A buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a structural bracing system that provides lateral strength and stiffness to buildings and bridges. They were first developed in Japan in the 1970s (Watanabe et al. 1973, Kimura et al. 1976) and gained rapid acceptance in the United States after the Northridge earthquake in 1994 (Bruneau et al. 2011). However, it was not until the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/2011, that the New Zealand construction market saw a significant uptake in the use of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) in commercial buildings (MacRae et al. 2015). In New Zealand there is not yet any documented guidance or specific instructions in regulatory standards for the design of BRBFs. This makes it difficult for engineers to anticipate all the possible stability and strength issues within a BRBF system and actively mitigate them in each design. To help ensure BRBF designs perform as intended, a peer review with physical testing are needed to gain building compliance in New Zealand. Physical testing should check the manufacturing and design of each BRB (prequalification testing), and the global strength and stability of each BRB its frame (subassemblage testing). However, the financial pressures inherent in commercial projects has led to prequalification testing (BRB only testing) being favoured without adequate design specific subassemblage testing. This means peer reviewers have to rely on BRB suppliers for assurances. This low regulation environment allows for a variety of BRBF designs to be constructed without being tested or well understood. The concern is that there may be designs that pose risk and that issues are being overlooked in design and review. To improve the safety and design of BRBFs in New Zealand, this dissertation studies the behaviour of BRBs and how they interact with other frame components. Presented is the experimental test process and results of five commercially available BRB designs (Chapter 2). It discusses the manufacturing process, testing conditions and limitations of observable information. It also emphasises that even though subassemblage testing is impractical, uniaxial testing of the BRB only is not enough, as this does not check global strength or stability. As an alternative to physical testing, this research uses computer simulation to model BRB behaviour. To overcome the traditional challenges of detailed BRB modelling, a strategy to simulate the performance of generic BRB designs was developed (Chapter 3). The development of nonlinear material and contact models are important aspects of this strategy. The Chaboche method is employed using a minimum of six backstress curves to characterize the combined isotropic and kinematic hardening exhibited by the steel core. A simplified approach, adequate for modelling the contact interaction between the restrainer and the core was found. Models also capture important frictional dissipation as well as lateral motion and bending associated with high order constrained buckling of the core. The experimental data from Chapter 2 was used to validate this strategy. As BRBs resist high compressive loading, global stability of the BRB and gusseted connection zone need to be considered. A separate study was conducted that investigated the yielding and buckling strength of gusset plates (Chapter 4). The stress distribution through a gusset plate is complex and difficult to predict because the cross-sectional area of gusset plate is not uniform, and each gusset plate design is unique in shape and size. This has motivated design methods that approximate yielding of gusset plates. Finite element modelling was used to study the development of yielding, buckling and plastic collapse behaviour of a brace end bolted to a series of corner gusset plates. In total 184 variations of gusset plate geometries were modelled in Abaqus®. The FEA modelling applied monotonic uniaxial load with an imperfection. Upon comparing results to current gusset plate design methods, it was found that the Whitmore width method for calculating the yield load of a gusset is generally un-conservative. To improve accuracy and safety in the design of gusset plates, modifications to current design methods for calculating the yield area and compressive strength for gusset plates is proposed. Bolted connections are a popular and common connection type used in BRBF design. Global out-of-plane stability tends to govern the design for this connection type with numerous studies highlighting the risk of instability initiated by inelasticity in the gussets, neck of the BRB end and/or restrainer ends. Subassemblage testing is the traditional method for evaluating global stability. However, physical testing of every BRBF variation is cost prohibitive. As such, Japan has developed an analytical approach to evaluate out-of-plane stability of BRBFs and incorporated this in their design codes. This analytical approach evaluates the different BRB components under possible collapse mechanisms by focusing on moment transfer between the restrainer and end of the BRB. The approach have led to strict criteria for BRBF design in Japan. Structural building design codes in New Zealand, Europe and the United States do not yet provide analytical methods to assess BRB and connection stability, with prototype/subassemblage testing still required as the primary means of accreditation. Therefore it is of interest to investigate the capability of this method to evaluate stability of BRBs designs and gusset plate designs used in New Zealand (including unstiffened gusset connection zones). Chapter 5 demonstrates the capability of FEA to study to the performance of a subassemblage test under cyclic loading – resembling that of a diagonal ground storey BRBF with bolted connections. A series of detailed models were developed using the strategy presented in Chapter 3. The geometric features of BRB 6.5a (Chapter 2) were used as a basis for the BRBs modelled. To capture the different failure mechanisms identified in Takeuchi et al. (2017), models varied the length that the cruciform (non-yielding) section inserts into the restrainer. Results indicate that gusset plates designed according to New Zealand’s Steel Structures Standard (NZS 3404) limit BRBF performance. Increasing the thickness of the gusset plates according to modifications discussed in Chapter 4, improved the overall performance for all variants (except when Lin/ Bcruc = 0.5). The effect of bi-directional loading was not found to notably affect out-of-plane stability. Results were compared against predictions made by the analytical method used in Japan (Takeuchi method). This method was found to be generally conservative is predicting out-of-plane stability of each BRBF model. Recommendations to improve the accuracy of Takeuchi’s method are also provided. The outcomes from this thesis should be helpful for BRB manufacturers, researchers, and in the development of further design guidance of BRBFs.
The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 generated hundreds of thousands of insurance claims, many of which were disputed. The New Zealand justice system faced the same challenge encountered by other jurisdictions following a natural disaster: how to resolve these disputes quickly and at minimal cost but also fairly, to avoid compounding the disaster with injustice? The thesis is of this article is that although the earthquakes were catastrophic for New Zealand, they also created a unique opportunity to design an innovative civil justice process—the Christchurch High Court Earthquake List—and to test, over a relatively short timeframe, how well that process works. This article describes the Christchurch High Court Earthquake List and analyses it by reference to civil justice theory about the relative normative values of public adjudication and private settlement and the dialogic relationship between them. It then evaluates the List, using statistics available five years on from the earthquakes and by reference to the author’s own experience mediating earthquake disputes.
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
The Manchester Courts building was a heritage building located in central Christchurch (New Zealand) that was damaged in the Mw 7.1 Darfield earthquake on 4 September 2010 and subsequently demolished as a risk reduction exercise. Because the building was heritage listed, the decision to demolish the building resulted in strong objections from heritage supporters who were of the opinion that the building had sufficient residual strength to survive possible aftershock earthquakes. On 22 February 2011 Christchurch was struck by a severe aftershock, leading to the question of whether building demolition had proven to be the correct risk reduction strategy. Finite element analysis was used to undertake a performance-based assessment, validating the accuracy of the model using the damage observed in the building before its collapse. In addition, soil-structure interaction was introduced into the research due to the comparatively low shear wave velocity of the soil. The demolition of a landmark heritage building was a tragedy that Christchurch will never recover from, but the decision was made considering safety, societal, economic and psychological aspects in order to protect the city and its citizens. The analytical results suggest that the Manchester Courts building would have collapsed during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, and that the collapse of the building would have resulted in significant fatalities.
