Search

found 278 results

Images for Engineering Building; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Shaking table testing of a full-scale three storey resilient and reparable complete composite steel framed building system is being conducted. The building incorporates a number of interchangeable seismic resisting systems of New Zealand and Chinese origin. The building has a steel frame and cold formed steel-concrete composite deck. Energy is dissipated by means of friction connections. These connections are arranged in a number of structural configurations. Typical building non-skeletal elements (NSEs) are also included. Testing is performed on the Jiading Campus shaking table at Tongji University, Shanghai, China. This RObust BUilding SysTem (ROBUST) project is a collaborative China-New Zealand project sponsored by the International Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering (ILEE), Tongji University, and a number of agencies and universities within New Zealand including the BRANZ, Comflor, Earthquake Commission, HERA, QuakeCoRE, QuakeCentre, University of Auckland, and the University of Canterbury. This paper provides a general overview of the project describing a number of issues encountered in the planning of this programme including issues related to international collaboration, the test plan, and technical issues.

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, 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.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Validating dynamic responses of engineered systems subjected to simulated ground motions is essential in scrutinising the applicability of simulated ground motions for engineering demand analyses. This paper compares the responses of two 3D building models subjected to recorded and simulated ground motions scaled to the NZS1170.5 design response spectrum, in order to evaluate the applicability of simulated ground motions for use in conventional engineering practice in New Zealand. The buildings were designed according to the NZS1170.5 and physically constructed in Christchurch prior to the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. 40 recorded ground motions from the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, along with the simulated ground motions for this event from Razafindrakoto et al. (2018) are considered. The seismic responses of the structures are principally quantified via the peak floor acceleration and maximum inter-storey drift ratio. Overall, the results indicate a general agreement in seismic demands obtained using the recorded and simulated ensembles of ground motions and provide further evidence that simulated ground motions using state-of-the-art methods can be used in code-based structural performance assessments inplace of, or in combination with, ensembles of recorded ground motions.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

Following a damaging earthquake, the immediate emergency response is focused on individual collapsed buildings or other "hotspots" rather than the overall state of damage. This lack of attention to the global damage condition of the affected region can lead to the reporting of misinformation and generate confusion, causing difficulties when attempting to determine the level of postdisaster resources required. A pre-planned building damage survey based on the transect method is recommended as a simple tool to generate an estimate of the overall level of building damage in a city or region. A methodology for such a transect survey is suggested, and an example of a similar survey conducted in Christchurch, New Zealand, following the 22 February 2011 earthquake is presented. The transect was found to give suitably accurate estimates of building damage at a time when information was keenly sought by government authorities and the general public. VoR - Version of Record

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

There is an increasing recognition that the seismic performance of buildings will be affected by the behaviour of both structural and non-structural elements. In light of this, work has been progressing at the University of Canterbury to develop guidelines for the seismic assessment of commercial glazing systems. This paper reviews the seismic assessment guidelines prescribed in Section C10 of the MBIE building assessment guidelines. Subsequently, the C10 approach is used to assess the drift capacity of a number of glazing units recently tested at the University of Canterbury. Comparing the predicted and observed drift capacities, it would appear that the C10 guidelines may lead to nonconservative estimates of drift capacity. Furthermore, the experimental results indicate that watertightness may be lost at very low drift demands, suggesting that guidance for the assessment of serviceability performance would also be beneficial. As such, it is proposed that improved guidance be provided to assist engineers in considering the possible impact that glazing could have on the structural response of a building in a large earthquake.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Deconstruction, at the end of the useful life of a building, produces a considerable amount of materials which must be disposed of, or be recycled / reused. At present, in New Zealand, most timber construction and demolition (C&D) material, particularly treated timber, is simply waste and is placed in landfills. For both technical and economic reasons (and despite the increasing cost of landfills), this position is unlikely to change in the next 10 – 15 years unless legislation dictates otherwise. Careful deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, can provide some timber materials which can be immediately re-used (eg. doors and windows), or further processed into other components (eg. beams or walls) or recycled (‘cascaded’) into other timber or composite products (e.g. fibre-board). This reusing / recycling of materials is being driven slowly in NZ by legislation, the ‘greening’ of the construction industry and public pressure. However, the recovery of useful material can be expensive and uneconomic (as opposed to land-filling). In NZ, there are few facilities which are able to sort and separate timber materials from other waste, although the soon-to-be commissioned Burwood Resource Recovery Park in Christchurch will attempt to deal with significant quantities of demolition waste from the recent earthquakes. The success (or otherwise) of this operation should provide good information as to how future C&D waste will be managed in NZ. In NZ, there are only a few, small scale facilities which are able to burn waste wood for energy recovery (e.g. timber mills), and none are known to be able to handle large quantities of treated timber. Such facilities, with constantly improving technology, are being commissioned in Europe (often with Government subsidies) and this indicates that similar bio-energy (co)generation will be established in NZ in the future. However, at present, the NZ Government provides little assistance to the bio-energy industry and the emergence worldwide of shale-gas reserves is likely to push the economic viability of bio-energy further into the future. The behaviour of timber materials placed in landfills is complex and poorly understood. Degrading timber in landfills has the potential to generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which can escape to the atmosphere and cancel out the significant benefits of carbon sequestration during tree growth. Improving security of landfills and more effective and efficient collection and utilisation of methane from landfills in NZ will significantly reduce the potential for leakage of methane to the atmosphere, acting as an offset to the continuing use of underground fossil fuels. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an increasingly important methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of building materials (particularly energy, and global warming potential (GWP)), will soon be incorporated into the NZ Green Building Council Greenstar rating tools. Such LCA studies must provide a level playing field for all building materials and consider the whole life cycle. Whilst the end-of-life treatment of timber by LCA may establish a present-day base scenario, any analysis must also present a realistic end-of-life scenario for the future deconstruction of any 6 new building, as any building built today will be deconstructed many years in the future, when very different technologies will be available to deal with construction waste. At present, LCA practitioners in NZ and Australia place much value on a single research document on the degradation of timber in landfills (Ximenes et al., 2008). This leads to an end-of-life base scenario for timber which many in the industry consider to be an overestimation of the potential negative effects of methane generation. In Europe, the base scenario for wood disposal is cascading timber products and then burning for energy recovery, which normally significantly reduces any negative effects of the end-of-life for timber. LCA studies in NZ should always provide a sensitivity analysis for the end-of-life of timber and strongly and confidently argue that alternative future scenarios are realistic disposal options for buildings deconstructed in the future. Data-sets for environmental impacts (such as GWP) of building materials in NZ are limited and based on few research studies. The compilation of comprehensive data-sets with country-specific information for all building materials is considered a priority, preferably accounting for end-of-life options. The NZ timber industry should continue to ‘champion’ the environmental credentials of timber, over and above those of the other major building materials (concrete and steel). End-of-life should not be considered the ‘Achilles heel’ of the timber story.