Low Damage Seismic Design (LDSD) guidance material being developed by Engineering NZ is considering a design drift limit for multi-storey buildings of 0.5% at a new damage control limit state (DCLS). The impact of this new design requirement on the expected annual loss due to repair costs is investigated for a four-storey office building with reinforced concrete walls located in Christchurch. The LDSD guidance material aims to reduce the expected annual loss of complying buildings to below 0.1% of building replacement cost. The research tested this expectation. Losses were estimated in accordance with FEMA P58, using building responses from non-linear time history analyses (performed with OpenSees using lumped plasticity models). The equivalent static method, in line with NZS 1170.5 and NZS 3101, was used to design the building to LDSD specifications, representing a future state-of-practice design. The building designed to low-damage specification returned an expected annual loss of 0.10%, and the building designed conventionally returned an expected annual loss of 0.13%. Limitations with the NZS 3101 method for determining wall stiffness were identified, and a different method acknowledging the relationship between strength and stiffness was used to redesign the building. Along with improving this design assumption, the study finds that LDSD design criteria could be an effective way of limiting damage and losses.
Advanced seismic effective-stress analysis is used to scrutinize the liquefaction performance of 55 well-documented case-history sites from Christchurch. The performance of these sites during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence varied significantly, from no liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface (in any of the major events) to severe liquefaction manifestation in multiple events. For the majority of the 55 sites, the simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures, which are conventionally used in engineering practice, could not explain these dramatic differences in the manifestation. Detailed geotechnical characterization and subsequent examination of the soil profile characteristics of the 55 sites identified some similarities but also important differences between sites that manifested liquefaction in the two major events of the sequence (YY-sites) and sites that did not manifest liquefaction in either event (NN-sites). In particular, while the YY-sites and NN-sites are shown to have practically identical critical layer characteristics, they have significant differences with regard to their deposit characteristics including the thickness and vertical continuity of their critical zones and liquefiable materials. A CPT-based effective stress analysis procedure is developed and implemented for the analyses of the 55 case history sites. Key features of this procedure are that, on the one hand, it can be fully automated in a programming environment and, on the other hand, it is directly equivalent (in the definition of cyclic resistance and required input data) to the CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures. These features facilitate significantly the application of effective-stress analysis for simple 1D free-field soil-column problems and also provide a basis for rigorous comparisons of the outcomes of effective-stress analyses and simplified procedures. Input motions for the analyses are derived using selected (reference) recordings from the two major events of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. A step-by-step procedure for the selection of representative reference motions for each site and their subsequent treatment (i.e. deconvolution and scaling) is presented. The focus of the proposed procedure is to address key aspects of spatial variability of ground motion in the near-source region of an earthquake including extended-source effects, path effects, and variation in the deeper regional geology.
