Search

found 350 results

Images for Engineering Building; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The performance of buildings in recent New Zealand earthquakes (Canterbury, Seddon and Kaikōura), delivered stark lessons on seismic resilience. Most of our buildings, with a few notable exceptions, performed as our Codes intended them to, that is, to safeguard people from injury. Many buildings only suffered minor structural damage but were unable to be reused and occupied for significant periods of time due to the damage and failure of non-structural elements. This resulted in substantial economic losses and major disruptions to our businesses and communities. Research has attributed the damage to poor overall design coordination, inadequate or lack of seismic restraints for non structural elements and insufficient clearances between building components to cater for the interaction of non structural elements under seismic actions. Investigations have found a clear connection between the poor performance of non-structural elements and the issues causing pain in the industry (procurement methods, risk aversion, the lack of clear understanding of design and inspection responsibility and the need for better alignment of the design codes to enable a consistent integrated design approach). The challenge to improve the seismic performance of non structural elements in New Zealand is a complex one that cuts across a diverse construction industry. Adopting the key steps as recommended in this paper is expected to have significant co-benefits to the New Zealand construction industry, with improvements in productivity alongside reductions in costs and waste, as the rework which plagues the industry decreases.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper presents preliminary results of an experimental campaign on three beam-column joint subassemblies extracted from a 22-storey reinforced concrete frame building constructed in late 1980s at the Christchurch’s Central Business District (CBD) area, damaged and demolished after the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes sequence (CES). The building was designed following capacity design principles. Column sway (i.e., soft storey) mechanisms were avoided, and the beams were provided with plastic hinge relocation details at both beam-ends, aiming at developing plastic hinges away from the column faces. The specimens were tested under quasi-static cyclic displacement controlled lateral loading. One of the specimens, showing no visible residual cracks was cyclically tested in its as-is condition. The other two specimens which showed residual cracks varying between hairline and 1.0mm in width, were subjected to cyclic loading to simulate cracking patterns consistent with what can be considered moderate damage. The cracked specimens were then repaired with an epoxy injection technique and subsequently retested until reaching failure. The epoxy injection techniques demonstrated to be quite efficient in partly, although not fully, restoring the energy dissipation capacities of the damaged specimens at all beam rotation levels. The stiffness was partly restored within the elastic range and almost fully restored after the onset of nonlinear behaviour.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

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.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The seismic response of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in both their as-built or retrofitted configuration, is strongly dependent on the characteristics of wooden floors and, in particular, on their in-plane stiffness and on the quality of wall-to-floor connections. As part of the development of alternative performance-based retrofit strategies for URM buildings, experimental research has been carried out by the authors at the University of Canterbury, in order to distinguish the different elements contributing to the whole diaphragm's stiffness. The results have been compared to the ones predicted through the use of international guidelines in order to highlight shortcomings and qualities and to propose a simplified formulation for the evaluation of the stiffness properties.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Existing New Zealand (NZ) building stock contains a significant number of structures designed prior to 1995 with non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) columns. Recent earthquakes and research show that columns with such details perform poorly when subjected to seismic demand, losing gravity load carrying capacity at drift levels lower than the expected one. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding of existing RC columns in NZ, the history of these elements is investigated in this paper. The evolution of RC column design guidelines in NZ standards since the 1970s is scrutinized. For this purpose, a number of RC columns from Christchurch buildings built prior to 1995 are assessed using the current code of practice.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The NMIT Arts & Media Building is the first in a new generation of multistorey timber structures. It employs an advanced damage avoidance earthquake design that is a world first for a timber building. Aurecon structural engineers are the first to use this revolutionary Pres-Lam technology developed at the University of Canterbury. This technology marks a fundamental change in design philosophy. Conventional seismic design of multi-storey structures typically depends on member ductility and the acceptance of a certain amount of damage to beams, columns and walls. The NMIT seismic system relies on pairs of coupled LVL shear walls that incorporate high strength steel tendons post-tensioned through a central duct. The walls are centrally fixed allowing them to rock during a seismic event. A series of U-shaped steel plates placed between the walls form a coupling mechanism, and act as dissipators to absorb seismic energy. The design allows the primary structure to remain essentially undamaged while readily replaceable connections act as plastic fuses. In this era where sustainability is becoming a key focus, the extensive use of timber and engineered-wood products such as LVL make use of a natural resource all grown and manufactured within a 100km radius of Nelson. This project demonstrates that there are now cost effective, sustainable and innovative solutions for multi-story timber buildings with potential applications for building owners in seismic areas around the world.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

A multi-disciplinary geo-structural-environmental engineering project funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is being carried out at the University of Canterbury. The project aims at developing an eco-friendly seismic isolation foundation system which will improve the seismic performance of medium-density low-rise buildings. Such system is characterized by two main elements: 1) granulated scrap rubber mixed with gravelly soils to be placed beneath the structure, with the goal damping part of the seismic energy before it reaches the superstructure; and 2) a basement raft made of steel-fibre reinforced rubberised concrete (SFRRuC) to enhance the flexibility and toughness of the foundation, looking at better accommodating the displacement demand. In this paper, the main objectives, scope and methodology of the project will be briefly described. A literature review of the engineering properties of steel-fibre reinforced rubberised concrete (RuC) will be presented. Then, preliminary results on concrete mixes with different rubber and steel fibres content will be exhibited.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

The Manchester Courts building was a heritage building located in central Christchurch (New Zealand) that was damaged in the Mw 7.1 Darfield earthquake on 4 September 2010 and subsequently demolished as a risk reduction exercise. Because the building was heritage listed, the decision to demolish the building resulted in strong objections from heritage supporters who were of the opinion that the building had sufficient residual strength to survive possible aftershock earthquakes. On 22 February 2011 Christchurch was struck by a severe aftershock, leading to the question of whether building demolition had proven to be the correct risk reduction strategy. Finite element analysis was used to undertake a performance-based assessment, validating the accuracy of the model using the damage observed in the building before its collapse. In addition, soil-structure interaction was introduced into the research due to the comparatively low shear wave velocity of the soil. The demolition of a landmark heritage building was a tragedy that Christchurch will never recover from, but the decision was made considering safety, societal, economic and psychological aspects in order to protect the city and its citizens. The analytical results suggest that the Manchester Courts building would have collapsed during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, and that the collapse of the building would have resulted in significant fatalities.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This study analyses the Earthquake Commission’s (EQC) insurance claims database to investigate the influence of seismic intensity and property damage resulting from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) on the repair costs and claim settlement duration for residential buildings. Firstly, the ratio of building repair cost to its replacement cost was expressed as a Building Loss Ratio (BLR), which was further extended to Regional Loss Ratio (RLR) for greater Christchurch by multiplying the average of all building loss ratios with the proportion of building stock that lodged an insurance claim. Secondly, the total time required to settle the claim and the time taken to complete each phase of the claim settlement process were obtained. Based on the database, the regional loss ratio for greater Christchurch for three events producing shakings of intensities 6, 7, and 8 on the modified Mercalli intensity scale were 0.013, 0.066, and 0.171, respectively. Furthermore, small (less than NZD15,000), medium (between NZD15,000 and NZD100,000), and large (more than NZD100,000) claims took 0.35-0.55, 1.95-2.45, and 3.35-3.85 years to settle regardless of the building’s construction period and earthquake intensities. The number of claims was also disaggregated by various building characteristics to evaluate their relative contribution to the damage and repair costs.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In 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.