Search

found 875 results

Images for Engineering; more images...

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for adhesive anchor connections than for through-bolt connections (i.e., anchorages having plates on the exterior facade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragm. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation, and the use of metal mesh sleeves. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5° to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a summary of the performed experimental program and test results, and a proposed pull-out capacity relationship for adhesive anchors installed into multi-leaf clay brick masonry are presented herein. AM - Accepted Manuscript

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Fire following earthquakes have caused the largest single loss due to earthquakes and in most cases have caused more damage than the quake itself. This problem is regarded very seriously in Japan and in some parts of the United States of America (San Francisco), but is not very seriously considered in other earthquake prone countries, yet the potential for future conflagrations following earthquakes is enormous. Any discussion of post earthquake fire must take into account structural and non-structural damages, initial and spreading fire, wind, water availability, and emergency responses. In this paper we will look at initial fire ignitions, growth and spread and life and property damage. Prevention methods will also be discussed. We will also discuss as examples some case studies: - San Francisco 1989 - Napier 1931 -Christchurch (scenario)

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The September 2010 Canterbury and February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and associated aftershocks have shown that the isolator displacement in Christchurch Women's Hospital (Christchurch City's only base-isolated structure) was significantly less than expected. Occupant accounts of the events have also indicated that the accelerations within the hospital superstructure were larger than would usually be expected within a base-isolated structure and that residual low-level shaking lasts for a longer period of time following the strong-motion of an event than for non-isolated structures.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In practice, several competing liquefaction evaluation procedures (LEPs) are used to compute factors of safety against soil liquefaction, often for use within a liquefaction potential index (LPI) framework to assess liquefaction hazard. At present, the influence of the selected LEP on the accuracy of LPI hazard assessment is unknown, and the need for LEP-specific calibrations of the LPI hazard scale has never been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of three CPT-based LEPs from the literature, operating within the LPI framework, for predicting the severity of liquefaction manifestation. Utilising more than 7000 liquefaction case studies from the 2010–2011 Canterbury (NZ) earthquake sequence, this study found that: (a) the relationship between liquefaction manifestation severity and computed LPI values is LEP-specific; (b) using a calibrated, LEP-specific hazard scale, the performance of the LPI models is essentially equivalent; and (c) the existing LPI framework has inherent limitations, resulting in inconsistent severity predictions against field observations for certain soil profiles, regardless of which LEP is used. It is unlikely that revisions of the LEPs will completely resolve these erroneous assessments. Rather, a revised index which more adequately accounts for the mechanics of liquefaction manifestation is needed.