Case study analysis of the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES), which particularly impacted Christchurch City, New Zealand, has highlighted the value of practical, standardised and coordinated post-earthquake geotechnical response guidelines for earthquake-induced landslides in urban areas. The 22nd February 2011 earthquake, the second largest magnitude event in the CES, initiated a series of rockfall, cliff collapse and loess failures around the Port Hills which severely impacted the south-eastern part of Christchurch. The extensive slope failure induced by the 22nd February 200 earthquake was unprecedented; and ground motions experienced significantly exceeded the probabilistic seismic hazard model for Canterbury. Earthquake-induced landslides initiated by the 22nd February 2011 earthquake posed risk to life safety, and caused widespread damage to dwellings and critical infrastructure. In the immediate aftermath of the 22nd February 2011 earthquake, the geotechnical community responded by deploying into the Port Hills to conduct assessment of slope failure hazards and life safety risk. Coordination within the voluntary geotechnical response group evolved rapidly within the first week post-earthquake. The lack of pre-event planning to guide coordinated geotechnical response hindered the execution of timely and transparent management of life safety risk from coseismic landslides in the initial week after the earthquake. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with municipal, management and operational organisations involved in the geotechnical response during the CES. Analysis of interview dialogue highlighted the temporal evolution of priorities and tasks during emergency response to coseismic slope failure, which was further developed into a phased conceptual model to inform future geotechnical response. Review of geotechnical responses to selected historical earthquakes (Northridge, 1994; Chi-Chi, 1999; Wenchuan, 2008) has enabled comparison between international practice and local response strategies, and has emphasised the value of pre-earthquake preparation, indicating the importance of integration of geotechnical response within national emergency management plans. Furthermore, analysis of the CES and international earthquakes has informed pragmatic recommendations for future response to coseismic slope failure. Recommendations for future response to earthquake-induced landslides presented in this thesis include: the integration of post-earthquake geotechnical response with national Civil Defence and Emergency Management; pre-earthquake development of an adaptive management structure and standard slope assessment format for geotechnical response; and emergency management training for geotechnical professionals. Post-earthquake response recommendations include the development of geographic sectors within the area impacted by coseismic slope failure, and the development of a GIS database for analysis and management of data collected during ground reconnaissance. Recommendations provided in this thesis aim to inform development of national guidelines for geotechnical response to earthquake-induced landslides in New Zealand, and prompt debate concerning international best practice.
Very little research exists on total house seismic performance. This testing programme provides stiffness and response data for five houses of varying ages including contributions of non-structural elements. These light timber framed houses in Christchurch, New Zealand had minor earthquake damage from the 2011 earthquakes and were lateral load tested on site to determine their strength and stiffness, and preliminary damage thresholds. Dynamic characteristics were also investigated. Various loading schemes were utilised including quasi-static loading above the foundation, unidirectional loading through the floor diaphragm, cyclic quasi-static loading and snapback tests. Dynamic analysis on two houses provided the seismic safety levels of post-quake houses with respect to local hazard levels. Compared with New Zealand Building Standards all the tested houses had an excess of strength, damage is a significant consideration in earthquake resilience and was observed in all of the houses. A full size house laboratory test is proposed.
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of the first stage of Wellington Case Study project (Regulating For Resilience in an Earthquake Vulnerable City) being undertaken by the Disaster Law Research Group at the University of Canterbury Law School. This research aims to map the current regulatory environment around improving the seismic resilience of the urban built environment. This work provides the basis for the second stage of the project which will map the regulatory tools onto the reality of the current building stock in Wellington. Using a socio-legal methodology, the current research examines the regulatory framework around seismic resilience for existing buildings in New Zealand, with a particularly focus on multi-storey in the Wellington CBD. The work focusses both on the operation and impact of the formal seismic regulatory tools open to public regulators (under the amended Building Act) as other non-seismic regulatory tools. As well as examining the formal regulatory frame, the work also provides an assessment of the interactions between other non-building acts (such as Health and Safety at Work Act 2015) on the requirements of seismic resilience. Other soft-law developments (particularly around informal building standards) are also examined. The final output of this work will presents this regulatory map in a clear and easily accessible manner and provide an assessment of the suitability of this at times confusing and patchy legal environment as Wellington moves towards becoming a resilient city. The final conclusion of this work will be used to specifically examine the ability of Wellington to make this transition under the current regulatory environment as phase two of the Wellington Case Study project.
A buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a structural bracing system that provides lateral strength and stiffness to buildings and bridges. They were first developed in Japan in the 1970s (Watanabe et al. 1973, Kimura et al. 1976) and gained rapid acceptance in the United States after the Northridge earthquake in 1994 (Bruneau et al. 2011). However, it was not until the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/2011, that the New Zealand construction market saw a significant uptake in the use of buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) in commercial buildings (MacRae et al. 2015). In New Zealand there is not yet any documented guidance or specific instructions in regulatory standards for the design of BRBFs. This makes it difficult for engineers to anticipate all the possible stability and strength issues within a BRBF system and actively mitigate them in each design. To help ensure BRBF designs perform as intended, a peer review with physical testing are needed to gain building compliance in New Zealand. Physical testing should check the manufacturing and design of each BRB (prequalification testing), and the global strength and stability of each BRB its frame (subassemblage testing). However, the financial pressures inherent in commercial projects has led to prequalification testing (BRB only testing) being favoured without adequate design specific subassemblage testing. This means peer reviewers have to rely on BRB suppliers for assurances. This low regulation environment allows for a variety of BRBF designs to be constructed without being tested or well understood. The concern is that there may be designs that pose risk and that issues are being overlooked in design and review. To improve the safety and design of BRBFs in New Zealand, this dissertation studies the behaviour of BRBs and how they interact with other frame components. Presented is the experimental test process and results of five commercially available BRB designs (Chapter 2). It discusses the manufacturing process, testing conditions and limitations of observable information. It also emphasises that even though subassemblage testing is impractical, uniaxial testing of the BRB only is not enough, as this does not check global strength or stability. As an alternative to physical testing, this research uses computer simulation to model BRB behaviour. To overcome the traditional challenges of detailed BRB modelling, a strategy to simulate the performance of generic BRB designs was developed (Chapter 3). The development of nonlinear material and contact models are important aspects of this strategy. The Chaboche method is employed using a minimum of six backstress curves to characterize the combined isotropic and kinematic hardening exhibited by the steel core. A simplified approach, adequate for modelling the contact interaction between the restrainer and the core was found. Models also capture important frictional dissipation as well as lateral motion and bending associated with high order constrained buckling of the core. The experimental data from Chapter 2 was used to validate this strategy. As BRBs resist high compressive loading, global stability of the BRB and gusseted connection zone need to be considered. A separate study was conducted that investigated the yielding and buckling strength of gusset plates (Chapter 4). The stress distribution through a gusset plate is complex and difficult to predict because the cross-sectional area of gusset plate is not uniform, and each gusset plate design is unique in shape and size. This has motivated design methods that approximate yielding of gusset plates. Finite element modelling was used to study the development of yielding, buckling and plastic collapse behaviour of a brace end bolted to a series of corner gusset plates. In total 184 variations of gusset plate geometries were modelled in Abaqus®. The FEA modelling applied monotonic uniaxial load with an imperfection. Upon comparing results to current gusset plate design methods, it was found that the Whitmore width method for calculating the yield load of a gusset is generally un-conservative. To improve accuracy and safety in the design of gusset plates, modifications to current design methods for calculating the yield area and compressive strength for gusset plates is proposed. Bolted connections are a popular and common connection type used in BRBF design. Global out-of-plane stability tends to govern the design for this connection type with numerous studies highlighting the risk of instability initiated by inelasticity in the gussets, neck of the BRB end and/or restrainer ends. Subassemblage testing is the traditional method for evaluating global stability. However, physical testing of every BRBF variation is cost prohibitive. As such, Japan has developed an analytical approach to evaluate out-of-plane stability of BRBFs and incorporated this in their design codes. This analytical approach evaluates the different BRB components under possible collapse mechanisms by focusing on moment transfer between the restrainer and end of the BRB. The approach have led to strict criteria for BRBF design in Japan. Structural building design codes in New Zealand, Europe and the United States do not yet provide analytical methods to assess BRB and connection stability, with prototype/subassemblage testing still required as the primary means of accreditation. Therefore it is of interest to investigate the capability of this method to evaluate stability of BRBs designs and gusset plate designs used in New Zealand (including unstiffened gusset connection zones). Chapter 5 demonstrates the capability of FEA to study to the performance of a subassemblage test under cyclic loading – resembling that of a diagonal ground storey BRBF with bolted connections. A series of detailed models were developed using the strategy presented in Chapter 3. The geometric features of BRB 6.5a (Chapter 2) were used as a basis for the BRBs modelled. To capture the different failure mechanisms identified in Takeuchi et al. (2017), models varied the length that the cruciform (non-yielding) section inserts into the restrainer. Results indicate that gusset plates designed according to New Zealand’s Steel Structures Standard (NZS 3404) limit BRBF performance. Increasing the thickness of the gusset plates according to modifications discussed in Chapter 4, improved the overall performance for all variants (except when Lin/ Bcruc = 0.5). The effect of bi-directional loading was not found to notably affect out-of-plane stability. Results were compared against predictions made by the analytical method used in Japan (Takeuchi method). This method was found to be generally conservative is predicting out-of-plane stability of each BRBF model. Recommendations to improve the accuracy of Takeuchi’s method are also provided. The outcomes from this thesis should be helpful for BRB manufacturers, researchers, and in the development of further design guidance of BRBFs.
The recent Canterbury earthquake sequence in 2010-2011 highlighted a uniquely severe level of structural damage to modern buildings, while confirming the high vulnerability and life threatening of unreinforced masonry and inadequately detailed reinforced concrete buildings. Although the level of damage of most buildings met the expected life-safety and collapse prevention criteria, the structural damage to those building was beyond economic repair. The difficulty in the post-event assessment of a concrete or steel structure and the uneconomical repairing costs are the big drivers of the adoption of low damage design. Among several low-damage technologies, post-tensioned rocking systems were developed in the 1990s with applications to precast concrete members and later extended to structural steel members. More recently the technology was extended to timber buildings (Pres-Lam system). This doctoral dissertation focuses on the experimental investigation and analytical and numerical prediction of the lateral load response of dissipative post-tensioned rocking timber wall systems. The first experimental stages of this research consisted of component testing on both external replaceable devices and internal bars. The component testing was aimed to further investigate the response of these devices and to provide significant design parameters. Post-tensioned wall subassembly testing was then carried out. Firstly, quasi-static cyclic testing of two-thirds scale post-tensioned single wall specimens with several reinforcement layouts was carried out. Then, an alternative wall configuration to limit displacement incompatibilities in the diaphragm was developed and tested. The system consisted of a Column-Wall-Column configuration, where the boundary columns can provide the support to the diaphragm with minimal uplifting and also provide dissipation through the coupling to the post-tensioned wall panel with dissipation devices. Both single wall and column-wall-column specimens were subjected to drifts up to 2% showing excellent performance, limiting the damage to the dissipating devices. One of the objectives of the experimental program was to assess the influence of construction detailing, and the dissipater connection in particular proved to have a significant influence on the wall’s response. The experimental programs on dissipaters and wall subassemblies provided exhaustive data for the validation and refinement of current analytical and numerical models. The current moment-rotation iterative procedure was refined accounting for detailed response parameters identified in the initial experimental stage. The refined analytical model proved capable of fitting the experimental result with good accuracy. A further stage in this research was the validation and refinement of numerical modelling approaches, which consisted in rotational spring and multi-spring models. Both the modelling approaches were calibrated versus the experimental results on post-tensioned walls subassemblies. In particular, the multi-spring model was further refined and implemented in OpenSEES to account for the full range of behavioural aspects of the systems. The multi-spring model was used in the final part of the dissertation to validate and refine current lateral force design procedures. Firstly, seismic performance factors in accordance to a Force-Based Design procedure were developed in accordance to the FEMA P-695 procedure through extensive numerical analyses. This procedure aims to determine the seismic reduction factor and over-strength factor accounting for the collapse probability of the building. The outcomes of this numerical analysis were also extended to other significant design codes. Alternatively, Displacement-Based Design can be used for the determination of the lateral load demand on a post-tensioned multi-storey timber building. The current DBD procedure was used for the development of a further numerical analysis which aimed to validate the procedure and identify the necessary refinements. It was concluded that the analytical and numerical models developed throughout this dissertation provided comprehensive and accurate tools for the determination of the lateral load response of post-tensioned wall systems, also allowing the provision of design parameters in accordance to the current standards and lateral force design procedures.
