In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.
Base isolation is an incredibly effective technology used in seismic regions throughout the world to limit structural damage and maintain building function, even after severe earthquakes. However, it has so far been underutilised in light-frame wood construction due to perceived cost issues and technical problems, such as a susceptibility to movement under strong wind loads. Light-frame wood buildings make up the majority of residential construction in New Zealand and sustained significant damage during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, yet the design philosophy has remained largely unchanged for years due to proven life-safety performance. Recently however, with the advent of performance based earthquake engineering, there has been a renewed focus on performance factors such as monetary loss that has driven a want for higher performing residential buildings. This research develops a low-cost approach for the base isolation of light-frame wood buildings using a flat-sliding friction base isolation system, which addresses the perceived cost and technical issues, and verifies the seismic performance through physical testing on the shake table at the University of Canterbury. Results demonstrate excellent seismic performance with no structural damage reported despite a large number of high-intensity earthquake simulations. Numerical models are subsequently developed and calibrated to New Zealand light-frame wood building construction approaches using state-of-the-art wood modelling software, Timber3D. The model is used to accurately predict both superstructure drift and acceleration demand parameters of fixed-base testing undertaken after the base isolation testing programme is completed. The model development allows detailed cost analyses to be undertaken within the performance based earthquake engineering framework that highlights the monetary benefits of using base isolation. Cost assessments indicate the base isolation system is only 6.4% more compared to the traditional fixed-base system. Finally, a design procedure is recommended for base isolated light-frame wood buildings that is founded on the displacement based design (DBD) approach used in the United States and New Zealand. Nonlinear analyses are used to verify the DBD method which indicate its suitability.
Past earthquakes have consistently highlighted the vulnerabilities of the built environment. Current building codes, which focus primarily on life safety, fail to address the need for buildings to remain functional after a seismic event. The emerging concept of post-earthquake functional recovery aims to integrate recovery-based objectives into building codes. However, literature reveals a predominant focus on engineering parameters, with limited attention given to the perspectives of building users; a critical gap in understanding a building’s comprehensive functionality and path to functional recovery. Whilst structural integrity is essential, functionality following a disaster is not determined by physical stability alone. Thus, this study addresses this gap by exploring the perceptions and expectations of office building users (both tenants and property owners) regarding building functionality and post-earthquake functional recovery in New Zealand’s major urban centres: Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch. A qualitative research strategy was employed, utilising interpretative phenomenological and grounded theory methods to develop insights from the lived experiences of twenty-six (26) participants. The study applied a systems thinking approach using a socio-technical systems (STS) framework to develop micro (single construct) and macro (multiple constructs) models of building-system functionality. The findings demonstrate that a building’s functionality is nuanced, multifaceted, and context dependent. It encompasses physical, economic, social, organisational, technical, regulatory, and environmental elements, and is ultimately determined by users’ specific needs and priorities. A key divergence emerged: whilst property owners prioritise economic and environmental factors, tenants focus on the socio-organisational aspect, viewing the physical workspace as an embodiment of corporate identity, culture, and values. Regarding expectations for post-earthquake functional recovery, the post-pandemic era has drastically reshaped outlooks. Unlike previous earthquakes, where tenants scrambled for any available space, there is now increased demand for flexibility due to the hybrid work model. The immediate return to an office following a major earthquake is now expected to support critical business functions, with essential services including power or a standby generator, technology to access files, water, as well as operations of air conditioning and elevators. By advancing socio-technical systems theory and elucidating building users’ perspectives for a building’s functionality and post-disaster functional recovery, this research provides evidence-based, social science insights to inform more holistic and effective risk governance in property and disaster risk management
