The earthquake engineering community is currently grappling with the need to improve the post-earthquake reparability of buildings. As part of this, proposals exist to change design criteria for the serviceability limit state (SLS). This paper reviews options for change and considers how these could impact the expected repair costs for typical New Zealand buildings. The expected annual loss (EAL) is selected as a relevant measure or repair costs and performance because (i) EAL provides information on the performance of a building considering a range of intensity levels, (ii) the insurance industry refers to EAL when setting premiums, and (iii) monetary losses are likely to be correlated with loss of building functionality. The paper argues that because the expected annual loss is affected by building performance over a range of intensity levels, the definition of SLS criteria alone may be insufficient to effectively limit losses. However, it is also explained that losses could be limited effectively if the loadings standard were to set the SLS design intensity considering the potential implications on EAL. It is shown that in order to achieve similar values of EAL in Wellington and Christchurch, the return period intensity for SLS design would need to be higher in Christchurch owing to differences in local hazard conditions. The observations made herein are based on a simplified procedure for EAL estimation and hence future research should aim to verify the findings using a detailed loss assessment approach applied to a broad range of case study buildings.
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.
