Search

found 3 results

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Reconnaissance reports have highlighted the poor performance of non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings during the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes. These buildings are widely expected to result in significant losses under future earthquakes due to their seismic vulnerability and prevalence in densely populated urban areas. Wellington, for example, contains more than 70 pre-1970s multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, ranging in height from 5 to 18 storeys. This study seeks to characterise the seismic performance and evaluate the likely failure modes of a typical pre-1970s reinforced concrete building in Wellington, by conducting advanced numerical simulations to evaluate its 3D nonlinear dynamic response. A representative 9-storey office building constructed in 1951 is chosen for this study and modelled in the finite element analysis programme DIANA, using a previously developed and validated approach to predict the failure modes of doubly reinforced walls with confined boundary regions. The structure consists of long walls and robust framing elements resulting in a stiff lateral load resisting system. Barbell-shaped walls are flanked by stiff columns with sufficient transverse reinforcement to serve as boundary regions. Curved shell elements are used to model the walls and their boundary columns, for which the steel reinforcement is explicitly modelled. Line elements are used to model the frame elements. The steel reinforcement in each member is explicitly modelled. The floor slabs are modelled using elastic shell elements. The model is analysed under short and long duration ground motions selected to match site specific targets in Wellington at the DBE and MCE intensity levels. The observed response of the building including drift profiles at each intesity level, strain localization effects around wall openings, and the influence of bidirectional loading are discussed.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Post-earthquake cordons have been used after seismic events around the world. However, there is limited understanding of cordons and how contextual information of place such as geography, socio-cultural characteristics, economy, institutional and governance structure etc. affect decisions, operational procedures as well as spatial and temporal attributes of cordon establishment. This research aims to fill that gap through a qualitative comparative case study of two cities: Christchurch, New Zealand (Mw 6.2 earthquake, February 2011) and L’Aquila, Italy (Mw 6.3 earthquake, 2009). Both cities suffered comprehensive damage to its city centre and had cordons established for extended period. Data collection was done through purposive and snowball sampling methods whereby 23 key informants were interviewed in total. The interviewee varied in their roles and responsibilities i.e. council members, emergency managers, politicians, business/insurance representatives etc. We found that cordons were established to ensure safety of people and to maintain security of place in both the sites. In both cities, the extended cordon was met with resistance and protests. The extent and duration of establishment of cordon was affected by recovery approach taken in the two cities i.e. in Christchurch demolition was widely done to support recovery allowing for faster removal of cordons where as in L’Aquila, due to its historical importance, the approach to recovery was based on saving all the buildings which extended the duration of cordon. Thus, cordons are affected by site specific needs. It should be removed as soon as practicable which could be made easier with preplanning of cordons.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Several concrete cladding panels were damaged during the 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes in New Zealand. Damage included partial collapse of panels, rupture of joint sealants, cracking and corner crushing. Installation errors, faulty connections and inadequate detailing were also contributing factors to the damage. In New Zealand, two main issues are considered in order to accommodate story drifts in the design of precast cladding panels: 1) drift compatibility of tieback or push-pull connections and 2) drift compatibility of corner joints. Tieback connections restrain the panels in the out-of-plane direction while allowing in-plane translation with respect to the building frame. Tieback connections are either in the form of slots or oversized holes or ductile rods usually located at the top of the panels. Bearing connections are also provided at the bottom of panels to transfer gravity loads. At the corners of a building, a vertical joint gap, usually filled with sealants, is provided between the two panels on the two orthogonal sides to accommodate the relative movement. In cases where the joint gap is not sufficient to accommodate the relative movements, panels can collide, generating large forces and the likely failure of the connections. On the other hand, large gaps are aesthetically unpleasing. The current design standards appear to recognize these issues but then leave most of the design and detailing to the discretion of the designers. In the installation phase, the alignment of panels is one of the main challenges faced by installers (and/or contractors). Many prefer temporary props to guide, adjust and hold the panels in place whilst the bearing connections are welded. Moreover, heat generated from extensive welding can twist the steel components inducing undesirable local stresses in the panels. Therefore, the installation phase itself is time-consuming, costly and prone to errors. This paper investigates the performance of a novel panel system that is designed to accommodate lateral inter-story drift through a ‘rocking’ motion. In order to gauge the feasibility of the system, six 2m high precast concrete panels within a single-story steel frame structure have been tested under increasing levels of lateral cyclic drift at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Three different panel configurations are tested: 1) a panel with return cover and a flat panel at a corner under unidirectional loading, 2) Two adjacent flat panels under unidirectional loading, and 3) Two flat panels at another oblique corner under bidirectional loading. A vertical seismic joint of 25 mm, filled with one-stage joint sealant, is provided between two of the panels. The test results show the ability of the panels with ‘rocking’ connection details to accommodate larger lateral drifts whilst allowing for smaller vertical joints between panels at corners, quick alignment and easy placement of panels without involving extensive welding on site.