The development of Digital City technologies to manage and visualise spatial information has increasingly become a focus of the research community, and application by city authorities. Traditionally, the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Building Information Models (BIM) underlying Digital Cities have been used independently. However, integrating GIS and BIM into a single platform provides benefits for project and asset management, and is applicable to a range of issues. One of these benefits is the means to access and analyse large datasets describing the built environment, in order to characterise urban risk from and resilience to natural hazards. The aim of this thesis is to further explore methodologies of integration in two distinct areas. The first, integration through connectivity of heterogeneous datasets where GIS spatial infrastructure data is merged with 3D BIM building data to create a digital twin. Secondly, integration through analysis whereby data from the digital twin are extracted and integrated with computational models. To achieve this, a workflow was developed to identify the required datasets of a digital twin, and develop a process of integrating those datasets through a combination of; semi-autonomous conversion, translation and extension of data; and semantic web and services-based processes. Through use of a designed schema, the data were streamed in a homogenous format in a web-based platform. To demonstrate the value of this workflow with respect to urban risk and resilience, the process was applied to the Taiora: Queen Elizabeth II recreation and sports centre in eastern Christchurch, New Zealand. After integration of as-built GIS and BIM datasets, targeted data extraction was implemented, with outputs tailored for analysis in an infrastructure serviceability loss model, which assessed potable water network performance in the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. Using the same earthquake conditions as the serviceability loss model, performance of infrastructure assets in service at the time of the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake was compared to new assets rebuilt at the site, post-earthquake. Due to improved potable water infrastructure resilience resulting from installation of ductile piles, a decrease of 35.5% in the probability of service loss was estimated in the serviceability loss model. To complete the workflow, the results from the external analysis were uploaded to the web-based platform. One of the more significant outcomes from the workflow was the identification of a lack of mandated metadata standards for fittings/valves connecting a building to private laterals. Whilst visually the GIS and BIM data show the building and pipes as connected, the semantic data does not include this connectivity relationship. This has no material impact on the current serviceability loss model as it is not one of the defined parameters. However, a proposed modification to the model would utilise the metadata to further assess the physical connection robustness, and increase the number of variables for estimating probability of service loss. This thesis has made a methodological contribution to urban resilience analysis by demonstrating how readily available up-to-date building and infrastructure data can be integrated, and with tailored extraction from a Digital City platform, be used for disaster impact analysis in an external computational engine, with results in turn imported and visualised in the Digital City platform. The workflow demonstrated that translation and integration of data would be more successful if a regional/national mandate was implemented for the submission of consent documentation in a specified standard BIM format. The results of this thesis have identified that the key to ensuring the success of an integrated tool lies in the initial workflow required to safeguard that all data can be either captured or translated in an interoperable format.
Gravelly soils’ liquefaction has been documented since early 19th century with however the focus being sand-silts mixture – coarse documentation of this topic, that gravels do in fact liquefy was only acknowledged as an observation. With time, we have been impacted by earthquakes, EQ causing more damage to our property: life and environment-natural and built. In this realm of EQ related-damage the ground or soils in general act as buffer between the epicentre and the structures at a concerned site. Further, in this area, upon the eventual acknowledgement of liquefaction of soils as a problem, massive efforts were undertaken to understand its mechanics, what causes and thereby how to mitigate its ill-effects. Down that lane, gravelly soils’ liquefaction was another milestone covered in early 20th century, and thus regarded as a problematic subject. This being a fairly recent acknowledgement, efforts have initiated in this direction (or area of particle size under consideration-gravels>2mm), with this research outputs intended to complement that research for the betterment of our understanding of what’s happening and how shall we best address it, given the circumstances: socio (life) - environment (structures) - economic (cost or cost-“effectiveness’) and of course political (our “willingness” to want to address the problem). Case histories from at least 29 earthquakes worldwide have indicated that liquefaction can occur in gravelly soils (both in natural deposits and manmade reclamations) inducing large ground deformation and causing severe damage to civil infrastructures. However, the evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils remains to be a major challenge in geotechnical earthquake engineering. To date, laboratory tests aimed at evaluating the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils are still very limited, as compared to the large body of investigations carried out on assessing the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. While there is a general agreement that the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils can be as low as that of clean sands, previous studies suggested that the liquefaction behaviour of gravelly soils is significantly affected by two key factors, namely relative density (Dr) and gravel content (Gc). While it is clear that the liquefaction resistance of gravels increases with the increasing Dr, there are inconclusive and/or contradictory results regarding the effect of Gc on the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. Aimed at addressing this important topic, an investigation is being currently carried out by researchers at the University of Canterbury, UC. As a first step, a series of undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on selected sand-gravel mixtures (SGMs), and inter-grain state framework concepts such as the equivalent and skeleton void ratios were used to describe the joint effects of Gc and Dr on the liquefaction resistance of SGMs. Following such experimental effort, this study is aimed at providing new and useful insights, by developing a critical state-based method combined with the inter-grain state framework to uniquely describe the liquefaction resistance of gravelly soils. To do so, a series of monotonic drained triaxial tests will be carried out on selected SGMs. The outcomes of this study, combined with those obtained to date by UC researchers, will greatly contribute to the expansion of a worldwide assessment database, and also towards the development of a reliable liquefaction triggering procedure for characterising the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils, which is of paramount importance not only for the New Zealand context, but worldwide. This will make it possible for practising engineers to identify liquefiable gravelly soils in advance and make sound recommendations to minimise the impact of such hazards on land, and civil infrastructures.
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.
