Paper 201In order to provide information related to seismic vulnerability of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, and as a complementary investigation on innovative feasible retrofit solutions developed in the past six years at the University of Canterbury on pre-19170 reinforced concrete buildings, a frame building representative of older construction practice was tested on the shake table. The specimen, 1/2.5 scale, consists of two 3-storey 2-bay asymmetric frames in parallel, one interior and one exterior, jointed together by transverse beams and floor slabs. The as-built (benchmark) specimen was first tested under increasing ground motion amplitudes using records from Loma Prieta Earthquake (California, 1989) and suffered significant damage at the upper floor, most of it due to lap splices failure. As a consequence, in a second stage, the specimen was repaired and modified by removing the concrete in the lap splice region, welding the column longitudinal bars, replacing the removed concrete with structural mortar, and injecting cracks with epoxy resin. The modified as-built specimen was then tested using data recorded during Darfield (New Zealand, 2010) and Maule (Chile, 2010) Earthquakes, with whom the specimen showed remarkably different responses attributed to the main variation in frequency content and duration. In this contribution, the seismic performance of the three series of experiments are presented and compared.
Modern methods of seismic design (since the 1970s) allow structural engineers to design new buildings with the aim of predictable and ductile behaviour in severe earthquakes, in order to prevent collapse and loss of life. However some controlled damage is expected, which may result in the building being damaged beyond economic repair after severe shaking. Seismic protection of structures has seen significant advances in recent decades, due to the development of new technologies and advanced materials. It has only been recently recognised world-wide that it is possible to design economical structures which can resist severe earthquakes with limited or negligible structural damage. There are two alternative ways of designing buildings to avoid permanent damage in severe earthquakes; base isolation and damage-resistant design. Base isolation requires the building to be separated from the ground by isolation devices which can dissipate energy. This is proven technology which may add a little to the initial cost of the building, but will prove to be less expensive in the long term. Damage-resistant design is developing rapidly, in several different forms. These include rocking walls or rocking frames, with or without post-tensioning, and a variety of energy dissipating devices attached to the building in different ways. If not already the case, damage-resistant design will soon become no more expensive than conventional design for new buildings.
published as USB.The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are impacted by the organisation and human resourcing of the physical works. This research addresses the suitability of different resourcing strategies on post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. This qualitative analysis primarily draws on five international case studies including 2010 Canterbury earthquake, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, 2009 Samoan Tsunami, 2009 Victorian Bushfires and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The implementation strategies are divided into two categories: collectively and individually facilitated works. The impacts of the implementation strategies chosen are assessed for all disaster waste management activities including demolition, waste collection, transportation, treatment and waste disposal. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness of projects; and environmental, economic and social impacts. Generally, the case studies demonstrate that detritus waste removal and debris from major repair work is managed at an individual property level. Debris collection, demolition and disposal are generally and most effectively carried out as a collective activity. However, implementation strategies are affected by contextual factors (such as funding and legal constraints) and the nature of the disaster waste (degree of hazardous waste, geographical spread of waste etc.) and need to be designed accordingly. Community involvement in recovery activities such as demolition and debris removal is shown to contribute positively to psychosocial recovery.
