MASONRY TODAY AND TOMORROW

11 - 14 February, 2018 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA

www.10amc.com

SECURING OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY PARAPETS AND FACADES – FROM FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH TO NATIONAL POLICY

J.M. Ingham1, D. Dizhur2, M. Giaretton3, K.Q. Walsh4, H. Derakhshan5, R. Jafarzadeh6, M.C. Griffith7 and M.J. Masia8 1 Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, [email protected] 2 Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, [email protected] 3 Post-doctoral Researcher, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, [email protected] 4 Assistant Professor of Practice, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, United States; Senior Structural Engineer, Frost Engineering and Consulting, Mishawaka, Indiana, United States, [email protected] 5 Post-doctoral Researcher, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, [email protected] 6 Engineer, Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142, New Zealand, [email protected] 7 Professor, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, [email protected] 8 Associate Professor, Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia, [email protected]

The study of unreinforced masonry buildings and their performance in earthquakes is a topic that has led to strong Australasian collaboration amongst masonry researchers over the last decade, that has resulted in significant advances in knowledge and empirical evidence, comprehensive capture of post-earthquake ‘perishable data’, the development of new numerical assessment and design procedures, and the training of a new generation of masonry researchers. These efforts have significantly influenced national policy and professional practice, particularly in New Zealand. A chronology of these events is reported.

Keywords: Unreinforced masonry, parapet, façade, legislation

1 INTRODUCTION

Since the time of European settlement, New Zealand has a sustained history of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings having performed poorly in large earthquakes, with several notable examples from the mid-1800s and early 1900s shown in Figure 1. Although less seismically active, Australia also has a notable history of earthquakes having caused damage to URM buildings (see Figure 2). From the mid-1970s through until today research has been undertaken in New Zealand and Australia that has assisted in framing national policy and practice on the seismic assessment and improvement of URM buildings, with some of this research reviewed herein.

(a) 1848 MW 7.8 Marlborough earthquake (b) 1929 MW 7.8 Murchison earthquake (source: http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/historic- (source: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/detail/?id=42847&recordNum=4& earthquakes/top-nz/quake-01.html) q=earthquake&f=tapuhigroupref%24PAColl-3051&s=a&l=mi)

Figure 1: The poor performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in past New Zealand earthquakes (magnitude data sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_New_Zealand)

2 (c) 1901 ML 6.8 Cheviot earthquake (d) 1931 MW 7.8 Hawke’s Bay (Source: http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/photos/disc5/img earthquake 0067.asp) (Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/historic- earthquakes/8/1) Figure  FRQWLQXHG : The poor performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in past New Zealand earthquakes (magnitude data sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_earthquakes_in_New_Zealand)

(a) 1989 ML 5.6 Newcastle, NSW (b) 2010 MW 5.2 Kalgoorlie- earthquake Boulder, WA earthquake

Figure : The poor performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in past Australian earthquakes (magnitude data sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Newcastle_earthquake and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Kalgoorlie-Boulder_earthquake)

HONOURING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROFESSOR NIGEL PRIESTLEY

Between 1974 and 1985 Professor Nigel Priestley undertook several landmark studies in New Zealand on clay brick masonry, first at the Ministry of Works Central Laboratories and then at the University of Canterbury, commencing with an investigation of reinforced clay brick masonry walls (Priestley and Bridgeman 1974) in collaboration with the New Zealand Pottery and Ceramics Research Association. In 1979 Nigel again collaborated with researchers from the New Zealand Pottery and Ceramics Research Association to investigate the dynamic performance of brick masonry veneer panels (Priestley et al. 1979). The 1979 study was motivated by the poor

3 reputation of unreinforced masonry veneers when subjected to earthquakes, with much of this reputation being attributed to the failure of brick masonry facades and walls during the 1931 Napier and the 1968 Inangahua earthquakes. Seven unreinforced and two reinforced clay brick masonry veneer walls tied to conventional timber-frame backings were subjected to out-of-plane sinusoidal accelerations in the appropriate frequency range imitating earthquake loading, see Figure 3, where the stud spacing, veneer-tie type and the initial distribution of pre-formed cracking were the main variables. Out-of-plane face loading was specifically considered because the draft Code of Practice for light timber frame construction required the entire in-plane load demands to be carried by the timber frame bracing to which the masonry veneer wall is fixed. From this testing, it was concluded that when unreinforced masonry veneers were built to the specifications prescribed in the draft Code of Practice, acceptable response could be expected for earthquake loading levels in excess of those expected for the highest seismic zone in New Zealand. Furthermore, it was found that pre- formed horizontal or diagonal panel cracking had little or no apparent influence on the ultimate performance of the veneers.

Figure : Test set-up for out-of-plane dynamic loading of clay brick masonry veneer walls (Priestley et al. 1979)

In 1985 Nigel added a new dimension to his masonry research by investigating the out-of-plane response of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls (Priestley 1985). This research was focused on assessing the earthquake characteristics of existing URM walls, rather than the design of new reinforced masonry buildings, and Nigel commented that:

“the response of unreinforced masonry walls to out-of-plane (face load) seismic excitation is one of the most complex and ill-understood areas of seismic analysis”.

It is noted that the elastic analysis technique that was commonly applied at that time was focused on masonry stress levels that were “rather insignificant for unreinforced masonry”, resulting in

4 excessively conservative results, and that the seismic capacity of URM walls responding out-of- plane is instead governed by stability and energy considerations. Load paths within unreinforced masonry buildings were discussed, as was the influence of flexible diaphragms. The conditions at wall failure were presented in terms of displacements necessary to cause instability, see Figure 4, and it was recommended that dynamic testing and corresponding analysis be undertaken to further refine the presented methodology for assessment. It was noted that the walls in the upper levels of unreinforced masonry buildings were likely to be most critical, and that adequately securing the walls to diaphragms is an essential step for ensuring satisfactory earthquake performance of face- loaded URM walls.

Figure : Consideration of seismic loading and out-of-plane wall stability for unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms (Priestley, 1985)

SEISMIC RETROFIT SOLUTIONS PROJECT

Between the mid-1980s and 2004 there was a period in New Zealand of roughly two decades where little formal research attention was devoted to the seismic performance of URM buildings. However, in 2004 researchers at the University of Auckland commenced a 6-year study on the earthquake response of URM buildings, with the ambitious goal of developing methodologies for detailed seismic assessment and retrofit. The study began with efforts to count and architecturally characterise the national inventory of URM buildings (Russell and Ingham, 2010), gain an understanding of representative material characteristics for the existing New Zealand URM building stock (Almesfer et al. 2014; Lumantarna et al. 2014a,b; Dizhur et al. 2016, 2017), do structural testing on URM sub-assemblages (Derakhshan et al. 2103; Dizhur and Ingham 2103; Dizhur et al. 2013; Lin 2016; Mahmood and Ingham 2011; Ismail et al. 2011; Ismail and Ingham 2012a,b, 2016; Wilson et al. 2014a) and undertake both lab and field studies on larger test specimens representative of real buildings (Giongo et al. 2013, 2015; Wilson et al. 2014b; Knox et al. 2017; Oyarzo-Vera et al. 2017). These efforts concluded in September 2010 with the release of a draft guidance document for professional engineers on how to undertake detailed seismic assessment and improvement of URM buildings.

5 THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE

The first event in the Canterbury earthquake sequence occurred on 4 September 2010. Researchers from the University Auckland collaborated with colleagues from Adelaide and Newcastle in Australia in the inspection and reporting of damage to URM buildings (Bailey et al. 2015; Dizhur et al. 2015; Giaretton et al. 2016a,d; Moon et al. 2014, 2015; Senaldi et al. 2015), with their efforts gaining significant media attention both in New Zealand and worldwide (see Figure 5). Further experimental studies were subsequently initiated as collaborations between New Zealand and Australia.

(a) Griffith (left) and Ingham (right) (b) Ingham (centre) doing live interview for inspecting a collapsed canopy following national television channel following the the 2010 MW 7.1 Darfield earthquake 2011 ML 6.3 Christchurch earthquake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Canterbury_earthqu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Christchurch_earthqu ake) ake)

Figure : Members of the research team during the Canterbury earthquakes

THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES ROYAL COMMISSION

Following the Canterbury earthquake sequence the research team was commissioned to prepare a report for the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (CERC). A decision was made that because of the potential legal implications surrounding the CERC, only Ingham and Griffith would be listed as authors of this work, with student members of the research team acknowledged in the published reports for their efforts (Ingham and Griffith 2011a). The CERC subsequently commissioned the research team to publish an addendum report that specifically addressed the performance of strengthened unreinforced masonry buildings in the Canterbury earthquake sequence (Ingham and Griffith 2011b). The joint Australasian authoring of these reports was testament to the strength of the trans-Tasman collaborative research relationship that had formed during the Seismic Retrofit Solutions project spanning 2004-2010.

6 On behalf of the research team Ingham reported findings at the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (see Figure 6), with many of the team’s recommendations adopted in the formal recommendations of the Royal Commission (see CERC Interim Report (2011) and CERC Final Report (2011)). In turn, these recommendations eventually found their way into the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament and receiving Royal Assent on 13 May 2016 (New Zealand Parliament 2013).

The proceeding of the CERC were televised, and extracted news items appeared daily on national television and in newspapers (see stuff 2011 as an example).

Figure : Ingham presenting findings at the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5923532/Expert-says-earlier-quake-saved-lives)

UPDATING OF NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE PRONE BUILDING LEGISLATION

Following conclusion of the 2004-2010 Seismic Retrofit Solutions project, members of the research team participated in writing a national guidance document for professional engineers tasked with the seismic assessment and improvement of unreinforced masonry buildings. These guidelines are part of the national framework for seismic assessment of existing buildings, accessed at www.eq-assess.org.nz, with the URM guidance document accessed at http://www.eq- assess.org.nz/new-home/part-c/c8/. This guidance document extended upon but retained many of the recommendations from the draft document produced by the research team in 2010 and was adopted as the nationally-recognised procedure for consistency in practice across the profession, with nationwide seminars delivered to professional engineers to explain its usage.

SECURING OF PARAPETS AND FACADES

Recognising that the collapse of parapets, chimneys and façade walls of both cavity and solid URM construction were the primary contributors to deaths occurring in earthquakes due to collapsed earthquake prone URM buildings, attention then turned to the development of cost-effective and structurally validated solutions for securing of URM facades (Walsh et al. 2015). Solutions were

7 validated via testing on a low-cost purpose-built shake table designed and assembled by the research team (Giaretton et al. 2018b,c).

COLLABORATION WITH AUCKLAND COUNCIL

In early 2016 a project was initiated as a collaboration between the University of Auckland and Auckland Council, extending the already-existing collaborative relationship (Walsh et al. 2016, 2017) with the intent of using data from Council-owned URM buildings that had been the subject of earthquake assessment and strengthening designs, to extract details on the true costs of detailed seismic assessment and earthquake strengthening. Seismic retrofit costing and associated decision making strategies were already a topic of interest to the research team (Egbelakin et al. 2014, 2015; Jafarzadeh et al. 2014a,b,c, 2015), with the reason for collaborating with Auckland Council specifically being a response to the realisation that retrofit cost data was extremely difficult to secure from professional engineers and building owners due to commercial sensitivity, whereas Auckland Council had agreed to release this data as a public service. From a critique of the cost data it was established that securing of URM parapets cost approximately NZ$1000 /m of façade, and that the cost was relatively insensitive to the level of seismicity at the site. This data was first communicated to the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage and helped to inform their development of a NZ$12 million national fund to support earthquake prone heritage buildings, announced on 12 August 2016 (http://heritageequip.govt.nz/).

THE 2016 KAIKƿURA EARTHQUAKE

On 14 November 2016 the Mw 7.8 Kaikǀura earthquake initiated a new round of building damage inspections, along with a realisation that the significant risk of a major aftershock in the Wellington region meant that the likelihood of deaths due to falling unreinforced masonry facades was elevated to roughly 10 times the usual risk, which was already high when recognising that the primary fault line separating the Pacific plate from the Australian plate passes through central Wellington. On 19 December 2016 a charrette was held between researchers, practitioners and representatives of central and local government to discuss possible strategies for how to address this elevated risk of fatalities due to URM facades. Data presented to policy writers included building inventories, validated structural solutions, and costings for implementation of securing solutions. The outcome from the day was a recommendation that efforts be instituted to secure URM facades in the lower North Island and upper South Island, with a particular focus on heritage precincts with high pedestrian traffic.

On 25 January 2017 the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, used emergency powers introduced after the Kaikǀura earthquake to require that owners of approximately 300 high-risk URM buildings in Wellington, Lower Hutt and Blenheim undertake earthquake strengthening by securing their street-facing parapets and facades. The Government set aside NZ$3M for financial support for building owners, and owners had 12 months to complete their securing. Owners could apply for financial support from the Government up to a maximum of NZ$15,000 for securing of a façade or NZ$10,000 for a parapet.

8 ABOUT QUAKECORE

QuakeCoRE is a New Zealand national centre of research excellence for earthquake resilience (http://www.quakecore.nz/about/) that spans across multiple New Zealand research institutions. Within QuakeCoRE, Flagship 3 is associated with multi-disciplinary research associated with potentially earthquake-prone buildings, and has as one objective the undertaking of research to inform policy.

Although not an explicit goal when the research reported herein began in 2004, it has transpired that the research team have succeeded in promulgating a national methodology for the detailed seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings, have produced research findings that have been reported in mainstream television and newspaper media, have made recommendations that were adopted by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission and subsequently by the New Zealand Parliament, and have undertaken research that aided in the development of post- earthquake emergency legislation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are extensive conclusions that have been developed and promulgated by the research team over the last 14 years, but conclusions specifically meaningful to the work presented herein are: 1) Although not specifically linked to the later URM research reported herein, the pioneering research of Professor Nigel Priestley is acknowledged. 2) The reported research activity has been a highly successful collaboration between masonry researchers in New Zealand and Australia. Whilst this research has found more immediate implementation in New Zealand in response to recent major earthquake activity, the knowledge gained and the tools developed are equally meaningful to Australia. 3) The obtained research funding has been translated into knowledge and tools that are now in everyday use in New Zealand amongst the wider public and the professional structural seismic consulting engineering profession. 4) Through a unique set of circumstances, the research team has continued to ‘stay one step ahead’ of the needs of consulting engineers, policy writers and the general public, and has seen much of their research efforts transposed into national policy and practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The members of the wider New Zealand-Australia research team are too numerous to specifically list, ranging from collaborating staff academics at universities worldwide, post-doctoral researchers from New Zealand and Australia, an extensive cohort of doctoral research students, and an even more extensive cohort of undergraduate research students and visiting international research interns. The authors wish to thank this collective for all their passion and commitment to this evolving programme of work. Whilst this narrative has intentionally focussed on research activity undertaken in New Zealand, it is acknowledged that significant companion studies have been undertaken in Australia led by Griffith and by Masia, and that funding secured from the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant scheme has been an important enabler to the reported trans-Tasman research collaboration. The funding secured from the New Zealand and

9 Australian national funding agencies is gratefully acknowledged, as is all the industry funding, donated materials, and supplementary time and resources provided by industry personnel that have contributed to the success of this research. This is QuakeCoRE publication number 0259.

REFERENCES

Almesfer, N., Dizhur, D., Lumantarna, R., Ingham, J. M. (2014). Material properties of existing unreinforced clay brick masonry buildings in New Zealand, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 47, 2, June, 75-96.

Bailey, S., Dizhur, D., Trowsdale, J., Griffith, M., Ingham, J. (2015). Performance of Posttensioned Seismic Retrofit of Two Stone Masonry Buildings during the Canterbury Earthquakes, ASCE Journal of Constructed Facilities, 29, 4, 04014111.

Canterbuy Earthquakes Royal Commission. (2011). Interum Report Section 3.3. http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Interim-Report-Section-3.3. Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (2011). Final Report, Volume 4: Earthquake-prone Buildings, http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Final-Report---Part-Two. Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

Derakhshan, H., Griffith, M. C., Ingham, J. M. (2013). Airbag testing of unreinforced masonry walls subjected to one-way bending, Engineering Structures, 57, 12, 512-522.

Dizhur, D., Ingham, J.M. (2013). Diagonal tension strength of vintage unreinforced clay brick masonry wall panels, Construction and Building Materials, 43, 6, 418-427.

Dizhur, D., Griffith, M. C., Ingham, J. M. (2013). In-plane shear improvement of unreinforced masonry wall panels using NSM CFRP strips, ASCE Journal of Composites in Construction, 16, 6, 04013010.

Dizhur, D., Bailey, S., Griffith, M., Ingham, J. (2015). Earthquake Performance of Two Vintage URM Buildings Retrofitted Using Surface Bonded GFRP: Case Study, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, 19, 5, 05015001.

Dizhur, D., Lumantarna, R., Biggs, D., Ingham, J. M. (2017). In-situ assessment of the physical and mechanical properties of vintage solid clay bricks, Materials and Structures, 50, 1, Article number 63.

Dizhur, D. Lumantarna, R., Ingham, J. M. (2016), Assessment of mortar properties in vintage clay brick unreinforced masonry buildings, Materials and Structures, 49, 5, 1677-1692.

Egbelakin, T. K.; Wilkinson, S., Ingham, J. M. (2014). Economic impediments to successful seismic retrofitting decisions, Structural Survey, 32, 5, 449-466.

Egbelakin, T., Wilkinson, S., Ingham, J. (2015). Integrated framework for enhancing earthquake

10 risk mitigation decisions, International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management, 5, 2, 34-51.

Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Da Porto, F., Ingham, J. M. (2016). Construction Details and Observed Earthquake Performance of Unreinforced Clay Brick Masonry Cavity-walls, Structures, 6, 159- 169. Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Ingham, J. (2016a). Shaking table testing of as-built and retrofitted clay brick URM cavity-walls. Engineering Structures. 125, 70-79.

Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Ingham, J. (2016b). Dynamic testing of as-built clay brick unreinforced masonry parapets, Engineering Structures. 127, 676-685.

Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Da Porto, F., Ingham, J. M. (2016c). Post-Earthquake Reconnaissance of Unreinforced and Retrofitted Masonry Parapets, Earthquake Spectra, 32, 4, 2377-2397.

Giaretton, M., Ingham, J., Dizhur, D. (2018a). Experimental validation of seismic retrofit solutions for URM chimneys, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 1, 295-313.

Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Ingham, J. (2018b). Shake table testing of seismically restrained clay brick masonry parapets, Earthquake Spectra. Preprint available online.

Giongo, I., Dizhur, D., Tomasi, R., Ingham, J. M. (2013). In-plane assessment of existing timber diaphragms in URM buildings via quasi-static and dynamic in-situ tests, Advanced Materials Research, 778, 495-502.

Giongo, I., Dizhur, D., Tomasi, R., Ingham, J. M. (2015). ‘Field testing of flexible timber diaphragms in an existing vintage URM building’, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 141, 1, SPECIAL ISSUE: Field Testing of Bridges and Buildings, D4014009.

Ingham, J. M., Griffith, M. C. (2011a). The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm, Commissioned report to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquake. http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/documents-by-key/20110920.46

Ingham, J. M., Griffith, M. C. (2011b). The Performance of Earthquake Strengthened URM Buildings in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 Earthquake, Addendum report commissioned by Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquake. http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/documents-by-key/20111026.569

Ismail, N. Petersen, R., Masia, M. J., Ingham, J. M. (2011). Diagonal shear behaviour of unreinforced masonry wallettes strengthened using twisted steel bars, Construction and Building Materials, 25, 12, 4386-4393.

Ismail, N., Ingham, J. M. (2012a). Cyclic out-of-plane behaviour of slender masonry walls seismically strengthened using posttensioning, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 138, 10, 1255-1266.

11 Ismail, N., Ingham, J. M. (2012b). In-situ and laboratory based out-of-plane testing of unreinforced clay brick masonry walls strengthened using near surface mounted twisted steel bars, Construction and Building Materials, 36, 11, 119-128.

Ismail, N., Ingham, J. M. (2016). In-plane and out-of-plane testing of unreinforced masonry walls strengthened using polymer textile reinforced mortar, Engineering Structures, 118, 167-177.

Jafarzadeh, R., Ingham, J. M., Wilkinson, S., González, V., Aghakouchak, A. A. (2014a). Application of Artificial Neural Network Methodology for Predicting Seismic Retrofit Construction Cost, ASCE Journal of Construction and Engineering Management, 140, 2, 04013044.

Jafarzadeh, R., Wilkinson, S., González, V., Ingham, J. M., Ghodrati Amiri, G. (2014b). Predicting Seismic Retrofit Construction Cost for Buildings with Framed Structures Using Multi-Linear Regression Analysis, ASCE Journal of Construction and Engineering Management, 140, 3, 04013062.

Jafarzadeh, R., Ingham, J. M., Wilkinson, S. (2014c). A Seismic Retrofit Cost Database for Buildings Having a Framed Structure, Earthquake Spectra, 30, 2, 625-637.

Jafarzadeh, R., Ingham, J. M., Walsh, K. Q., Hassani, N., Ghodrati Amiri, G. R. (2015). Using statistical regression analysis to establish construction cost models for seismic retrofit of confined masonry buildings, ASCE Journal of Construction and Engineering Management. 141, 5, 04014098.

Knox, C., Dizhur, D., Ingham, J. (2017). Experimental cyclic testing of URM pier-spandrel substructures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 143, 2, 04016177.

Lin, Y.-W., Wotherspoon, L. Ingham, J. M. (2016). Out-of-plane testing of unreinforced masonry walls using ECC shotcrete, Structures, 7, 33-42.

Lumantarna, R., Biggs, D. T., Ingham, J. M. (2014a). Compressive, flexural bond and shear bond strengths of in-situ New Zealand unreinforced clay brick masonry constructed using lime mortar between the 1880s and 1940s, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26, 4, 559-566.

Lumantarna, R., Biggs, D. T., Ingham, J. M. (2014b). Uniaxial compressive strength and stiffness of field extracted and laboratory constructed masonry prisms, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26, 4, 567-575.

Mahmood, H., Ingham, J. M. (2011). Diagonal Compression Testing of FRP-retrofitted Unreinforced Clay Brick Masonry Wallettes, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, 15, 5, 810-820.

Moon, L., Dizhur, D., Senaldi, I., Derakhshan, H., Griffith, M., Magenes, G., Ingham, J. M. (2014). The demise of the URM building stock in Christchurch during the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra, 30, 1, 253-276.

12 Moon, L., Biggs, D., Ingham, J., Griffith, M. (2015). Transect Survey as a Post-Disaster Global Rapid Damage Assessment Tool, Earthquake Spectra, 31, 4, 2443-2457.

New Zealand Parliament. (2013). Building (earthquake-prone buildings) Amendment Bill, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and & Employment (MBIE), Wellington, New Zealand.

NZSEE. (2016). Section C8 – Seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings, The seismic assessment of existing buildings: Technical guidelines for engineering assessment, accessed at: http://www.eq-assess.org.nz/new-home/part-c/c8/ 14 May 2017.

Oyarzo-Vera, C., Ingham, J., Chouw, N. (2017). Vibration-based damage identification of an unreinforced masonry house model, Advances in Structural Engineering, 20, 3, 331-351.

Priestley, M.J.N, Bridgeman, D.O. (1974). Seismic resistance of brick masonry walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 7(4), pp. 167-187.

Priestley, M.J.N, Thorby, P.N., McLarin, M.W., Bridgeman, D.O. (1979). Dynamic performance of brick masonry veneer panels, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 12 (4), pp. 314-323.

Priestley, M.J.N. (1985). Seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 18 (2), pp. 191-205.

Russell, A. P., Ingham, J. M. (2010). Prevalence of New Zealand’s Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43, 3, Sept., 182-201.

Senaldi, I., Magenes, G., Ingham, J. M. (2015). Damage assessment of unreinforced stone masonry buildings after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration, 9, 5, 605-627.

Stuff (2011). September’s quake ’saved 300 lives’, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the- press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5919747/Septembers-quake-saved-300-lives. Accessed 4 Feb 2018.

Walsh, K. Q., Dizhur, D., Shafaei, J., Derakhshan, H., Ingham, J. M. (2015). In situ out-of-plane testing of unreinforced masonry cavity walls in as-built and improved condition, Structures, 3, 187- 199.

Walsh, K. Q., Jafarzadeh, R., Short, N., Ingham, J. M. (2016). Seismic risk management of a large public facilities portfolio: a New Zealand case study, Facilities, 34, 13/14, 809-827.

Walsh, K. Q., Cummuskey, P. A., Jafarsadeh, R., Ingham, J. M. (2017). Rapid identification and taxonomical classification of structural seismic attributes in a regionwide commercial building stock, ASCE Journal of Constructed Facilities, 31, 1, 04016067.

Wilson, A., Quenneville, P. J. H., Moon, F. L., Ingham, J. M. (2014a). Lateral performance of nail connections from century old timber floor diaphragms, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil

13 Engineering, 26, 1, 202-205.

Wilson, A., Kelly, P. A., Quenneville, P. J. H., Ingham, J. M. (2014b). Non-linear in-plane deformation mechanics of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 140, 4, 04013010.

14

View publication stats