Ruamoko, the Earthquake God, stirs in his bed, and with a sudden yawn, wonders if it is time to awake again. Above him Christchurch City trembles.
On 15 May 2012, after several months of comparatively small quakes, a 4.5 Richter Scale earthquake was registered only 10 km East of Christchurch. Quake-weary Christchurch citizens feared that another large earthquake was on its way.
Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
A message on the side of a piece of furniture in the Words of Hope project. The message reads, "Moe tonu Ruaumoko, kua neke te whenua, me waihotia inaianei, papa. Kia kaha Otautahi, haere tonu".
Reinforced concrete structures designed in pre-1970s are vulnerable under earthquakes due to lack of seismic detailing to provide adequate ductility. Typical deficiencies of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures are (a) use of plain bars as longitudinal reinforcement, (b) inadequate anchorage of beam longitudinal reinforcement in the column (particularly exterior column), (c) lack of joint transverse reinforcement if any, (d) lapped splices located just above joint, and (e) low concrete strength. Furthermore, the use of infill walls is a controversial issue because it can help to provide additional stiffness to the structure on the positive side and on the negative side it can increase the possibility of soft-storey mechanisms if it is distributed irregularly. Experimental research to investigate the possible seismic behaviour of pre-1970s reinforced concrete structures have been carried out in the past. However, there is still an absence of experimental tests on the 3-D response of existing beam-column joints under bi-directional cyclic loading, such as corner joints. As part of the research work herein presented, a series of experimental tests on beam-column subassemblies with typical detailing of pre-1970s buildings has been carried out to investigate the behaviour of existing reinforced concrete structures. Six two-third scale plane frame exterior beam-column joint subassemblies were constructed and tested under quasi-static cyclic loading in the Structural Laboratory of the University of Canterbury. The reinforcement detailing and beam dimension were varied to investigate their effect on the seismic behaviour. Four specimens were conventional deep beam-column joint, with two of them using deformed longitudinal bars and beam bars bent in to the joint and the two others using plain round longitudinal bars and beam bars with end hooks. The other two specimens were shallow beam-column joint, one with deformed longitudinal bars and beam bars bent in to the joint, the other with plain round longitudinal bars and beam bars with end hooks. All units had one transverse reinforcement in the joint. The results of the experimental tests indicated that conventional exterior beam-column joint with typical detailing of pre-1970s building would experience serious diagonal tension cracking in the joint panel under earthquake. The use of plain round bars with end hooks for beam longitudinal reinforcement results in more severe damage in the joint core when compared to the use of deformed bars for beam longitudinal reinforcement bent in to the joint, due to the combination of bar slips and concrete crushing. One interesting outcome is that the use of shallow beam in the exterior beam-column joint could avoid the joint cracking due to the beam size although the strength provided lower when compared with the use of deep beam with equal moment capacity. Therefore, taking into account the low strength and stiffness, shallow beam can be reintroduced as an alternative solution in design process. In addition, the presence of single transverse reinforcement in the joint core can provide additional confinement after the first crack occurred, thus delaying the strength degradation of the structure. Three two-third scale space frame corner beam-column joint subassemblies were also constructed to investigate the biaxial loading effect. Two specimens were deep-deep beam-corner column joint specimens and the other one was deep-shallow beam-corner column joint specimen. One deep-deep beam-corner column joint specimen was not using any transverse reinforcement in the joint core while the two other specimens were using one transverse reinforcement in the joint core. Plain round longitudinal bars were used for all units with hook anchorage for the beam bars. Results from the tests confirmed the evidences from earthquake damage observations with the exterior 3-D (corner) beam-column joint subjected to biaxial loading would have less strength and suffer higher damage in the joint area under earthquake. Furthermore, the joint shear relation in the two directions is calibrated from the results to provide better analysis. An analytical model was used to simulate the seismic behaviour of the joints with the help of Ruaumoko software. Alternative strength degradation curves corresponding to different reinforcement detailing of beam-column joint unit were proposed based on the test results.
In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.
Seismically vulnerable buildings constitute a major problem for the safety of human beings. In many parts of the world, reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings designed and constructed with substandard detailing, no consideration of capacity design principles, and improper or no inclusion of the seismic actions, have been identified. Amongst those vulnerable building, one particular typology representative of the construction practice of the years previous to the 1970’s, that most likely represents the worst case scenario, has been widely investigated in the past. The deficiencies of that building typology are related to non-ductile detailing in beam column joints such as the use of plain round bars, the lack of stirrups inside the joint around the longitudinal reinforcement of the column, the use of 180° end hooks in the beams, the use of lap splices in potential ‘plastic hinge’ regions, and substandard quality of the materials. That type of detailing and the lack of a capacity design philosophy create a very fragile fuse in the structure where brittle inelastic behaviour is expected to occur, which is the panel zone region of exterior beam column joints. The non-ductile typology described above was extensively investigated at the University of Canterbury in the context of the project ‘Retrofit Solutions for New Zealand Multi-Storey Buildings’ (2004-2011), founded by the ‘Foundation for Research, Science and Technology’ Tūāpapa Rangahau Pūtaiao. The experimental campaign prior to the research carried out by the author consisted of quasi-static tests of beam column joint subassemblies subjected to lateral loading regime, with constant and varying axial load in the column. Most of those specimens were representative of a plane 2D frame (knee joint), while others represented a portion of a space 3D frame (corner joints), and only few of them had a floor slab, transverse beams, and lap splices. Using those experiments, several feasible, cost-effective, and non-invasive retrofit techniques were developed, improved, and refined. Nevertheless, the slow motion nature of those experiments did not take into account the dynamical component inherent to earthquake related problems. Amongst the set of techniques investigated, the use of FRP layers for strengthening beam column joints is of particular interest due to its versatility and the momentum that its use has gained in the current state of the practice. That particular retrofit technique was previously used to develop a strengthening scheme suitable for plane 2D and space 3D corner beam column joints, but lacking of floor slabs. In addition, a similar scheme was not developed for exterior joints of internal frames, referred here as ‘cruciform’. In this research a 2/5 scale RC frame model building comprising of two frames in parallel (external and internal) joined together by means of floor slabs and transverse beams, with non-ductile characteristics identical to those of the specimens investigated previously by others, and also including lap splices, was developed. In order to investigate the dynamic response of that building, a series of shake table tests with different ground motions were performed. After the first series of tests, the specimen was modified by connecting the spliced reinforcement in the columns in order to capture a different failure mode. Ground motions recorded during seismic events that occurred during the initial period of the experimental campaign (2010) were used in the subsequent experiments. The hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events in the panel zone region were evaluated in an extended version of the bending moment-axial load (M-N) performance domain developed by others. That extension was required due to the asymmetry in the beam cross section introduced by the floor slab. In addition, the effect of the torsion resistance provided by the spandrel (transverse beam) was included. In order to upgrade the brittle and unstable performance of the as-built/repaired specimen, a practical and suitable ad-hoc FRP retrofit intervention was developed, following a partial retrofit strategy that aimed to strengthen exterior beam column joints only (corner and cruciform). The ability of the new FRP scheme to revert the sequence of events in the panel zone region was evaluated using the extended version of the M-N performance domain as well as the guidelines for strengthening plane joints developed by others. Weakening of the floor slab in a novel configuration was also incorporated with the purpose of reducing the flexural capacity of the beam under negative bending moment (slab in tension), enabling the damage relocation from the joint into the beam. The efficacy of the developed retrofit intervention in upgrading the seismic performance of the as-built specimen was investigated using shake table tests with the input motions used in the experiments of the as-built/repaired specimen. Numerical work aimed to predict the response of the model building during the most relevant shake table tests was carried out. By using a simple numerical model with concentrated plasticity elements constructed in Ruaumoko2D, the results of blind and post-experimental predictions of the response of the specimen were addressed. Differences in the predicted response of the building using the nominal and the actual recorded motions of the shake table were investigated. The dependence of the accuracy of the numerical predictions on the assumed values of the parameters that control the hysteresis rules of key structural members was reviewed. During the execution of the experimental campaign part of this thesis, two major earthquakes affected the central part of Chile (27 of February 2010 Maule earthquake) and the Canterbury region in New Zealand (22 February 2011 Canterbury earthquake), respectively. As the author had the opportunity to experience those events and investigate their consequences in structures, the observations related to non-ductile detailing and drawbacks in the state of the practice related to reinforced concrete walls was also addressed in this research, resulting in preliminary recommendations for the refinement of current seismic code provisions and assessment guidelines. The investigations of the ground motions recorded during those and other earthquakes were used to review the procedures related to the input motions used for nonlinear dynamic analysis of buildings as required by most of the current code provisions. Inelastic displacement spectra were constructed using ground motions recorded during the earthquakes mentioned above, in order to investigate the adequacy of modification factors used to obtain reduced design spectra from elastic counterparts. Finally a simplified assessment procedure for RC walls that incorporates capacity compatible spectral demands is proposed.
