During the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill (RCFMI) buildings were subjected to significant lateral loads. A survey conducted by Christchurch City Council (CCC) and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) documented 10,777 damaged buildings, which included building characteristics (building address, the number of storeys, the year of construction, and building use) and post-earthquake damage observations (building safety information, observed damage, level of damage, and current state of the buildings). This data was merged into the Canterbury Earthquake Building Assessment (CEBA) database and was utilised to generate empirical fragility curves using the lognormal distribution method. The proposed fragility curves were expected to provide a reliable estimation of the mean vulnerability for commercial RCFMI buildings in the region. http://www.13thcms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Symposium-Info-and-Presentation-Schedule.pdf VoR - Version of Record
This paper presents preliminary results of an experimental campaign on three beam-column joint subassemblies extracted from a 22-storey reinforced concrete frame building constructed in late 1980s at the Christchurch’s Central Business District (CBD) area, damaged and demolished after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes sequence (CES). The building was designed following capacity design principles. Column sway (i.e., soft storey) mechanisms were avoided, and the beams were provided with plastic hinge relocation details at both beam-ends, aiming at developing plastic hinges away from the column faces. The specimens were tested under quasi-static cyclic displacement controlled lateral loading. One of the specimens, showing no visible residual cracks was cyclically tested in its as-is condition. The other two specimens which showed residual cracks varying between hairline and 1.0mm in width, were subjected to cyclic loading to simulate cracking patterns consistent with what can be considered moderate damage. The cracked specimens were then repaired with an epoxy injection technique and subsequently retested until reaching failure. The epoxy injection techniques demonstrated to be quite efficient in partly, although not fully, restoring the energy dissipation capacities of the damaged specimens at all beam rotation levels. The stiffness was partly restored within the elastic range and almost fully restored after the onset of nonlinear behaviour.
Capacity design and hierarchy of strength philosophies at the base of modern seismic codes allow inelastic response in case of severe earthquakes and thus, in most traditional systems, damage develops at well-defined locations of reinforced concrete (RC) structures, known as plastic hinges. The 2010 and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes have demonstrated that this philosophy worked as expected. Plastic hinges formed in beams, in coupling beams and at the base of columns and walls. Structures were damaged permanently, but did not collapse. The 2010 and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes also highlighted a critical issue: the reparability of damaged buildings. No methodologies or techniques were available to estimate the level of subsequent earthquakes that RC buildings could still sustain before collapse. No repair techniques capable of restoring the initial condition of buildings were known. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of an eventual repair intervention, when compared with a new building, was unknown. These aspects, added to nuances of New Zealand building owners’ insurance coverage, encouraged the demolition of many buildings. Moreover, there was a perceived strong demand from government and industry to develop techniques for assessing damage to steel reinforcement bars embedded in cracked structural concrete elements. The most common questions were: “Have the steel bars been damaged in correspondence to the concrete cracks?”, “How much plastic deformation have the steel bars undergone?”, and “What is the residual strain capacity of the damaged bars?” Minimally invasive techniques capable of quantifying the level and extent of plastic deformation and residual strain capacity are not yet available. Although some studies had been recently conducted, a validated method is yet to be widely accepted. In this thesis, a least-invasive method for the damage-assessment of steel reinforcement is developed. Based on the information obtained from hardness testing and a single tensile test, it is possible to estimate the mechanical properties of earthquake-damaged rebars. The reduction in the low-cycle fatigue life due to strain ageing is also quantified. The proposed damage assessment methodology is based on empirical relationships between hardness and strain and residual strain capacity. If damage is suspected from in situ measurements, visual inspection or computer analysis, a bar may be removed and more accurate hardness measurements can be obtained using the lab-based Vickers hardness methodology. The Vickers hardness profile of damaged bars is then compared with calibration curves (Vickers hardness versus strain and residual strain capacity) previously developed for similar steel reinforcement bars extracted from undamaged locations. Experimental tests demonstrated that the time- and temperature-dependent strain-ageing phenomenon causes changes in the mechanical properties of plastically deformed steels. In particular, yield strength and hardness increases, whereas ductility decreases. The changes in mechanical properties are quantified and their implications on the hardness method are highlighted. Low-cycle fatigue (LCF) failures of steel reinforcing bars have been observed in laboratory testing and post-earthquake damage inspections. Often, failure might not occur during a first seismic event. However, damage is accumulated and the remaining fatigue life is reduced. Failure might therefore occur in a subsequent seismic event. Although numerous studies exist on the LCF behaviour of steel rebars, no studies had been conducted on the strain-ageing effects on the remaining fatigue life. In this thesis, the reduction in fatigue life due to this phenomenon is determined through a number of experimental tests.
This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
