Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 7 November 2012.
Page 2 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 1 November 2012.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 6 November 2012.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 8 November 2012.
Page 9 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 29 September 2012.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 22 February 2014.
Page 11 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 28 February 2011.
A video of an interview with New Zealand Fire Service Chief Executive and National Commander Paul Baxter, about the findings of the coronial inquest into the CTV building deaths. Coroner Gordon Matenga found that failures by the Fire Service and Urban Search and Rescue did not contribute to the deaths of eight students at the CTV site in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Baxter talks about the importance of acknowledging the families of the deceased, and the changes and improvements that have been made by the New Zealand Fire Service since the collapse of the CTV building.
Page 1 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 25 February 2014.
This dissertation addresses a diverse range of applied aspects in ground motion simulation validation via the response of complex structures. In particular, the following topics are addressed: (i) the investigation of similarity between recorded and simulated ground motions using code-based 3D irregular structural response analysis, (ii) the development of a framework for ground motion simulations validation to identify the cause of differences between paired observed and simulated dataset, and (iii) the illustration of the process of using simulations for seismic performance-based assessment. The application of simulated ground motions is evaluated for utilisation in engineering practice by considering responses of 3D irregular structures. Validation is performed in a code-based context when the NZS1170.5 (NZS1170.5:2004, 2004) provisions are followed for response history analysis. Two real buildings designed by engineers and physically constructed in Christchurch before the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence are considered. The responses are compared when the buildings are subjected to 40 scaled recorded and their subsequent simulated ground motions selected from 22 February 2011 Christchurch. The similarity of recorded and simulated responses is examined using statistical methods such as bootstrapping and hypothesis testing to determine whether the differences are statistically significant. The findings demonstrate the applicability of simulated ground motion when the code-based approach is followed in response history analysis. A conceptual framework is developed to link the differences between the structural response subjected to simulated and recorded ground motions to the differences in their corresponding intensity measures. This framework allows the variability to be partitioned into the proportion that can be “explained” by the differences in ground motion intensity measures and the remaining “unexplained” variability that can be attributed to different complexities such as dynamic phasing of multi-mode response, nonlinearity, and torsion. The application of this framework is examined through a hierarchy of structures reflecting a range of complexity from single-degree-of-freedom to 3D multi-degree-of-freedom systems with different materials, dynamic properties, and structural systems. The study results suggest the areas that ground motion simulation should focus on to improve simulations by prioritising the ground motion intensity measures that most clearly account for the discrepancies in simple to complex structural responses. Three approaches are presented to consider recorded or simulated ground motions within the seismic performance-based assessment framework. Considering the applications of ground motions in hazard and response history analyses, different pathways in utilising ground motions in both areas are explored. Recorded ground motions are drawn from a global database (i.e., NGA-West2 Ancheta et al., 2014). The NZ CyberShake dataset is used to obtain simulations. Advanced ground motion selection techniques (i.e., generalized conditional intensity measure, GCIM) are used for ground motion selection at a few intensity levels. The comparison is performed by investigating the response of an example structure (i.e., 12-storey reinforced concrete special moment frame) located in South Island, NZ. Results are compared and contrasted in terms of hazard, groundmotion selection, structural responses, demand hazard, and collapse risk, then, the probable reasons for differences are discussed. The findings from this study highlight the present opportunities and shortcomings in using simulations in risk assessment. i
Page 1 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 15 July 2014.
Page 5 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 5 September 2014.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 7 November 2014.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 5 December 2014.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 18 July 2012.
Page 2 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 3 August 2012.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 8 August 2012.
Page 3 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 6 September 2012.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 December 2012.
Page 5 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 27 March 2013.
Page 1 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 30 July 2013.
Page 3 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 17 September 2013.
Page 1 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 9 January 2014.
Page 13 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 August 2013.
Page 2 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 12 March 2014.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 30 March 2013.
Page 3 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 17 July 2012.
Page 1 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 18 September 2014.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 15 November 2013.
Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 26 March 2015.