Test results are presented for wall-diaphragm plate anchor connections that were axially loaded to rupture. These connection samples were extracted post-earthquake by sorting through the demolition debris from unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes. Unfortunately the number of samples available for testing was small due to the difficulties associated with sample collection in an environment of continuing aftershocks and extensive demolition activity, when personal safety combined with commercial activity involving large demolition machinery were imperatives that inhibited more extensive sample collection for research purposes. Nevertheless, the presented data is expected to be of assistance to structural engineers undertaking seismic assessment of URM buildings that have existing wall-diaphragm anchor plate connections installed, where it may be necessary to estimate the capacity of the existing connection as an important parameter linked with determining the current seismic capacity of the building and therefore influencing the decision regarding whether supplementary connections should be installed.
As part of the ‘Project Masonry’ Recovery Project funded by the New Zealand Natural Hazards Research Platform, commencing in March 2011, an international team of researchers was deployed to document and interpret the observed earthquake damage to masonry buildings and to churches as a result of the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The study focused on investigating commonly encountered failure patterns and collapse mechanisms. A brief summary of activities undertaken is presented, detailing the observations that were made on the performance of and the deficiencies that contributed to the damage to approximately 650 inspected unreinforced clay brick masonry (URM) buildings, to 90 unreinforced stone masonry buildings, to 342 reinforced concrete masonry (RCM) buildings, to 112 churches in the Canterbury region, and to just under 1100 residential dwellings having external masonry veneer cladding. Also, details are provided of retrofit techniques that were implemented within relevant Christchurch URM buildings prior to the 22nd February earthquake. In addition to presenting a summary of Project Masonry, the broader research activity at the University of Auckland pertaining to the seismic assessment and improvement of unreinforced masonry buildings is outlined. The purpose of this outline is to provide an overview and bibliography of published literature and to communicate on-going research activity that has not yet been reported in a complete form. http://sesoc.org.nz/conference/programme.pdf
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/
The seismic performance of soil profiles with potentially liquefiable deposits is a complex phenomenon that requires a thorough understanding of the soil properties and ground motion characteristics. The limitations of simplified liquefaction assessment methods have prompted an increase in the use of non-linear dynamic analysis methods. Focusing on onedimensional site response of a soil column, this thesis validated a soil constitutive model using in-situ pore pressure measurements and then assessed the influence of input ground motion characteristics on soil column response using traditional and newly developed metrics. Pore pressure recordings during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in New Zealand were used to validate the PM4Sand constitutive model. Soil profile characterization was key to accurate prediction of excess pore pressure response and accounting for any densification during the CES. Response during multiple earthquakes was captured effectively and cross-layer interaction demonstrated the model capability to capture soil response at the system-level. Synthetic and observed ground motions from the Christchurch earthquake were applied to the validated soil column to quantify the performance of synthetic motions. New metrics were developed to facilitate a robust comparison to assess performance. The synthetic input motions demonstrated a slightly larger acceleration and excess pore pressure response compared to the observed input motions. The results suggest that the synthetic motions may accumulate higher excess pore pressure at a faster rate and with fewer number of cycles in the shear response. This research compares validated soil profile subject to spectrally-matched pulse and non-pulse motions, emphasizing the inclusion of pulse motions with distinctive characteristics in ground motion suites for non-linear dynamic analysis. However, spectral matching may lead to undesired alterations in pulse characteristics. Cumulative absolute velocity and significant duration significantly differed between these two groups compared to the other key characteristics and contributed considerably to the liquefaction response. Unlike the non-pulse motions, not all of the pulse motions triggered liquefaction, likely due to their shorter significant duration. Non-pulse motions developed a greater spatial extent of liquefaction triggering in the soil profile and extended to a greater depth.
