Pumice materials, which are problematic from an engineering viewpoint, are widespread in the central part of the North Island. Considering the impacts of the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes, a clear understanding of their properties under earthquake loading is necessary. For example, the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake showed evidence of localised liquefaction of sands of volcanic origin. To elucidate on this, research was undertaken to investigate whether existing empirical field-based methods to evaluate the liquefaction potential of sands, which were originally developed for hard-grained soils, are applicable to crushable pumice-rich deposits. For this purpose, two sites, one in Whakatane and another in Edgecumbe, were selected where the occurrence of liquefaction was reported following the Edgecumbe earthquake. Manifestations of soil liquefaction, such as sand boils and ejected materials, have been reported at both sites. Field tests, including cone penetration tests (CPT), shear-wave velocity profiling, and screw driving sounding (SDS) tests were performed at the sites. Then, considering estimated peak ground accelerations (PGAs) at the sites based on recorded motions and possible range of ground water table locations, liquefaction analysis was conducted at the sites using available empirical approaches. To clarify the results of the analysis, undisturbed soil samples were obtained at both sites to investigate the laboratory-derived cyclic resistance ratios and to compare with the field-estimated values. Research results clearly showed that these pumice-rich soils do not fit existing liquefaction assessment frameworks and alternate methods are necessary to characterise them.
Several concrete cladding panels were damaged during the 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes in New Zealand. Damage included partial collapse of panels, rupture of joint sealants, cracking and corner crushing. Installation errors, faulty connections and inadequate detailing were also contributing factors to the damage. In New Zealand, two main issues are considered in order to accommodate story drifts in the design of precast cladding panels: 1) drift compatibility of tieback or push-pull connections and 2) drift compatibility of corner joints. Tieback connections restrain the panels in the out-of-plane direction while allowing in-plane translation with respect to the building frame. Tieback connections are either in the form of slots or oversized holes or ductile rods usually located at the top of the panels. Bearing connections are also provided at the bottom of panels to transfer gravity loads. At the corners of a building, a vertical joint gap, usually filled with sealants, is provided between the two panels on the two orthogonal sides to accommodate the relative movement. In cases where the joint gap is not sufficient to accommodate the relative movements, panels can collide, generating large forces and the likely failure of the connections. On the other hand, large gaps are aesthetically unpleasing. The current design standards appear to recognize these issues but then leave most of the design and detailing to the discretion of the designers. In the installation phase, the alignment of panels is one of the main challenges faced by installers (and/or contractors). Many prefer temporary props to guide, adjust and hold the panels in place whilst the bearing connections are welded. Moreover, heat generated from extensive welding can twist the steel components inducing undesirable local stresses in the panels. Therefore, the installation phase itself is time-consuming, costly and prone to errors. This paper investigates the performance of a novel panel system that is designed to accommodate lateral inter-story drift through a ‘rocking’ motion. In order to gauge the feasibility of the system, six 2m high precast concrete panels within a single-story steel frame structure have been tested under increasing levels of lateral cyclic drift at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Three different panel configurations are tested: 1) a panel with return cover and a flat panel at a corner under unidirectional loading, 2) Two adjacent flat panels under unidirectional loading, and 3) Two flat panels at another oblique corner under bidirectional loading. A vertical seismic joint of 25 mm, filled with one-stage joint sealant, is provided between two of the panels. The test results show the ability of the panels with ‘rocking’ connection details to accommodate larger lateral drifts whilst allowing for smaller vertical joints between panels at corners, quick alignment and easy placement of panels without involving extensive welding on site.
