earthquake-resistant lifelines was out of the scope of the Recovery of Lifelines project.

In 1996 a plan for developing and adopting seismic design guidelines and standards for lifelines was prepared in the United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with private sector input (FEMA 271). The American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) a public-private partnership between FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was initiated with financial support from FEMA in 1998 with a primary goal of facilitating the development and improvement of the design of key utility (electric power, telecommunication, water, waste water, oil, natural gas, rail, and shipping ports) and transportation systems, to achieve the desired level of performance in natural hazards (Honegger et al. 2003).

Multi-hazard design of lifelines components and multi-hazard analysis of existing lifelines components

To assist in identifying gaps in existing knowledge or practice, ALA prepared matrices of existing guidelines and standards (ALA, 2004) for the design and/or analysis of existing components of lifeline systems accounting for the loads from natural hazards, (earthquake, wind, snow and ice) and man-induced hazards (cyber, radiological, chemical or blasts). Lifelines systems accounted for within the ALA guidelines and standards matrices include:

• Oil Products systems • Natural Gas Systems • Water System (Potable and Raw) • Wastewater Systems



• Telecommunication Systems • Port and Inland Waterways • Highways and Roads • Railroad • Electrical Mechanical and Architectural Components

ALA matrices include USA guidelines and standards only. The European Commission, the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, the Indian National Center for Earthquake Engineering, among others, have issued further guidelines and standards for the seismic design of lifelines components, e.g.: i) Eurocode-8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part-4: Silos, Tanks and Pipelines, (Eurocode, 2004); ii) Basic Principles of Seismic Design and Construction for Water Supply Facilities (JSCE, 2000a); iii) Recommended Practices for Earthquake Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines (JSCE 2000b); iv) IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for seismic design of buried pipelines (NICEE 2007).

Techniques and practices for seismic retrofitting lifelines components and systems Seismic retrofitting techniques for components and systems are reviewed (including the benefits of retrofitting versus gradual replacement) and described in different hazard-specific and utility-specific documents and reports from ASCE, FEMA and ALA e.g.: i) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping Systems (ALA 2002); ii) Earthquake Resistant Construction of Electric Transmission and Telecommunication Facilities Serving the Federal Government (FEMA 202, 1990); iii) Earthquake Resistant Construction of Gas and Liquid Fuel Pipeline Systems Serving or Regulated by the Federal Government. (FEMA 233, 1992); iv) Guidelines for the Seismic Upgrade of Water Transmission Facilities (ASCE 2000.

Techniques and practices for repairing damaged lifelines components following earthquakes A summary report and/or specific guidelines on techniques and practices for post-earthquake repairing of lifelines components could not be identified during the period of the project. The suggestion was made to look for specific examples in the many reconnaissance reports available from ASCE and ALA.

3.2 Best-practice for documenting and analysing the performance of affected lifelines during the Canterbury earthquake sequence Lifeline utilities were advised on the need to document the damage sustained by the components of their networks, and on the need to analyse the relationships among the observed damage and the: ground motion, earthquake-induced permanent and transient ground deformation, groundwater, and surface and subsurface conditions at the location of the network components.

Detailed information on how to perform a post-earthquake vulnerability analysis can be derived from international literature. A detailed overview on how to analyse and represent the relationship between buried lifeline damage and various seismic parameters is provided in O’Rourke and Jeon (2000). ALA (2001) provides a complete guide on the formulation of seismic fragility curves for water system based on post-earthquake damage data processing.

As an easy and operative rule of thumb the following three steps were suggested to affected lifeline utilities:

Step 1. Collect, classify and represent within a Geographical Information System the damage and repair activities to the affected lifelines components following the 4 September 2010, 22 February 2011 and 13 June 2011 earthquakes;



Step 2. Overlay GIS layers of the damage sustained by their network, and vector or raster maps of the ground motion, ground deformation and soil conditions recorded/observed at the location of their networks and affected components (Table 3);

Step 3. Estimate and represent the relationship between lifeline damage, the seismic input and liquefaction-induced ground deformations to get a first understanding of the seismic performance of the network components (and of different typologies of components, e.g. material/age, if applicable).

Table 3. Ground-motion and land damage data and maps requirements and availability at the time of the Recovery of Lifelines project.

Maps and data description Availability

Ground-motion GeoNet Strong Motion Database - Strong motions records available at the location of the 132 GeoNet strong motion stations (GeoNet 2011)

Available at the location station point (derived interpolated maps)

Liquefaction drive-through reconnaissance map mapping surface evidence of liquefaction on roads and adiaject areas (Cubrinovski and Taylor, 2011).

Available (raster format).

Land damage to residential areas (Tonkin and Taylor, 2011), commissioned by the Earthquake Commission (EQC)

Available to the project team only. Not available to lifelines utilities due to confidentiality issues*

LIDAR data

Land damage: liquefaction induced soil failure,

surface fault rupture,

rock fall.

Damage to underground water waste-water and sewage network to be used for microzoning purposes (O’Rourke and Jeon, 2000)

Not available to the project

Geology map of the Christchurch Urban Area 1: 50,000 (Brown and Weeber, 1992);

Available (raster format)

Ground-water table Available

“Swamp to City” Christchurch Drainage Board (Wilson, 1989)

Available (raster format)

Surface and shallow soil conditions

Groundwater data

In-situ tests commissioned by EQC* Not available to the project*

* These data and maps were made available by the Earthquake Commission, by publishing on the EQC website, http://canterbury.eqc.govt.nz/news/reports from late November 2011/middle December 2010 (The Recovery of Lifelines project was already concluded at that time). Maps representing EQC in-situ tests and further maps can be found on https://CanterburyRecovery.ProjectOrbit.com/ web site.



3.3 Procedures for assessing the residual/future functionality of affected components Lifelines utilities were advised that laboratory tests were necessary to support the assessment of the residual and future functionality of affected components. As an example in case of damaged underground cables it would have been necesssary to assess: 1) possible increasingly damaging effects with higher levels of ground deformation, starting with deformation leading to impaired electrical conductivity, to increased loss of electric flow, to full electric power disruption; 2) states of deformation leading to loss of electric stability over time; 3) levels of deformation that break down insulation from groundwater effects (Prof. O’Rourke personal communication).

3.4 Best-practices for estimating the seismic risk and expected performance of alternative repair and/or reconstruction strategies Lifeline utilities were advised that running scenarios analysis would have been the ideal approach for comparing different alternatives envisaged by lifeline utilities during the recovery phase, to replace damaged component and/or to rebuild permanent capacity where temporary solutions were adopted.

As part the Recovery of Lifelines project, the attempt was made to collect and provide the following necessary information for running scenario analysis: 1) subsurface structure and earthquake likelihood for the specification of hazard scenarios (epicentre location, moment magnitude, directivity parameters); 2) ground motion predictive models on rock and models for representing soil -amplifications (New Zealand-specific and calibrated on Canterbury earthquake data); 3) ground deformation and land damage predictive models (New Zealand-specific and calibrated on Canterbury earthquake data).

Synthetic seismograms in Christchurch (computed broadband 0.5-20hz), and derived ground-motion measures, for a large potential Alpine Fault earthquake were made available for the study from Holden and Zhao (2011). At first seismograms were computed for rock site condition. In order to account for soft soil conditions, site effects equivalent to a site class D (e.g. Botanic Garden in Christchurch) were added to the “rock-site” seismograms (work by John Zhao). Synthetic seismograms, including various site effects, could have been computed for specific locations of particular interest for the lifelines utilities (e.g. location of main components of the lifeline networks) provided the availability of soil profile data for the specific site location of interest.

Similar hazard scenario modelling for the Greendale Fault causing the 4 September 2010 earthquake and for the other Christchurch local faults causing the many aftershocks remains as work that could be done, and that can be tested against observed damage from those events.

A predictive model for assessing liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction induced ground deformation at territorial authority scale and at different detailed levels was proposed by Giovinazzi and Cubrinovsky (2007). However, due to the lack of the necessary data (e.g. in-situ tests, Table 3) the model could not be implemented to assess the liquefaction susceptibility for the purposes of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project. Reference was therefore made to the “Liquefaction hazard map” and “Liquefaction ground damage map” (Beca, 2005).

Simplified analysis and discussions to support urgent recovery decision making by lifeline utilities were performed as part of the Recovery of Lifelines project based on these maps and on the data and information available (Table 3).



It is worth highlighting that a liquefaction susceptibility review study is currently underway at Environment Canterbury (Environment Canterbury media-release 25/11/2011). Environment Canterbury and the Natural Hazards Research Platform (NHRP) jointly fund the project with inputs from Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council. The project aims to analyse geological and geotechnical data derived both from the recent earthquakes and pre-earthquake information, held by research institutes, local authorities and private companies. The data will be processed according to a consistent methodology to produce updated liquefaction hazard information. Maps will be made available to city and district councils and lifelines utilities to guide future development (including the required level of geotechnical investigation for future development). Liquefaction Resistance Index Map for Christchurch City, based on expert-opinion and observed liquefaction-induced land damage following the Canterbury Earthquakes has been recently defined (Cubrinovski and Hughe, personal communication).

3.5 Standardised procedures for reporting/documenting the lessons learned from the earthquakes before the knowledge is lost. Following a workshop sponsored by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (Pasadena, CA 2002) many issues and criticalities for the collection and management of earthquake data were identified and discussed (EERI 2003). Table 4 summaries, from the EERI report, some of the criticalities and issues that affected the collection and management of earthquake data in the aftermath of 22 February earthquake.

Table 4. Common criticalities and issues for the collection and management of post-earthquake hazard and damage data

Lack of coordination: After earthquakes, multiple teams are in the field, performing reconnaissance and/or research. These teams may not be well coordinated, collecting the same data, and overlooking other critical and perishable data.

Lack of repositories: Data that are collected are often stored by individual researchers and field investigators, making access by others difficult.

Data maintenance and access: Difficulties in addressing and responding to issues of data access and data maintenance.

Perishable data: Some of the data are extremely perishable. With little coordination and/or access, these data sometimes disappear before they can be collected.

Different time frames for data collection: Different types of data need to be collected at different time periods before and after an earthquake. Some data are impossible to collect in the first few days after an earthquake, including accurate direct and indirect costs of the earthquake, complete damage surveys, extent of lifelines disruption, and rebuilding and reconstruction policies. Inventory data are, by definition, collected prior to an event. These different time frames mean that different tools are necessary for accessing and storing data.

It is worth highlighting the US Plan to co-ordinate post-earthquake investigations (http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/circular/c1242/), and that ALA is working toward the development and implementing of a Post-earthquake Information Management System (PIMS), an end-to-end system for post-hazard event data collection, archiving of data, and distribution of post-earthquake data for use to improve hazard mitigation. ALA is working to define: 1) the breadth of data that needs to be accommodated by PIMS; 2) key issues not currently addressed through existing post-earthquake investigations; 3) necessary tools for storing, presenting, analyzing, and disseminating that information; 4) types of data searching



and collating features that users would like to have (database searching, output format, GIS compatibility, etc.). The breadth of data to be collected for documenting the performance of lifelines systems and the societal and economic impact of their disruption was suggested as part of the Recovery of Lifelines project and is presented in Table 5.

Much of what is described can be realised, and to a degree is evolving, in the SCIRT, CCC, and CERA environments, and is now being reconsidered for the Canterbury Recovery Accelerated Spatial Data Infrastructure (LINZ 2012/SDI 01), SDI project (Peter Wood, personal communication).

Table 5. Data collection and data processing for consolidating the knowledge on the seismic response and impact of lifelines following Christchurch earthquakes

Objective 1 – Consolidate the knowledge on the seismic response and impact of lifelines following Christchurch earthquakes;

Task 1 - Data Collection – data related to the behaviour and impact of Christchurch City and Waimakariri District Council lifeline systems, following the 4 September, 22 February and 13 June earthquakes, will be collected according to the following categories:

1.1 Network characteristics: systems structure, system components and sub-components;

1.2 Component characteristics: design (e.g. construction year, seismic design), properties (e.g. material), geometry, geospatial representation;

1.3 Seismic hazard and induced geotechnical hazard: ground shaking (recorded PGA), land damage (including liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides and rock falls) at the location of the system components;

1.4 Physical impact on the network component: (e.g. damage, disruption, deformation, etc.);

1.5 Functional impact: loss/reduction of the system functionality (e.g. loss of connectivity; reduced serviceability);

1.6 Social impacts of lifeline disruptions:

1.7 Impact of lifeline disruptions on organisations:

1.8 Direct and indirect economic losses:

1.9 Interdependencies: Physical, Social, Economic Interdependencies

1.10 Repair/restoration practices, strategies, times

Task 2 – Data Processing

2.1 Definition of taxonomies: physical damage classification scheme (to network component), system performance metrics, socio-economic performance indicators;

2.2 Data elaboration according the above-defined taxonomies;

2.3 Geospatial representation of data (according to a common agreed Geographical Information System)

Task 3 – Data Dissemination (conditional to the agreement of the lifeline utilities)

3.1 Data aggregation: to overcome confidentiality issues and allow for data disclosure;

3.2 Develop an information sharing web centre (with restricted access) to allow the use of the aggregated data for national and international researchers



4. SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT The “Recovery of Lifelines” NHRP project team members have co-authored few papers to report on the observations and preliminary outcomes from the project. The paper contents and information are briefly summarised in the following subsections. All the papers listed below are attached to the report (Annexes from A to F). 4.1 Lifelines Performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of Resilience (Giovinazzi et al 2011). This paper describes the impact of the Christchurch earthquake on lifelines by briefly summarising the physical damage to the networks, the system performance and the operational response during the emergency management and the recovery phase. Special focus is given to the performance and management of the gas, electric and road networks and to the liquefaction ejecta clean-up operations that contributed to the rapid reinstatement of the functionality of many of the lifelines. The water and wastewater system performances are also summarized. Elements of resilience that contributed to good network performance or to efficient emergency and recovery management are highlighted in the paper. Further information on the impact on lifelines of the 4 September Darfield and 22nd February Canterbury earthquakes, can be found in the reconnaissance report from the Technical Council of Lifelines Engineering, TCLEE (Eidinger and Tang, 2011) and in different papers from the following authors, Cubrinovski et al. (2011), Palermo et al. (2011), Massie and Watson (2011), Transpower (2011a, 2011b). This paper has been included in the Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (peer-reviewed journal). NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44 (4), pp.402-417. 4.2 “Recovery of Lifelines” following the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake: successes and issues. NZSEE 2012. (Giovinazzi and Wilson 2012) This paper aims to briefly summarise the management of the recovery process for the most affected lifelines systems, including the electric system, the road, gas, and the water and wastewater networks. Further than this, the paper intends to discuss successes and issues encountered by the “Recovery of Lifelines” NHRP project in supporting lifelines utilities. This paper has been submitted to the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, NZSEE 2012, held in Christchurch, April 2012. The paper was included in NZSEE 2012 conference proceedings and accepted for oral presentation at NZSEE 2012. 4.3 Liquefaction ejecta clean up in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence, NZ. NZSEE 2012 (Villemure, et al. 2012). This paper provides a detailed account on the liquefaction clean-up experience in Christchurch following the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence. The study described in the paper has emerged as a valuable case study to support further analysis and research on the coordination, management and costs of large volume deposition of fine-grained sediment in urban areas. This paper has been submitted to the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, NZSEE 2012, held in Christchurch, April 2012. The paper was included in NZSEE 2012 conference proceedings.



4.4 Impact and Recovery of the Kaiapoi Water Supply Network following the September 4th 2010 Darfield Earthquake (Knight, et al. 2012). This paper presents the analysis of the physical and functional impact of the Darfield earthquake on Kaiapoi water supply network, and the strategies adopted by the local council for assessing the extent of the damage and for promptly restoring the service to the fullest possible extent. The response to different levels of ground deformations for the wide range of pipe materials used within the Kaiapoi water network are analysed by processing and comparing the repair data with the land damage deformation data. The resulting repair rates are compared to previously derived fragility models to assess how closely they have estimated the physical impact of the earthquake on the network. The functionality restoration process and strategies adopted by the Local Council are analysed by assessing the number of people reconnected to the service for each repair and the amount of resources required to operate the repair.

This paper has been submitted to the World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, WCEE 2012, to be held in Lisbon, September 2012. The paper has been accepted for inclusion in WCEE 2012Conference proceedings. The paper has been selected for oral presentation at WCEE 2012Conference. 4.5 Observed and predicted bridge damage following the recent Canterbury earthquakes: toward the calibration and refinement of damage and loss estimation tools (Brando et al. 2012). In this paper the damage suffered by the bridge stock of the Canterbury Region in New Zealand, following the recent earthquakes, recorded into the University of Canterbury Bridge Database is presented and analysed. Observed damage is then compared with the damage predicted using of MAEviz platform. The main aim is to understand potentialities and criticalities of available damage and loss estimation tools toward their calibration and refinement. Possible improvements and suggestions for further investigations are briefly discussed in the paper This paper has been submitted to the 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management IABMAS held in Como (Italy) June 2012. The paper has been accepted for inclusion in IABMAS 2012 Conference proceedings. The paper has been selected for oral presentation at IABMAS 2012 Conference. 4.6 Wastewater network restoration following the Canterbury Earthquake sequence in New Zealand: turning post-earthquake recovery into resilience enhancement (Giovinazzi et al. 2012) The paper will present and discuss the approach adopted by SCIRT, to measure and compare the increased seismic resilience possibly offered by the different aforementioned wastewater network rebuild options. The papers will describe how the authors, together with local and international experts, have engaged with SCIRT, CCC and CERA to provide know-how and support to SCIRT decision-making process toward the seismic resilience enhancement of Christchurch wastewater network. In particular the paper will discuss: 1) the potentialities and limitations of existing seismic risk assessment tools, allowing for probabilistic and scenario analysis simulations, to inform and support SCIRT resilience enhancement decision making process; 2) the great contribution in term of available know-how, lesson-learn and best practices This paper has been submitted to the 6th China, Japan, US trilateral Symposium, CJUS6th, on Lifelines Earthquake Engineering that will be held in Chengdu, Sinchuan (China) October 2012. The paper will be included in Conference proceedings published by the American Society of Earthquake Engineering, ASCE. The paper has been selected for oral presentation at CJUS6th,



5. ENHANCING AND CONNECTING RESEARCH ON LIFELINES ENGINEERING IN NEW ZEALAND 5.1 Workshop on Long -Term Lifeline Research Needs As part of the “Recovery of Lifelines” NHRP short-term project, a workshop was organised to promote and enhance the collaboration and communication among researchers and scientists working on lifelines-related research in New Zealand. The workshop was held on 16 June 2011 and was facilitated by Dave Brundson, chair of the National Engineering Lifelines Committee. University of Canterbury was selected as the venue for the workshop offering the possibility for video-conferencing facilities to facilitate the participation of people from different venues. However, due to the closure of the University campus for safety check following the 13th June aftershock, the event was organised as a conference call from a private home. Table 6 summarises the participants of the conference call. Table 6. Data collection and data processing for consolidating the knowledge on the seismic response and impact of lifelines following Christchurch earthquakes

Wellington Christchurch Taupo

Kelvin Berryman (NHRP Manager)

David Brunsdon (NELC)

Rob Buxton (GNS)

Jim Cousins (GNS)

Tony Fenwick (NELC)

David Johnston (GNS/Massey)

Andrew King (GNS)

Ljubica Mamula-Seadon (MCDEM)

SR Uma (GNS)

Sonia Giovinazzi (UoC) Mark Gordon (AECOM) Anna Mason (UCL)

Thomas Wilson (UoC)

Liam Wotherspoon (UoA)

Gill Jolly (GNS)

The discussion at the workshop covered/included:

• Presentation and discussion on the projects that were currently underway on lifelines/infrastructure, in New Zealand aiming to clarify: scope; achieved results; expected outcomes. Lifelines related project discussed and presented during the conference call included:

- Modelling the Interdependency of Critical Lifelines and Infrastructure – Buxton (GNS) - Habitability of Post-Earthquake Cities – Jim Cousins (GNS) - RiskScape – Andrew King (GNS) - Recovery of Lifelines – Sonia Giovinazzi (UoC) - Ports Assessment and Destructive Bridge Testing – Liam Wotherspoon (UoA)

• The identification of linkages between the existing projects and the discussion of

strategies for their possible integration into a long-term lifelines research programme;

• summary on the lifelines utility needs and requirements resulting from end-user driven projects, namely NHRP project “Recovery of Lifelines” (PI, Dr. Sonia



Giovinazzi, UoC) and “Liquefaction Impacts on Pipe Networks” (PI Ass. Prof. Cubrinovski, UoC);

• The identification of gaps and research needs to be addressed in a long-term integrated research programme;

• Consensus regarding a matrix of approach which needs a common basis to capture data and system analysis avoiding reinventing models.

The agenda of the conference call included in the report as Annex G.

Interactions such as those made possible by this conference call/workshop highlight the importance of establishing trust based networks for effective data sharing, transparency and avoiding duplicate analyses

5.2 Document on Long-Term Lifelines Research Needs Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi (PI of the “Recovery of Lifelines Project”) summarised the longer-term modelling and analysis needs that were identified and discussed while meeting lifelines utilities as part of the “Recovery of Lifelines Project and following the “Long-term lifelines research need workshop” (Section 5.1). The document (included in this report as Annex H) was prepared, following an explicit request from the National Engineering Lifelines Committee (NELC) and NHRP representatives, with the aim to identify infrastructure research priorities in New Zealand.

An updated version of the same document, following a interview campaign with subject-matter experts (Fairclough, 2011) was used by NELC to inform Ministry of Science and Innovation, MSI on long-term research needs to support infrastructure resilience enhancement.

5.3 Contribution to MSI call for researches on “Hazards and Infrastructure” The objectives of the Hazards and Infrastructure Research Fund (under Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, formerly under Ministry of Science and Innovation, MSI) are to increase New Zealand's resilience to hazards, support sustainable urban development, building and infrastructure, and help communities to manage growth and change, mitigate risks and maximise infrastructure efficiency.

Dr Sonia Giovinazzi, contributed to three different research proposals, bringing the experience gained from the “Recovery of Lifelines” project on needs for infrastructure resilience enhancement and the experience on advanced models for seismic risk assessment of infrastructure gained while participating and contributing to the EU-funded “Syner-G” project (Section 6.2). The research proposal submitted to the Hazards and Infrastructure Research Fund included:

• “Resilient buried infrastructure” (Science leader: Ass. Prof. Jason Ingam, Auckland University)

• “Performance-based Assessment of Integrated Pipe-road-bridge systems under Earthquakes” (Science leader: Dr. Alessandro Palermo, University of Canterbury)

• "Economics of Resilient Infrastructure" (Science leaders: Ms Michele Daly, GNS Science and Erica Seville, ResOrgs, University Of Canterbury).



5.4 End-user oriented presentations of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project Presenting the “Recovery of Lifelines” project at the Canterbury Lifelines Utilities Group (CLUG) The Canterbury Lifeline Utilities Group (CLUG) held the annual forum on 9 August 2011. Main themes discussed as part of the 2011 CLUG Annual Forum, included the performance of lifelines and lesson learnt following the Canterbury earthquake sequence; and preliminary outcomes from lifelines related researches. Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi was invited to present at the 2011 CLUG forum on activities and preliminary results from the NHRP short-term project “Recovery of Lifelines”. Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi presentation at 2011 CLUG annual forum is included in the report (Annex I). The list of participants and complete minutes from the CLUG meeting are available upon request (contact Joanne Golden, AECOM). Presenting the “Recovery of Lifelines” project at National Engineering Lifelines Council (NELC) The National Engineering Lifelines Council (NELC) held a forum on 1 and 2 November 2011 in Christchurch. Main themes discussed as part of the 2011 NELC annual forum included: the performance of lifeline utility co-ordination arrangements following the 22 February 2011 earthquake; the performance of sector co-ordination at the national level; lesson learnt and necessary improvements. Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi was invited to present at the 2011 CLUG forum on activities and preliminary results from the NHRP short-term project “Recovery of Lifelines”. Furthermore in collaboration with Roger Fairclough, Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi presented on long-term research needs to enhance infrastructure resilience. Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi presentation at 2011 NELC Forum is included in the report (Annex L). The list of participants and complete minutes from the NELC 2011 forum is available upon request (contact Joanne Golden, AECOM).

Presenting at Renewal and Resilience – UC Earthquake Research Forum Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi was invited to present at the “Renewal and Resilience – UC Earthquake Research Forum” held at University of Canterbury 5 June 2012 on the activities, and outcomes from the “Recovery of Lifelines” NHRP short-term project and on future research needs and opportunities to support infrastructure resilience enhancement in New Zealand.

Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi presentation at 2012 Renewal and Resilience – UC Earthquake Research Forum is included in the report (Annex M).

5.5 Undergraduate and Post-graduate Researches in support of Lifelines needs Undergraduate students The 2012 Hazard and Disaster Management class (HAZM 403) at the University of Canterbury undertook their individual research assignments on "Lifeline Recovery following the Christchurch Earthquake". The class split into groups with topics that broadly centre around:

• Characterisation of liquefaction induced damage to buried electrical cables • Characterisation of damage to buried water and waste-water services from

liquefaction ground damage



• Time, cost, resource and management requirements for clean-up of liquefaction ejecta in Christchurch

Analysis from several of the more capable students contributed to the Giovinazzi et al. 2011 study in the Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. In several cases, the individual research topics have developed into MSc thesis studies. In a broader sense, this was a valuable outreach activity for the students, offering an opportunity for them to contribute to a real world problem and engage with real stakeholders. Feedback from the students was extremely positive.

Undergraduate students – 3rd pro projects • Stuart Knight - 3rd pro-student at UoC (Supervisors Dr Sonia Giovinazzi , Dr Pedro

Lee)

Project: “Impact and Recovery of the Kaiapoi Water Supply Network following the September 4th 2010 Darfield Earthquake”. Project outreach: Waimakariri District Council, WDC, utility managers and representatives from consultant companies expressed interest on Stuart work. Stuart was invited to present his work and results at WDC headquarters in Rangiora at the presence of WDC utility managers, WDC counsellors and AECOM representatives.

• Emily Brooks and Kate Craigie - 3rd pro-students at UoC (Supervisors Dr Sonia Giovinazzi , Ass. Prof. Mark Milke)

Project: “Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of Buried Pipe”. Project outreach: SCIRT and CERA representatives expressed interest on Emily and Kate work (on-going), and requested the preliminary results.

Post-graduate students

• Miao Liu - PhD student at UoC (Supervisors: Dr Sonia Giovinazzi, Ass. Prof. Mark Milke) PhD thesis: “Vulnerability Analysis and Mitigation Planning for Sewerage Systems: towards seismic resilience enhancement”

• Sonali Weerasekara - Master student at UoC (Supervisors: Dr Sonia Giovinazzi, Dr Thomas Wilson, Ass. Prof. Mark Milke) Master thesis: Gastroenteritis Risk Modelling following the Canterbury Earthquakes in New Zealand: Preliminary Analysis of Exposure and Mitigating Factors

• Marlene Villemure - Master student at UoC (Supervisor Dr Thomas Wilson) Fine-grained sediment clean up in urban environments: case studies from Christchurch liquefaction ejecta and Auckland ash fall clean ups

• Gian Maria Bocchini – Internship student at UoC from UME School IUSS (Supervisor Dr Sonia Giovinazzi at UoC, Dr Helen Crowley at UME School, IUSS Pavia, Italy).Gian Maria will work on during 5 months period internship at UoC funded by UME school (travel and living costs covered by the Recovery of Lifelines project) to respond to some of SCIRT research needs.



6. FACILITATING ACCESS TO INTERNATIONAL KNOW-HOW AND CONNECTING WITH INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS 6.1 Technical Council of Lifelines Engineering, TCLEE The PI of the Recovery of Lifelines project Dr Sonia Giovinazzi and Dr Tom Wilson, Associate investigator of the project facilitated the reconnaissance visit of Technical Committee on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering TCLEE (5th-9th April 2011) following the 22nd February Earthquake. Sonia and Tom organised and hosted at UoC the “TCLEE Reconnaissance Closing Workshop” (8 April 2011) that was opened to both researchers and practitioners. Summary minutes of the TCLEE workshop are included in the report (Annex N). Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi presentation at the “TCLEE Reconnaissance Closing Workshop” is also included (Annex O) Following TCLEE reconnaissance visit a constant and fruitful communication was established and maintained with TCLEE representatives and the “Recovery of Lifelines” project team. TCLEE positively responded to the invitation to take part into the discussions on and to contribute to short and long term researches on-going and planned in New Zealand related to lifelines seismic engineering and lifelines resilience enhancement (Annex P).

6.2 Syner-G and Global Earthquake Model, GEM project The PI of the Recovery of Lifelines project Dr Sonia Giovinazzi was invited to join and contributed to a three year project funded by the European Commission, EU funded project on “Systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain”. Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi gained access to all the software releases of the Syner-G project that can support probabilistic and deterministic seismic risk analysis for both buildings and infrastructures. Dr. Simona Esposito, researcher under the Syner-G project visited University of Canterbury to collaborate with the “Recovery of Lifelines” research team on the application of Syner-G software releases and outputs to Christchurch case. Explicit enquire was made to the secretariat of the Global Earthquake Model, GEM, project (in the person of Dr. Rui Pinho and Dr. Helen Crowley) on the possibility to use the latest releases from GEM project to support and inform the recovery of lifelines in the Canterbury region. 6.3 Mid-American Earthquake Center Seismic Loss Assessment Tool (MAEviz) Danny Powel and Dr Jong Lee, from NCSA, National Centre for Supercomputer Application, University of Illinois, visited UoC to present, Mid-American Earthquake Center Seismic Loss Assessment Tool MAEviz (open-source) and to train the “Recovery of Lifelines” research team on the use of MAEviz Thanks to a great and collaborative effort between “Recovery of Lifelines” research team and NCSA team, MAEviz can now operate with NZ maps allowing for probabilistic and deterministic seismic risk analysis for both buildings and infrastructures. An example of the application of MAEviz in NZ is included in the report (Annex E). 6.4 Graphical Interactive Response Analysis for Flow Following Earthquakes (GIRAFFE) Prof. Thomas O’Rourke, kindly provided access to the software GIRAFFE “Graphical Interactive Response Analysis for Flow Following Earthquakes” developed at Cornell



University by Prof. Tom O`Rourke research team. The potentialities of GIRAFFE to assess the post-earthquake functionality impact on pressurised water systems and to inform the post-disaster recovery will be tested on evidences and data collected following the Canterbury earthquake sequence.

6.5 Seismic Performance of Underground power networks As part of the “Recovery of Lifelines” project linkages a discussion was initiated with international experts to encourage research on the seismic performance of underground cables for both electric transmission and distribution systems (Annex Q).

University of Canterbury acquired Orion data on the multiple faults observed in 66kV and the 11kV cables following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence under a non-disclosure agreement, NDA, co-signed by University of Canterbury, Research and Innovation and by Orion.

Orion data were shared with Prof. Tom O’Rourke and John Eidinger Under the same NDA.

6.6 Linking lifelines post-disaster recovery experiences Linkages and communication were established and maintained throughout all and far beyond the duration of the project to ensure the access to know-how and international experiences on post-disaster recovery of infrastructures to all the affected lifelines utilities in the Canterbury Region and the organisation in charge of the reconstruction.

University of Canterbury Lifelines Week - 9th – 13th July 2012, conceived and organised as a follow from the Recovery of Lifelines provides a valuable example of the extend of this effort.

University of Canterbury Lifelines Week - 9th – 13th July 2012 Dr Sonia Giovinazzi organised and coordinated, with the precious support of Jessica Peterson, Earthquake Research Coordinator at UoC, the “University of Canterbury Lifelines week”.

Aim of the week was to link international and national experts with end-users and practitioners working on the recovery of the horizontal infrastructures following the Canterbury earthquake sequence, to discuss still unresolved issues and to promote infrastructure resilience enhancement as part of the recovery process.

Highlight of the week included:

• Two working meetings at SCIRT (Strong Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuilding Team) headquarter. Questions raised from SCIRT and discussed with the international experts are included in the report (Annex R);

• Discussion on lifelines recovery strategies at Waimakariri Distric Council; • A Public Seminar an Post Earthquake Recovery of Lifelines following 1994;

Northridge, 1995 Kobe, and 2011, Higashi-Nihon Great Earthquake. • Workshop on “Increased flood-risk following earthquakes, implications • for lifelines and costal-communities” • Workshop on “Capturing and archiving lesson learnt for the next event” • a final briefing to report back to external agencies on discussion and results achieved

during the UC Lifelines Week

A final agency briefing was held on Friday 13th. Dr. Sonia Giovinazzi presentation at the final agency briefing is included in the report (Annex S).



Members from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, CERA, Environment Canterbury, Ecan, National Engineering Lifelines Committee, NELC, and Canterbury Utility Lifelines Group, CULG and utility managers from Christchurch City Council, CCC, and Waimakariri District Council, WDC took part in the event.

Video recordings for both the public lecture and the final agency briefing (temporarily available at the link http://ucstream.canterbury.ac.nz:8080/research/ceismic/) will become part of UC CEISMIC Quakestudies http://www.ceismic.org.nz/quakestudies, after its launch planned for middle August 2012.

International experts that participated and contributed to the success of the week included

• Dr. Craig Davis, Geotechnical Engineering Manager, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

• Makoto Matsushita, Director, Chubu Service Office, Kobe CityWaterworks Bureau • Prof. Nagahisa Hirayama, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University,

Department of Environment Engineering • Dr. Simona Esposito, Research Assistant at Naple University and AMRA Research

Centre and Visiting Researcher at CNRE. • Prof. Russel Green, Virginia Tech, “Earthquake Special' Visiting Erskine Fellow at

CNRE.

CNRE members that that participated and contributed to the success of the week included Prof. Misko Cubrinovsky, Ass. Prof. Mark Milke and Dr. Matthew Hughes.

Dr. Deirdre Hart, Geography Department at UoC and Dr. Christopher Thomson, UC CEISMIC Programme Office Manager, greatly contributed to and presented during the special theme workshops, respectively to workshop on “Increased flood-risk following earthquakes, implications for lifelines and costal-communities” and workshop on “Capturing and archiving lesson learnt for the next event”. Dr. Deirdre Hart, and Dr. Christopher Thomson, reported back on the outcomes from the aforementioned workshops during the final agency briefing.

7. CONCLUSIONS The 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake created very strong ground motions and widespread liquefaction throughout the Christchurch urban area and surroundings, leading to significant damage and disruption of lifeline systems. It was well established that large areas of eastern Christchurch were built on ground highly susceptible to liquefaction, however seismic hazard assessments, prior to the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, never anticipated the possibility of a large earthquake occurring directly under the city. Despite this the 22nd February 2011 earthquake exceeded hazard assessment estimates and design codes, many systems continued to function, albeit in a reduced state, strongly contributing to mitigate the impact of the event on the Christchurch and New Zealand economies and communities.

The value of resilient design, interdependency planning, mutual assistance agreements, extensive insurance cover and highly trained and adaptable human resources are the successful stories that this paper aims to highlight. The gas system showed an excellent level of robustness, resulting undamaged despite the high level of ground shaking and liquefaction-induced ground damage. The implementation of lesson learnt from previous damaging earthquakes, contributed to the design of such a robust and redundant network.



Limited interdependency issues were experienced between lifelines systems, with generally a good level of coordination and communication experienced among the lifelines utilities and with the National and Local emergency operations and coordination centres. All the lifelines utility had mutual aid agreements and contingency measures in place that helped them to guarantee the prompt availability of materials and technical experts required for the repair operations. Many of the lifeline utilities had the availability of back-up resources that helped them to cope with the reduced functionality of other networks.

However the event has also highlighted the challenge of managing legacy (aging) infrastructure, of which components are known to be vulnerable, but are too expensive to be replaced/upgraded in the short-term as part of risk mitigation programmes. Seismic vulnerable buried pipes and cables played a major role in the seismic response of the water, wastewater and power systems.

The 22nd February earthquake also demonstrated that some emergency management and response issues have still to be addressed to improve future pre-event planning. The temporary traffic-management of the city and highway network faced severe challenges to adapt to the damaged network and to the reorganisation of the city, as businesses and residents relocated following the closure, demolition and rebuild of the CBD. The management of the cordon caused frustration, as strict access protocols made it difficult for lifelines utilities and their contractors to service key sites. A Police escort for utilities was provided sporadically upon request. The 22nd February event has also exposed the difficulties in re-optimising a city's infrastructure following closure of its CBD for an extended period.

The Christchurch earthquake has also shown that societal, economic and political expectations for a lifeline system’s functionality in a post-disaster environment continue to rise. The widespread disruption to services caused significant social impacts, leading to major economic disruption, political involvement and social trauma - which contributed in part to the migration of thousands of Christchurch residents out of affected areas.

However, it has to be acknowledged that community members showed incredible levels of resilience, coping and adapting to the, sometime, long lifeline restoration times and repeated outages during aftershocks. The event has provided a wealth of lessons for increasing the resilience of engineering lifelines in New Zealand and beyond. This event will no doubt be regarded as a reference example of the impact of severe liquefaction-induced ground damage on lifeline systems and overall on an urban environment.

REFERENCES ALA (2001), Guidelines for Design of Buried Steel Pipes, A report by public-private

partnership between American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) & Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),Paper 090 American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), July 2001.

ALA (2002). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping Systems, A report by public-private partnership between American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) & Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), July 2002.

ALA (2004). Matrix of Standards and Guidelines for Natural Hazards. A report by public-private partnership between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), 2004



ALA (2005), Seismic Guidelines for Water Pipelines, A report by public-private partnership between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), March 2005.

ASCE (1984), Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), US, Nyman, D. J. (Principal Investigator).

ASCE (1997), Guide to Post Earthquake Investigation of Lifelines, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE), Monograph No.11, American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE), Schiff, A. J. (editor), July 1997.

ASCE (1999), Guidelines for the Seismic Upgrade of Water Transmission Facilities, J. Eidinger, E. Avila (Editors), ASCE, TCLEE Monograph No. 15, January 1999.

Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd (2005) Christchurch Liquefaction Study – Stage IV (Addendum Report). Environment Canterbury report number U04/25/2, Christchurch.

Brando M., Lin, S.L., Giovinazzi S. Palermo A. (2012). Observed and predicted bridge damage following the recent Canterbury earthquakes: toward the calibration and refinement of damage and loss estimation tools. 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management IABMAS June 2012, Como, Italy

Charman, N. and Billings, I. (2011). Christchurch City Council Lifelines- Performance of concrete potable water reservoirs in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 4, December.

Cubrinovski and Taylor (2011).Liquefaction Map – Drive-through Reconnaissance Retrieved 27th August 2011 from http://db.nzsee.org.nz:8080/web/chch_2011/home

Cubrinovski, et al. (2011). Geotechnical Aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 4, December.

Eidinger, J. and Tang, A. (Eds) (2011). Earthquake Sequence of Mw 7.1 September 04, 2010, Mw 6.3 February 22, 2011, Mw 6.0 June 13, 2011: Lifelines Performance. Technical Council

Eidinger, J. (2001). Replacing seismically weak and aging water pipes. Proceeding of The 2nd Japan and U.S. Workshop on Seismic Measures for Water Supply

Eidinger, J. and Tang, A. (Eds) (2011). Earthquake Sequence of Mw 7.1 September 04, 2010, Mw 6.3 February 22, 2011, Mw 6.0 June 13, 2011: Lifelines Performance. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Monograph No. 40. December 2011. ASCE

GeoNet (2011). Canterbury Earthquakes. Available from <http://www.geonet.org.nz/canterbury-quakes/>. Accessed 18 October 2011.

Eurocode (2004), Eurocode-8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistant Of Structure, Part-4: Silos, Tanks and Pipelines, European Committee for Standard, Stage 34 Draft, December 2004.

FEMA 202 (1990). Earthquake Resistant Construction of Electric Transmission and Telecommunication Facilities Serving the Federal Government. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD.

FEMA 221 (1991). Collocation Impacts on the Vulnerability of Lifelines during Earthquakes with Applications to the Cajon Pass, California: Study Overview. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C..

FEMA 224 (1991). Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the Conterminous United States. Applied Technology Council. Redwood City, CA.

FEMA 233 (1992). Earthquake Resistant Construction of Gas and Liquid Fuel Pipeline Systems Serving or Regulated by the Federal Government, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Earthquake Hazard Reduction Series 67, July 1992.

FEMA 271 (1996). Plan for Developing and Adopting Seismic Design Guidelines and Standards for Lifelines. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Washington, D.C., 1996.



Giovinazzi, S. and Cubrinovski, M. (2007). “Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Risk Analysis”. Proc. of 2007 NZSEE, Conference of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. Paper 090

Giovinazzi, S. Wilson, T. Davis, G. Bristow, D. Gallagher, M., Schofield, A. Villemure, M. Eidinger J., Tang A. (2011). Lifelines Performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of Resilience. NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44 (4), December, pp.402-417.

Giovinazzi, S. Wilson, T., Davis G. Bristow, D. Gallagher, Max, Schofield, A. Villemure, M. Eidinger J., Tang A. (2011). Lifelines Performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of Resilience. NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44 (4), pp.402-417.

Giovinazzi S. and Wilson T. (2012) “Recovery of Lifelines” following the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake: successes and issues. NZSEE 2012. (Oral Presentation)

Holden, C. and Zhao, J. (2011). Preliminary broadband modelling of an Alpine fault earthquake in Christchurch, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2011/28. 19p.

JSCE (2000a), Basic Principles of Seismic Design and Construction for Water Supply Facilities, Earthquake Resistant Codes in Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Japan Water Works Association, January 2000.

JSCE (2000b), Recommended Practices for Earthquake Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines, Earthquake Resistant Codes in Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE), Japan Gas Association, January 2000.

Knight, S. (2011). Impact and Recovery of the Kaiapoi Water Supply Network following the September 4th 2010 Darfield Earthquake. Dept. of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering. University of Canterbury. Final Year Projects, 2011.

Knight S., Giovinazzi S., Liu M., (2012). Impact and Recovery of the Kaiapoi Water Supply Network following the September 4th 2010 Darfield Earthquake, New Zealand World Confeence on Earthquake Engineering, 14th WCEE September 2011, Lisbon, Portugal (accepted for pubblication and selected for oral presentation)

Massie, A. and Watson, N. R. (2011). Impact of the Christchurch earthquakes on the electrical power system infrastructure. NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 4, December.

Neo Leaf Global (2011). Infrastructure Research Related to Canterbury Earthquakes. Informative Report Prepared for NELC.

O’Rourke T. and Jeon S. S. (1999). Seismic Zonation for Lifelines and Utilities ORION AMP (2009). Asset Management Plan: a 10-year management plan for Orion‟s

electricity network. from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2019. http://www.oriongroup.co.nz/publications-and-disclosures/asset-management-plan.aspx

Orion Annual Report (2011) http://www.oriongroup.co.nz/downloads/OrionAR11_WEB.pdfOrion Media releases (2010 and 2011) retrieved from http://www.oriongroup.co.nz/news-and-media/EQ-news-Feb2011.aspx.

Palermo, A. et al (2011). Lessons Learnt from 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes: Analysis and Assessment of Bridges, NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 4, December.

Schiff, Anshel J. (Ed.), (1995). Northridge Earthquake: Lifeline Performance and Post- Earthquake Response. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph No. 8, ASCE.

Schiff, Anshel J. (Ed.), 1998. Hyogo-Ken Nambu Earthquake of January 17, 1995-Lifeline. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph No. 14, ASCE.

Stevenson, J. R., Kachali, H., Whitman, Z., Seville, E., Vargo, J., Wilson, T. (2011). Preliminary observation of the impacts of the 22 February Christchurch earthquake on organisations and the economy: a report from the field, (22 February – 22 March 2011). NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 2, June 2011, pp65-76.



Transpower (2011a). “4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake. Lessons learned”. TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Internal Report, 30 March 2011.

Transpower (2011b). “22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake Key findings and lessons learned” TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Internal Report, 30 June 2011.

Tonkin and Taylor (2011). Christchurch Earthquake 22 February 2011, Geotechnical Land Damage Assessment, Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, 2011.

Villemure, M. Wilson, T.M. Bristow D., Gallagher M., Giovinazzi S., Brown C. (2012). Liquefaction ejecta clean up in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence, NZ, NZSEE 2012.

Watson, N.R. (2010). Impact of the Darfield earthquake on the electrical power system infrastructure”, NZSEE Bulletin, Vol. 43, No.4, December 2010, pp421- 424.

Wilson, J. (1989). Swamp to City: A Short History of the Christchurch Drainage Board 1875-1989. Lincoln, New Zealand: Te Waihora Press.

Yamada, S., Orense, R., Cubrinovski, M., (2011). Geotechnical Damage due to the 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand. ISSMGE Bulletin 5 (2): pp27-45.

.

National and International Know-how and Linkages to support the ... · Recovery of Lifelines NHRP...

Documents

Transcript of National and International Know-how and Linkages to support the ... · Recovery of Lifelines NHRP...