This research investigates the validation of simulated ground motions on complex structural systems. In this study, the seismic responses of two buildings are compared when they are subjected to as-recorded ground motions and simulated ones. The buildings have been designed based on New Zealand codes and physically constructed in Christchurch, New Zealand. The recorded ground motions are selected from 40 stations database of the historical 22 Feb. 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The Graves and Pitarka (2015) methodology is used to generate the simulated ground motions. The geometric mean of maximum inter-story drift and peak floor acceleration are selected as the main seismic responses. Also, the variation of these parameters due to record to record variability are investigated. Moreover, statistical hypothesis testing is used to investigate the similarity of results between observed and simulated ground motions. The results indicate a general agreement between the peak floor acceleration calculated by simulated and recorded ground motions for two buildings. While according to the hypothesis tests result, the difference in drift can be significant for the building with a shorter period. The results will help engineers and researchers to use or revise the procedure by using simulated ground motions for obtaining seismic responses.
Over 900 buildings in the Christchurch central business district and 10,000 residential homes were demolished following the 22nd of February 2011 Canterbury earthquake, significantly disrupting the rebuild progress. This study looks to quantify the time required for demolitions during this event which will be useful for future earthquake recovery planning. This was done using the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) demolition database, which allowed an in-depth look into the duration of each phase of the demolition process. The effect of building location, building height, and the stakeholder which initiated the demolition process (i.e. building owner or CERA) was investigated. The demolition process comprises of five phases; (i) decision making, (ii) procurement and planning, (iii) demolition, (iv) site clean-up, and (v) completion certification. It was found that the time required to decide to demolish the building made up majority of the total demolition duration. Demolition projects initiated by CERA had longer procurement and planning durations, but was quicker in other phases. Demolished buildings in the suburbs had a longer decision making duration, but had little effect on other phases of the demolition process. The decision making and procurement and planning phases of the demolition process were shorter for taller buildings, though the other phases took longer. Fragility functions for the duration of each phase in the demolition process are provided for the various categories of buildings for use in future studies.
Asset management in power systems is exercised to improve network reliability to provide confidence and security for customers and asset owners. While there are well-established reliability metrics that are used to measure and manage business-as-usual disruptions, an increasing appreciation of the consequences of low-probability high-impact events means that resilience is increasingly being factored into asset management in order to provide robustness and redundancy to components and wider networks. This is particularly important for electricity systems, given that a range of other infrastructure lifelines depend upon their operation. The 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence provides valuable insights into electricity system criticality and resilience in the face of severe earthquake impacts. While above-ground assets are relatively easy to monitor and repair, underground assets such as cables emplaced across wide areas in the distribution network are difficult to monitor, identify faults on, and repair. This study has characterised in detail the impacts to buried electricity cables in Christchurch resulting from seismically-induced ground deformation caused primarily by liquefaction and lateral spread. Primary modes of failure include cable bending, stretching, insulation damage, joint braking and, being pulled off other equipment such as substation connections. Performance and repair data have been compiled into a detailed geospatial database, which in combination with spatial models of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and ground deformation, will be used to establish rigorous relationships between seismicity and performance. These metrics will be used to inform asset owners of network performance in future earthquakes, further assess component criticality, and provide resilience metrics.
