New Zealand has a long tradition of using light timber frame for construction of its domestic dwellings. After the most recent earthquakes (e.g. Canterbury earthquakes sequence), wooden residential houses showed satisfactory life safety performance. However, poor performance was reported in terms of their seismic resilience. Although numerous innovative methods to mitigate damage have been introduced to the New Zealand community in order to improve wooden house performance, these retrofit options have not been readily taken up. The low number of retrofitted wooden-framed houses leads to questions about whether homeowners are aware of the necessity of seismic retrofitting their houses to achieve a satisfactory seismic performance. This study aims to explore different retrofit technologies that can be applied to wooden-framed houses in Wellington, taking into account the need of homeowners to understand the risk, likelihood and extent of damage expected after an event. A survey will be conducted in Wellington about perceptions of homeowners towards the expected performance of their wooden-framed houses. The survey questions were designed to gain an understanding of homeowners' levels of safety and awareness of possible damage after a seismic event. Afterwards, a structural review of a sample of the houses will be undertaken to identify common features and detail potential seismic concerns. The findings will break down barriers to making improvements in the performance of wooden-framed houses and lead to enhancements in the confidence of homeowners in the event of future seismic activity. This will result in increased understanding and contribute towards an accessible knowledge base, which will possibly increase significantly the use of these technologies and avoid unnecessary economic and social costs after a seismic event.
Validation is an essential step to assess the applicability of simulated ground motions for utilization in engineering practice, and a comprehensive analysis should include both simple intensity measures (PGA, SA, etc), as well as the seismic response of a range of complex systems obtained by response history analysis. In order to enable a spectrum of complex structural systems to be considered in systematic validation of ground motion simulations in a routine fashion, an automated workflow was developed. Such a workflow enables validation of simulated ground motions in terms of different complex model responses by considering various ground motion sets and different ground motion simulation methods. The automated workflow converts the complex validation process into a routine one by providing a platform to perform the validation process promptly as a built-in process of simulation post-processing. As a case study, validation of simulated ground motions was investigated via the automated workflow by comparing the dynamic responses of three steel special moment frame (SMRF) subjected to the 40 observed and 40 simulated ground motions of 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The seismic responses of the structures are principally quantified via the peak floor acceleration and maximum inter-storey drift ratio. Overall, the results indicate a general agreement in seismic demands obtained using the recorded and simulated ensembles of ground motions and provide further evidence that simulated ground motions can be used in code-based structural performance assessments in-place of, or in combination with, ensembles of recorded ground motions.
Results from a series of 1D seismic effective stress analyses of natural soil deposits from Christchurch are summarized. The analysed soil columns include sites whose performance during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes varied significantly, from no liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface to very severe liquefaction, in which case a large area of the site was covered by thick soil ejecta. Key soil profile characteristics and response mechanisms affecting the severity of surface liquefaction manifestation and subsequent damage are explored. The influence of shaking intensity on the triggering and contribution of these mechanisms is also discussed. Careful examination of the results highlights the importance of considering the deposit as a whole, i.e. a system of layers, including interactions between layers in the dynamic response and through pore water pressure redistribution and water flow.
Buildings subject to earthquake shaking will tend to move not only horizontally but also rotate in plan. In-plan rotation is known as “building torsion” and it may occur for a variety of reasons, including stiffness and strength eccentricity and/or torsional effects from ground motions. Methods to consider torsion in structural design standards generally involve analysis of the structure in its elastic state. This is despite the fact that the structural elements can yield, thereby significantly altering the building response and the structural element demands. If demands become too large, the structure may collapse. While a number of studies have been conducted into the behavior of structures considering inelastic building torsion, there appears to be no consensus that one method is better than another and as a result, provisions within current design standards have not adopted recent proposals in the literature. However, the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission recently made the recommendation that provisions to account for inelastic torsional response of buildings be introduced within New Zealand building standards. Consequently, this study examines how and to what extent the torsional response due to system eccentricity may affect the seismic performance of a building and considers what a simple design method should account for. It is concluded that new methods should be simple, be applicable to both the elastic and inelastic range of response, consider bidirectional excitation and include guidance for multi-story systems.
