The seismic performance and parameter identification of the base isolated Christchurch Women’s Hospital (CWH) building are investigated using the recorded seismic accelerations during the two large earthquakes in Christchurch. A four degrees of freedom shear model is applied to characterize the dynamic behaviour of the CWH building during these earthquakes. A modified Gauss-Newton method is employed to identify the equivalent stiffness and Rayleigh damping coefficients of the building. The identification method is first validated using a simulated example structure and finally applied to the CWH building using recorded measurements from the Mw 6.0 and Mw 5.8 Christchurch earthquakes on December 23, 2011. The estimated response and recorded response for both earthquakes are compared with the cross correlation coefficients and the mean absolute percentage errors reported. The results indicate that the dynamic behaviour of the superstructure and base isolator was essentially within elastic range and the proposed shear linear model is sufficient for the prediction of the structural response of the CWH Hospital during these events.
This study uses 44 high quality liquefaction case histories taken from 22 locations affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence to evaluate four commonly used CPT-VS correlations (i.e., Robertson, 2009; Hegazy and Mayne, 2006; Andrus et al., 2007; McGann et al., 2015b). Co-located CPT soundings and VS profiles, developed from surface wave testing, were obtained at 22 locations and case histories were developed for the Mw 7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield and Mw 6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. The CPT soundings are used to generate VS profiles using each of four CPT-VS correlations. These correlated VS profiles are used to estimate the factor of safety against liquefaction using the Kayen et al. (2013) VS-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure. An error index is used to quantify the predictive capabilities of these correlations in relation to the observations of liquefaction (or the lack thereof). Additionally, the error indices from the CPT-correlated VS profiles are compared to those obtained using: (1) the Kayen et al. (2013) procedure with surface wave-derived VS profiles, and (2) the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedure. Based on the error indices, the evaluation procedures based on direct measurements of either CPT or VS provided more accurate liquefaction triggering estimates than those obtained from any of the CPT-VS correlations. However, the performance of the CPT-VS correlations varied, with the Robertson (2009) and Hegazy and Mayne (2006) correlations performing relatively poorly for the Christchurch soils and the Andrus et al. (2007) and McGann et al. (2015b) correlations performing better. The McGann et al. (2015b) correlation had the lowest error indices of the CPT-VS correlations tested, however, none of the CPT-VS correlations provided accurate enough VS predictions to be used for the evaluation of liquefaction triggering using the VS-based liquefaction evaluation procedures.
