Search

found 213 results

Images for Standards; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This project was initiated by ENGEO Limited and KiwiRail Holdings Limited to assess the stability of Slovens Creek Viaduct (specifically its western abutment) and a 3km section of rail corridor between Slovens Creek Viaduct and Avoca on the Midland Line (MDL). Commonly known as the scenic TranzAlpine rail journey (through Arthurs Pass National Park) the MDL connects Greymouth to Christchurch via Rolleston, where the MDL meets the Main South Line into Christchurch. The project area is approximately 40km southeast of Arthurs Pass Township, in the eastern extension of the Castle Hill Basin which is part of the Waimakariri Catchment and Canterbury Foothills. The field area is underlain by Rakaia Terrane, which is part of the Torlesse Composite Terrane forming the basement rock unit for the field area. Cretaceous-Tertiary rocks of the Castle Hill Basin overlie the basement strata and record a transgression-regression sequence, as well as mid-Oligocene submarine volcanism. The stratigraphic sequence in the Castle Hill Basin, and its eastern extension to Avoca, comprises two formations of the Eyre group, the older Broken River Formation and the younger Iron Creek Formation. Deep marine Porter Group limestones, marls, and tuffs of Oligocene age succeed the Iron Creek Formation of the Eyre Group, and probably records the maximum of the transgression. The Enys Formation lies disconformably on the Porter Group and is overlain unconformably by Late Pleistocene glacifluvial and glacial deposits. The Tertiary strata in the Slovens-Avoca rail corridor are weak, and the clay-rich tuff derived from mid-Oligocene volcanism is particularly prone to slaking. Extensive mapping carried out for this project has identified that some 90 percent of the surface along the length of the Slovens-Avoca corridor has been subject to mass movement. The landslides of the Slovens-Avoca rail corridor are clearly younger than the Last Glaciation, and Slovens Creek has been downcutting, with associated faulting and uplift, to form the present day geomorphology of the rail corridor. Deep-seated landslides in the rail corridor extend to Slovens Creek, locally deflecting the stream course, and a generic ground failure model for the rail corridor has been developed. Exploratory geotechnical investigations, including core drilling, installation of an inclinometer and a piezometer, enabled the construction of a simple ground model and cross section for the Slovens Creek Viaduct western abutment. Limit-equilibrium and pseudo-static slope stability analyses using both circular and block critical slip surface search methods were applied to the ground model for the western abutment of Slovens Creek Viaduct. Piezometric and strength data obtained during laboratory testing of core material have been used to constrain the western abutment stability assessment for one representative section line (C-C’). Prior to pseudo-static sensitivity analyses peak ground acceleration (PGA) for various Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design return periods, defined by an equation given in NZS1170.5:2004, were calculated and have been used as a calibration technique to find and compare specific PGA values for pseudo-static analyses in the Slovens Creek Viaduct area. The main purpose has been to provide an indication of how railway infrastructure could be affected by seismic events of various return periods defined by ULS design standards for the area. Limit equilibrium circular slip surface search methods, both grid search and auto refine search, indicated the slope is stable with a FoS greater than 1.0 returned from each, although one particular surface returned the lowest FoS in each. This surface is in the lower portion of the slope, adjacent to Slovens Stream and northeast of the MDL. As expected, pseudo-static analyses returned a lower FoS overall when compared to limit equilibrium analyses. The PGA analyses suggest that partial ground failure at the Slovens Creek Viaduct western abutment could occur in a 1 in 25-year return period event within materials on the slower slope beyond the immediate rail corridor. A ULS (1 in 500-year) event in the Slovens Creek Viaduct area would likely produce a PGA of ~0.9g, and the effects on the western abutment and rail infrastructure would most likely be catastrophic. Observed ground conditions for the western abutment of the Slovens Creek Viaduct suggest there is no movement within the landslide at depth within the monitoring timeframe of this project (22 May 2015 – 4 August 2015). Slope stability monitoring is recommended to be continued in two parts: (1) the inclinometer in BH1 is to be monitored on a six monthly basis for one year following completion of this thesis, and then annually unless ground movements become evident; and (2) surface movement monitoring should be installed using a fixed datum on the stable eastern abutment. Long-term stability management strategies for the Slovens Creek Viaduct western abutment are dependent upon future observed changes and ongoing monitoring. Hazard and risk assessment using the KiwiRail Qualitative Risk Assessment Framework (QRA) is recommended, and if slope stability becomes problematic for operation of the Midland Line consideration should be given to deep slope drainage. In the event of a large magnitude or high PGA earthquake all monitoring should be reviewed.

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

In major seismic events, a number of plan-asymmetric buildings which experienced element failure or structural collapse had twisted significantly about their vertical axis during the earthquake shaking. This twist, known as “building torsion”, results in greater demands on one side of a structure than on the other side. The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission’s reports describe the response of a number of buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. As a result of the catastrophic collapse of one multi-storey building with significant torsional irregularity, and significant torsional effects also in other buildings, the Royal Commission recommended that further studies be undertaken to develop improved simple and effective guides to consider torsional effects in buildings which respond inelastically during earthquake shaking. Separately from this, as building owners, the government, and other stakeholders, are planning for possible earthquake scenarios, they need good estimates of the likely performance of both new and existing buildings. These estimates, often made using performance based earthquake engineering considerations and loss estimation techniques, inform decision making. Since all buildings may experience torsion to some extent, and torsional effects can influence demands on building structural and non-structural elements, it is crucial that demand estimates consider torsion. Building seismic response considering torsion can be evaluated with nonlinear time history analysis. However, such analysis involves significant computational effort, expertise and cost. Therefore, from an engineers’ point of view, simpler analysis methods, with reasonable accuracy, are beneficial. The consideration of torsion in simple analysis methods has been investigated by many researchers. However, many studies are theoretical without direct relevance to structural design/assessment. Some existing methods also have limited applicability, or they are difficult to use in routine design office practice. In addition, there has been no consensus about which method is best. As a result, there is a notable lack of recommendations in current building design codes for torsion of buildings that respond inelastically. There is a need for building torsion to be considered in yielding structures, and for simple guidance to be developed and adopted into building design standards. This study aims to undertaken to address this need for plan-asymmetric structures which are regular over their height. Time history analyses are first conducted to quantify the effects of building plan irregularity, that lead to torsional response, on the seismic response of building structures. Effects of some key structural and ground motion characteristics (e.g. hysteretic model, ground motion duration, etc.) are considered. Mass eccentricity is found to result in rather smaller torsional response compared to stiffness/strength eccentricity. Mass rotational inertia generally decreases the torsional response; however, the trend is not clearly defined for torsionally restrained systems (i.e. large λty). Systems with EPP and bilinear models have close displacements and systems with Takeda, SINA, and flag-shaped models yield almost the same displacements. Damping has no specific effect on the torsional response for the single-storey systems with the unidirectional eccentricity and excitation. Displacements of the single-storey systems subject to long duration ground motion records are smaller than those for short duration records. A method to consider torsional response of ductile building structures under earthquake shaking is then developed based on structural dynamics for a wide range of structural systems and configurations, including those with low and high torsional restraint. The method is then simplified for use in engineering practice. A novel method is also proposed to simply account for the effects of strength eccentricity on response of highly inelastic systems. A comparison of the accuracy of some existing methods (including code-base equivalent static method and model response spectrum analysis method), and the proposed method, is conducted for single-storey structures. It is shown that the proposed method generally provides better accuracy over a wide range of parameters. In general, the equivalent static method is not adequate in capturing the torsional effects and the elastic modal response spectrum analysis method is generally adequate for some common parameters. Record-to-record variation in maximum displacement demand on the structures with different degrees of torsional response is considered in a simple way. Bidirectional torsional response is then considered. Bidirectional eccentricity and excitation has varying effects on the torsional response; however, it generally increases the weak and strong edges displacements. The proposed method is then generalized to consider the bidirectional torsion due to bidirectional stiffness/strength eccentricity and bidirectional seismic excitation. The method is shown to predict displacements conservatively; however, the conservatism decreases slightly for cases with bidirectional excitation compared to those subject to unidirectional excitation. In is shown that the roof displacement of multi-storey structures with torsional response can be predicted by considering the first mode of vibration. The method is then further generalized to estimate torsional effects on multi-storey structure displacement demands. The proposed procedure is tested multi-storey structures and shown to predict the displacements with a good accuracy and conservatively. For buildings which twist in plan during earthquake shaking, the effect of P-Δλ action is evaluated and recommendations for design are made. P-Δλ has more significant effects on systems with small post- yield stiffness. Therefore, system stability coefficient is shown not to be the best indicator of the importance of P-Δλ and it is recommended to use post-yield stiffness of system computed with allowance for P-Δλ effects. For systems with torsional response, the global system stability coefficient and post- yield stiffness ration do not reflect the significance of P-Δλ effects properly. Therefore, for torsional systems individual seismic force resisting systems should be considered. Accuracy of MRSA is investigated and it is found that the MRSA is not always conservative for estimating the centre of mass and strong edge displacements as well as displacements of ductile systems with strength eccentricity larger than stiffness eccentricity. Some modifications are proposed to get the MRSA yields a conservative estimation of displacement demands for all cases.