This poster aims to present fragility functions for pipelines buried in liquefaction-prone soils. Existing fragility models used to quantify losses can be based on old data or use complex metrics. Addressing these issues, the proposed functions are based on the Christchurch network and soil and utilizes the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) data, partially represented in Figure 1. Figure 1 (a) presents the pipe failure dataset, which describes the date, location and pipe on which failures occurred. Figure 1 (b) shows the simulated ground motion intensity median of the 22nd February 2011 earthquake. To develop the model, the network and soil characteristics have also been utilized
Motivation This poster aims to present fragility functions for pipelines buried in liquefaction-prone soils. Existing fragility models used to quantify losses can be based on old data or use complex metrics. Addressing these issues, the proposed functions are based on the Christchurch network and soil and utilizes the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) data, partially represented in Figure 1. Figure 1 (a) presents the pipe failure dataset, which describes the date, location and pipe on which failures occurred. Figure 1 (b) shows the simulated ground motion intensity median of the 22nd February 2011 earthquake. To develop the model, the network and soil characteristics have also been utilized.
Overview of SeisFinder SeisFinder is an open-source web service developed by QuakeCoRE and the University of Canterbury, focused on enabling the extraction of output data from computationally intensive earthquake resilience calculations. Currently, SeisFinder allows users to select historical or future events and retrieve ground motion simulation outputs for requested geographical locations. This data can be used as input for other resilience calculations, such as dynamic response history analysis. SeisFinder was developed using Django, a high-level python web framework, and uses a postgreSQL database. Because our large-scale computationally-intensive numerical ground motion simulations produce big data, the actual data is stored in file systems, while the metadata is stored in the database. The basic SeisFinder architecture is shown in Figure 1.
1. Background and Objectives This poster presents results from ground motion simulations of small-to-moderate magnitude (3.5≤Mw≤5.0) earthquake events in the Canterbury, New Zealand region using the Graves and Pitarka (2010,2015) methodology. Subsequent investigation of systematic ground motion effects highlights the prediction bias in the simulations which are also benchmarked against empirical ground motion models (e.g. Bradley (2013)). In this study, 144 earthquake ruptures, modelled as point sources, are considered with 1924 quality-assured ground motions recorded across 45 strong motion stations throughout the Canterbury region, as shown in Figure 1. The majority of sources are Mw≥4.0 and have centroid depth (CD) 10km or shallower. Earthquake source descriptions were obtained from the GeoNet New Zealand earthquake catalogue. The ground motion simulations were performed within a computational domain of 140km x 120km x 46km with a finite difference grid spacing of 0.1km. The low-frequency (LF) simulations utilize the 3D Canterbury Velocity Model while the high-frequency (HF) simulations utilize a generic regional 1D velocity model. In the LF simulations, a minimum shear wave velocity of 500m/s is enforced, yielding a maximum frequency of 1.0Hz.
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).
