An UnReinforced clay brick Masonry (URM) chimney is composed of a cantilever URM appendage above a roofline and is considered one of the most earthquake prone non-structural compo¬nents within vintage URM and timber-framed buildings. Observations from past earthquakes including the 1992 Big Bear City earthquake, 1994 Northridge earthquake, 2001 Nisqually earthquake, 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes, and 2014 South Napa earthquake served repeatedly as a reminder of the hazard induced by URM chimneys. The observed failure types included several cases where the adopted retrofit techniques were not adequate to effectively secure chimneys dur¬ing the earthquake. Data collected during the 2010/2011 post-earthquake building assessments in Christchurch and insur¬ance claims are reported herein. Five full-scale solid clay brick URM chimneys which replicated the most encountered geometrical and construction characteristics were subjected to shake table testing. Two chim¬ney samples were representative of the as-built conditions, while three samples were retrofitted using two different configurations of Near-Surface-Mounted (NSM) Carbon-Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer (CFRP) strips and post-tensioning techniques. The adopted securing techniques allowed an increase in seismic acceleration capacity of more than five times for chimneys constructed with ultra-weak mortar and more than twice for chimneys built with weak mortar. http://www.16ibmac.com/
On 14 November 2016 a magnitude Mw 7.8 earthquake struck the upper South Island of New Zealand with effects also being observed in the capital city, Wellington. The affected area has low population density but is the largest wine production region in New Zealand and also hosts the main national highway and railway routes connecting the country’s three largest cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with Marlborough Port in Picton providing connection between the South and North Islands. These transport facilities sustained substantial earthquake related damage, causing major disruptions. Thousands of landslides and multiple new faults were counted in the area. The winery facilities and a large number of commercial buildings and building components (including brick masonry veneers, historic masonry construction, and chimneys), sustained damage due to the strong vertical and horizontal acceleration. Presented herein are field observations undertaken the day immediately after the earthquake, with the aim to document earthquake damage and assess access to the affected area.
The M7.1 Darfield earthquake shook the town of Christchurch (New Zealand) in the early morning on Saturday 4th September 2010 and caused damage to a number of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. No fatalities were reported directly linked to the earthquake, but the damage to important heritage buildings was the most extensive to have occurred since the 1931 Hawke‟s Bay earthquake. In general, the nature of damage was consistent with observations previously made on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in large earthquakes, with aspects such as toppled chimneys and parapets, failure of gables and poorly secured face-loaded walls, and in-plane damage to masonry frames all being extensively documented. This report on the performance of the unreinforced masonry buildings in the 2010 Darfield earthquake provides details on typical building characteristics, a review of damage statistics obtained by interrogating the building assessment database that was compiled in association with post-earthquake building inspections, and a review of the characteristic failure modes that were observed.
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
