Mr Wayne Tobeck, Director of Southrim Group (SRG), sponsored this 2013 MEM Project titled; A Technical and Economic Feasibility Study for the Integration of GSHP Technology in the Christchurch Rebuild. Following the recent Christchurch earthquakes, a significant amount of land has become too unstable to support traditional building foundations. This creates an opportunity to implement new and unique foundation designs previously unconsidered due to high costs compared to traditional methods. One such design proposes that an Injection Micro-Piling technique could be used. This can also be coupled with HVAC technology to create a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) arrangement in both new buildings and as retrofits for building requiring foundation repair. The purpose of this study was to complete a feasibility study on the merits of SRG pursuing this proposed product. A significant market for such a product was found to exist, while the product was also found to be technically and legally feasible. However, the proposed product was found to not be economically feasible with respect to Air Source Heat Pumps due to the significantly higher capital and installation costs required. Further analysis suggests GSHPs may become more economically attractive in operating temperatures lower than -9oC, though the existence of markets with this climate in NZ has not been studied. It is therefore suggested that SRG do not proceed with plans to develop a GSHP coupled foundation solution for the Christchurch rebuild.
The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have shone the spotlight on a number of tax issues. These issues, and in particular lessons learned from them, will be relevant for revenue authorities, policymakers and taxpayers alike in the broader context of natural disasters. Issues considered by this paper include the tax treatment of insurance monies. For example, building owners will receive pay-outs for destroyed assets and buildings which have been depreciated. Where the insurance payment is more than the adjusted tax value, there will be a taxable "gain on sale" (or depreciation recovery income). If the building owner uses those insurance proceeds to purchase a replacement asset, legislative amendments specifically enacted following the earthquakes provide that rollover relief of the depreciation recovery income is available. The tax treatment of expenditure to seismically strengthen a building is another significant issue faced by building owners. Case law has determined that this expenditure will usually be capital expenditure. In the past such costs could be capitalised to the building and depreciated accordingly. However, since the 2011-2012 income year owners have been prohibited from claiming depreciation on buildings and therefore currently no deduction is available for such strengthening expenditure (whether immediate or deferred). This has significant potential implications for landlords throughout New Zealand facing significant seismic retrofit costs. Incentives, or some form of financial support, whether delivered through the tax system or some other mechanism may be required. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) require insurance proceeds, including reimbursement for expenditure of a capital nature, be reported as income while expenditure itself is not recorded as a current period expense. This has the effect of overstating current income and creating a larger variation between reported income for accounting and taxation purposes. Businesses have obligations to maintain certain business records for tax purposes. Reconstructing records destroyed by a natural disaster depends on how the information was originally stored. The earthquakes have demonstrated the benefits of ‘off-site’ (outside Canterbury) storage, in particular electronic storage. This paper considers these issues and the Inland Revenue Department (Inland Revenue) Standard Practice Statement which deals with inter alia retention of business records in electronic format and offshore record storage. Employer provided accommodation is treated as income to the benefitting employee. A recent amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007 retrospectively provides that certain employer provided accommodation is exempt from tax. The time aspect of these rules is extended where the employee is involved in the Canterbury rebuild and comes from outside the region.
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.
Structural engineering is facing an extraordinarily challenging era. These challenges are driven by the increasing expectations of modern society to provide low-cost, architecturally appealing structures which can withstand large earthquakes. However, being able to avoid collapse in a large earthquake is no longer enough. A building must now be able to withstand a major seismic event with negligible damage so that it is immediately occupiable following such an event. As recent earthquakes have shown, the economic consequences of not achieving this level of performance are not acceptable. Technological solutions for low-damage structural systems are emerging. However, the goal of developing a low-damage building requires improving the performance of both the structural skeleton and the non-structural components. These non-structural components include items such as the claddings, partitions, ceilings and contents. Previous research has shown that damage to such items contributes a disproportionate amount to the overall economic losses in an earthquake. One such non-structural element that has a history of poor performance is the external cladding system, and this forms the focus of this research. Cladding systems are invariably complicated and provide a number of architectural functions. Therefore, it is important than when seeking to improve their seismic performance that these functions are not neglected. The seismic vulnerability of cladding systems are determined in this research through a desktop background study, literature review, and postearthquake reconnaissance survey of their performance in the 2010 – 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. This study identified that precast concrete claddings present a significant life-safety risk to pedestrians, and that the effect they have upon the primary structure is not well understood. The main objective of this research is consequently to better understand the performance of precast concrete cladding systems in earthquakes. This is achieved through an experimental campaign and numerical modelling of a range of precast concrete cladding systems. The experimental campaign consists of uni-directional, quasi static cyclic earthquake simulation on a test frame which represents a single-storey, single-bay portion of a reinforced concrete building. The test frame is clad with various precast concrete cladding panel configurations. A major focus is placed upon the influence the connection between the cladding panel and structural frame has upon seismic performance. A combination of experimental component testing, finite element modelling and analytical derivation is used to develop cladding models of the cladding systems investigated. The cyclic responses of the models are compared with the experimental data to evaluate their accuracy and validity. The comparison shows that the cladding models developed provide an excellent representation of real-world cladding behaviour. The cladding models are subsequently applied to a ten-storey case-study building. The expected seismic performance is examined with and without the cladding taken into consideration. The numerical analyses of the case-study building include modal analyses, nonlinear adaptive pushover analyses, and non-linear dynamic seismic response (time history) analyses to different levels of seismic hazard. The clad frame models are compared to the bare frame model to investigate the effect the cladding has upon the structural behaviour. Both the structural performance and cladding performance are also assessed using qualitative damage states. The results show a poor performance of precast concrete cladding systems is expected when traditional connection typologies are used. This result confirms the misalignment of structural and cladding damage observed in recent earthquake events. Consequently, this research explores the potential of an innovative cladding connection. The outcomes from this research shows that the innovative cladding connection proposed here is able to achieve low-damage performance whilst also being cost comparable to a traditional cladding connection. It is also theoretically possible that the connection can provide a positive value to the seismic performance of the structure by adding addition strength, stiffness and damping. Finally, the losses associated with both the traditional and innovative cladding systems are compared in terms of tangible outcomes, namely: repair costs, repair time and casualties. The results confirm that the use of innovative cladding technology can substantially reduce the overall losses that result from cladding damage.
In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.
