Base isolation is arguably the most reliable method for providing enhanced protection of buildings against earthquake-induced actions, by virtue of a physical separation between the structure and the ground through elements/devices with controlled force capacity, significant lateral deformation capacity and (often) enhanced energy dissipation. Such a design solution has shown its effectiveness in protecting both structural and non-structural components, hence preserving their functionality even in the aftermath of a major seismic event. Despite lead rubber bearings being invented in New Zealand almost forty years ago, the Christchurch Women's hospital was the only isolated building in Christchurch when the Canterbury earthquake sequence struck in 2010/11. Furthermore, a reference code for designing base-isolated buildings in New Zealand is still missing. The absence of a design standard or at least of a consensus on design guidelines is a potential source for a lack of uniformity in terms of performance criteria and compliance design approaches. It may also limit more widespread use of the technology in New Zealand. The present paper provides an overview of the major international codes (American, Japanese and European) for the design of base-isolated buildings. The design performance requirements, the analysis procedures, the design review process and approval/quality control of devices outlined in each code are discussed and their respective pros and cons are compared through a design application on a benchmark building in New Zealand. The results gathered from this comparison are intended to set the basis for the development of guidelines specific for the New Zealand environment.
Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, lightly reinforced wall structures in the Christchurch central business district were observed to form undesirable crack patterns in the plastic hinge region, while yield penetration either side of cracks and into development zones was less than predicted using empirical expressions. To some extent this structural behaviour was unexpected and has therefore demonstrated that there may be less confidence in the seismic performance of conventionally designed reinforced concrete (RC) structures than previously anticipated. This paper provides an observation-based comparison between the behaviour of RC structural components in laboratory testing and the unexpected structural behaviour of some case study buildings in Christchurch that formed concentrated inelastic deformations. The unexpected behaviour and poor overall seismic performance of ‘real’ buildings (compared to the behaviour of laboratory test specimens) was due to the localization of peak inelastic strains, which in some cases has arguably led to: (i) significantly less ductility capacity; (ii) less hysteretic energy dissipation; and (iii) the fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement. These observations have raised concerns about whether lightly reinforced wall structures can satisfy the performance objective of “Life Safety” at the Ultimate Limit State. The significance of these issues and potential consequences has prompted a review of potential problems with the testing conditions and procedures that are commonly used in seismic experimentations on RC structures. This paper attempts to revisit the principles of RC mechanics, in particular, the influence of loading history, concrete tensile strength, and the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement on the performance of real RC structures. Consideration of these issues in future research on the seismic performance of RC might improve the current confidence levels in newly designed conventional RC structures.
