Quick and reliable assessment of the condition of bridges in a transportation network after an earthquake can greatly assist immediate post-disaster response and long-term recovery. However, experience shows that available resources, such as qualified inspectors and engineers, will typically be stretched for such tasks. Structural health monitoring (SHM) systems can therefore make a real difference in this context. SHM, however, needs to be deployed in a strategic manner and integrated into the overall disaster response plans and actions to maximize its benefits. This study presents, in its first part, a framework of how this can be achieved. Since it will not be feasible, or indeed necessary, to use SHM on every bridge, it is necessary to prioritize bridges within individual networks for SHM deployment. A methodology for such prioritization based on structural and geotechnical seismic risks affecting bridges and their importance within a network is proposed in the second part. An example using the methodology application to selected bridges in the medium-sized transportation network of Wellington, New Zealand is provided. The third part of the paper is concerned with using monitoring data for quick assessment of bridge condition and damage after an earthquake. Depending on the bridge risk profile, it is envisaged that data will be obtained from either local or national seismic monitoring arrays or SHM systems installed on bridges. A method using artificial neural networks is proposed for using data from a seismic array to infer key ground motion parameters at an arbitrary bridges site. The methodology is applied to seismic data collected in Christchurch, New Zealand. Finally, how such ground motion parameters can be used in bridge damage and condition assessment is outlined. AM - Accepted manuscript
Unreinforced masonry (URM) is a construction type that was commonly adopted in New Zealand between the 1880s and 1930s. URM construction is evidently vulnerable to high magnitude earthquakes, with the most recent New Zealand example being the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake. This earthquake caused significant damage to a majority of URM buildings in the Canterbury area and resulted in 185 fatalities. Many URM buildings still exist in various parts of New Zealand today, and due to their likely poor seismic performance, earthquake assessment and retrofit of the remaining URM building stock is necessary as these buildings have significant architectural heritage and occupy a significant proportion of the nation’s building stock. A collaborative research programme between the University of Auckland and Reid Construction Systems was conducted to investigate an economical yet effective solution for retrofitting New Zealand’s existing URM building stock. This solution adopts the shotcrete technique using an Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC), which is a polyvinyl alcohol fibre reinforced mortar that exhibits strain hardening characteristics. Collaborations have been formed with a number of consulting structural engineers throughout New Zealand to develop innovative and cost effective retrofit solutions for a number of buildings. Two such case studies are presented in this paper. http://www.concrete2013.com.au/technical-program/
This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
