73 months after the earthquake that damaged it, the jetty at South New Brighton Domain is still not repaired. Seven years ago it was straight and level. Dull, flat and orrible (horrible) light meant this image was destined to become monochrome!
This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
Initial recovery focus is on road access (especially the inland SH70) although attention also needs to be focussed on the timelines for reopening SH1 to the south. Information on progress and projected timelines is updated daily via NZTA (www.nzta.govt.nz/eq-travel ). Network analyses indicate potential day trip access and re-establishment of the Alpine Pacific triangle route. When verified against ‘capacity to host’ (Part 2 (15th December) there appears to potential for the reestablishment of overnight visits. Establishing secure road access is the key constraint to recovery. In terms of the economic recovery the Kaikoura District has traditionallyattracted a large number of visitors which can be grouped as: second home (and caravan) owners, domestic New Zealand and international travellers. These have been seen through a behaviour lens as “short stop”, ‘day” (where Kaikoura is the specific focal destination) and overnight visitors. At the present restricted access appears to make the latter group less amenable to visiting Kaikoura, not the least because the two large marine mammal operators have a strong focus on international visitors. For the present the domestic market provides a greater initial pathway to recovery. Our experiences in and reflections on Christchurch suggest Kaikoura will not go back to what it once was. A unique opportunity exists to reframe the Kaikoura experience around earthquake geology and its effects on human and natural elements. To capitalise on this opportunity there appears to be a need to move quickly on programming and presenting such experiences as part of a pathway to re-enabling domestic tourists while international visitor bookings and flows can be re-established. The framework developed for this study appears to be robust for rapid post disaster assessment. It needs to be regularly updated and linked with emerging governance and recovery processes.