This presentation discusses recent empirical ground motion modelling efforts in New Zealand. Firstly, the active shallow crustal and subduction interface and slab ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) which are employed in the 2010 update of the national seismic hazard model (NSHM) are discussed. Other NZ-specific GMPEs developed, but not incorporated in the 2010 update are then discussed, in particular, the active shallow crustal model of Bradley (2010). A brief comparison of the NZ-specific GMPEs with the near-source ground motions recorded in the Canterbury earthquakes is then presented, given that these recordings collectively provide a significant increase in observed strong motions in the NZ catalogue. The ground motion prediction expert elicitation process that was undertaken following the Canterbury earthquakes for active shallow crustal earthquakes is then discussed. Finally, ongoing GMPE-related activities are discussed including: ground motion and metadata database refinement, improved site characterization of strong motion station, and predictions for subduction zone earthquakes.
This paper concerns the explicit consideration of near-fault directivity in conventional ground motion prediction models, and its implication for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in New Zealand. The proposed approach utilises recently developed models by Shahi & Baker (2011), which account for both the 'narrowband' nature of the directivity pulse on spectral ordinates, and the probability of pulse occurrence at the site of interest. Furthermore, in order to correctly consider directivity, distributed seismicity sources are considered as finite-faults, as opposed to their (incorrect) conventional treatment as point-sources. The significance of directivity on hazard analysis results is illustrated for various vibration periods at generic sites located in Christchurch and Otira, two locations whose seismic hazard is comprised of notably different seismic sources. When compared to the PSHA results considering directivity and distributed seismicity as finite faults, it is shown that the NZS1170.5:2004 directivity factor is notably unconservative for all vibration periods in Otira (i.e. high seismic hazard region); and unconservative for Christchurch at short-to-moderate vibration periods ( < 3s); but conservative at long periods ( > 4s).
War and natural disasters share many features including great loss of life, traumatised populations and haunting memories. The Christchurch earthquakes were the third most costly event of 2011 with total costs of up to $NZ30 billion. Many homes, communities, families and an established way of life have gone for ever. The paper comes from the Women’s Voices project that documents women’s narratives of earthquake trauma and loss and examines their profiles of emotional expression associated with coping. For these women in Christchurch, solace is not about talking experiences of suffering but by doing practical things that inform and are shaped by existing personal narratives. As they relayed this common arc, they also entered into national (and gendered) narrative themes of being practical, stoic, independent and resourceful in the face of tragedy and loss and so embody communal aspects of coping with loss and grief particular to the New Zealand even ‘the South Island settler’ identity narrative. These narratives suggest it useful to rethink key concepts that inform our understanding of coping with disaster and loss.
In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.
