Unreinforced masonry churches in New Zealand, similarly to everywhere else in the word have proven to be highly vulnerable to earthquakes, because of their particular construction features. The Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, 2010-2011 caused an invaluable loss of local architectural heritage and of churches, as regrettably, some of them were demolished instead of being repaired. It is critical for New Zealand to advance the data collection, research and understanding pertaining to the seismic performance and protection of church buildings, with the aim to:
The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 caused significant damage and disruption to the city of Christchurch, New Zealand. A Royal Commission was established to report on the causes of building failure as a result of the earthquakes as well as look at the legal and best-practice requirements for buildings in New Zealand Central Business Districts. The Royal Commission made 189 recommendations on a variety of matters including managing damaged buildings after an earthquake, the adequacy of building codes and standards, and the processes of seismic assessments of existing buildings to determine their earthquake vulnerability. In response the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the agency responsible for administering building regulation in New Zealand, established a work programme to assist with the Canterbury rebuild and to implement the lessons learned throughout New Zealand. The five primary work streams in the programme are: • Facilitating the Canterbury Rebuild • Structural Performance and Design Standards • Geotechnical and structural guidance • Existing Building Resilience • Post Disaster Building Management This paper provides more detail on each of the work streams. There has been significant collaboration between the New Zealand Government and the research community, technical societies, and engineering consultants, both within New Zealand and internationally, to deliver the programme and improve the resilience of the New Zealand built environment. This has presented major challenges for an extremely busy industry in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes. The paper identifies the items of work that have been completed and the work that is still in progress at the time of writing.
Recently developed performance-based earthquake engineering framework, such as one provided by PEER (Deierlein et al. 2003), assist in the quantification in terms of performance such as casualty, monetary losses and downtime. This opens up the opportunity to identify cost-effective retrofit/rehabilitation strategies by comparing upfront costs associated with retrofit with the repair costs that can be expected over time. This loss assessment can be strengthened by learning from recent earthquakes, such as the 2010 Canterbury and 2016 Kaikoura earthquakes. In order to investigate which types of retrofit/rehabilitation strategies may be most cost-effective, a case study building was chosen for this research. The Pacific Tower, a 22-storey EBF apartment located within the Christchurch central business district (CBD), was damaged and repaired during the 2010 Canterbury earthquake series. As such, by taking hazard levels accordingly (i.e. to correspond to the Christchurch CBD), modelling and analysing the structure, and considering the vulnerability and repair costs of its different components, it is possible to predict the expected losses of the aforementioned building. Using this information, cost-effective retrofit/rehabilitation strategy can be determined. This research found that more often than not, it would be beneficial to improve the performance of valuable non-structural components, such as partitions. Although it is true that improving such elements will increase the initial costs, over time, the benefits gained from reduced losses should be expected to overcome the initial costs. Aftershocks do increase the predicted losses of a building even in lower intensities due to the fact that non-structural components can get damaged at such low intensities. By comparing losses computed with and without consideration of aftershocks for a range of historical earthquakes, it was found that the ratio between losses due to main shock with aftershocks to the losses due to the main shock only tended to increase with increasing main shock magnitude. This may be due to the fact that larger magnitude earthquakes tend to generate larger magnitude aftershocks and as those aftershocks happen within a region around the main shock, they are more likely to cause intense shaking and additional damage. In addition to this observation, it was observed that the most significant component of loss of the case study building was the non-structural partition walls.
This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
