Search

found 220 results

Images for loss; more images...

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Part of the Kiwi brain drain to Australia, Christchurch artist Mike Hewson prepares to show his new countrymen the impact of the earthquakes on his hometown and his art.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In this thesis, focus is given to develop methodologies for rapidly estimating specific components of loss and downtime functions. The thesis proposes methodologies for deriving loss functions by (i) considering individual component performance; (ii) grouping them as per their performance characteristics; and (iii) applying them to similar building usage categories. The degree of variation in building stock and understanding their characteristics are important factors to be considered in the loss estimation methodology and the field surveys carried out to collect data add value to the study. To facilitate developing ‘downtime’ functions, this study investigates two key components of downtime: (i) time delay from post-event damage assessment of properties; and (ii) time delay in settling the insurance claims lodged. In these two areas, this research enables understanding of critical factors that influence certain aspects of downtime and suggests approaches to quantify those factors. By scrutinising the residential damage insurance claims data provided by the Earthquake Commission (EQC) for the 2010- 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES), this work provides insights into various processes of claims settlement, the time taken to complete them and the EQC loss contributions to building stock in Christchurch city and Canterbury region. The study has shown diligence in investigating the EQC insurance claim data obtained from the CES to get new insights and build confidence in the models developed and the results generated. The first stage of this research develops contribution functions (probabilistic relationships between the expected losses for a wide range of building components and the building’s maximum response) for common types of claddings used in New Zealand buildings combining the probabilistic density functions (developed using the quantity of claddings measured from Christchurch buildings), fragility functions (obtained from the published literature) and cost functions (developed based on inputs from builders) through Monte Carlo simulations. From the developed contribution functions, glazing, masonry veneer, monolithic and precast concrete cladding systems are found to incur 50% loss at inter-storey drift levels equal to 0.027, 0.003, 0.005 and 0.011, respectively. Further, the maximum expected cladding loss for glazing, masonry veneer, monolithic, precast concrete cladding systems are found to be 368.2, 331.9, 365.0, and 136.2 NZD per square meter of floor area, respectively. In the second stage of this research, a detailed cost breakdown of typical buildings designed and built for different purposes is conducted. The contributions of structural and non- structural components to the total building cost are compared for buildings of different usages, and based on the similar ratios of non-structural performance group costs to the structural performance group cost, four-building groups are identified; (i) Structural components dominant group: outdoor sports, stadiums, parkings and long-span warehouses, (ii) non- structural drift-sensitive components dominant group: houses, single-storey suburban buildings (all usages), theatres/halls, workshops and clubhouses, (iii) non-structural acceleration- sensitive components dominant group: hospitals, research labs, museums and retail/cold stores, and (iv) apartments, hotels, offices, industrials, indoor sports, classrooms, devotionals and aquariums. By statistically analysing the cost breakdowns, performance group weighting factors are proposed for structural, and acceleration-sensitive and drift-sensitive non-structural components for all four building groups. Thus proposed building usage groupings and corresponding weighting factors facilitate rapid seismic loss estimation of any type of building given the EDPs at storey levels are known. A model for the quantification of post-earthquake inspection duration is developed in the third stage of this research. Herein, phase durations for the three assessment phases (one rapid impact and two rapid building) are computed using the number of buildings needing inspections, the number of engineers involved in inspections and a phase duration coefficient (which considers the median building inspection time, efficiency of engineer and the number of engineers involved in each assessment teams). The proposed model can be used: (i) by national/regional authorities to decide the length of the emergency period following a major earthquake, and estimate the number of engineers required to conduct a post-earthquake inspection within the desired emergency period, and (ii) to quantify the delay due to inspection for the downtime modelling framework. The final stage of this research investigates the repair costs and insurance claim settlement time for damaged residential buildings in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Based on the EQC claim settlement process, claims are categorized into three groups; (i) Small Claims: claims less than NZD15,000 which were settled through cash payment, (ii) Medium Claims: claims less than NZD100,000 which were managed through Canterbury Home Repair Programme (CHRP), and (iii) Large Claims: claims above NZD100,000 which were managed by an insurance provider. The regional loss ratio (RLR) for greater Christchurch for three events inducing shakings of approximate seismic intensities 6, 7, and 8 are found to be 0.013, 0.066, and 0.171, respectively. Furthermore, the claim duration (time between an event and the claim lodgement date), assessment duration (time between the claim lodgement day and the most recent assessment day), and repair duration (time between the most recent assessment day and the repair completion day) for the insured residential buildings in the region affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence is found to be in the range of 0.5-4 weeks, 1.5- 5 months, and 1-3 years, respectively. The results of this phase will provide useful information to earthquake engineering researchers working on seismic risk/loss and insurance modelling.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

A preliminary case study assessing the seismic sustainability of two reinforced concrete structures, a frame structure and a wall structure, was conducted to determine which structural system is more seismically sustainable. The two structures were designed to the same standards and were assumed to be located in Christchurch, New Zealand. A component-based probabilistic seismic loss assessment, considering direct losses only, was conducted for two ground motion records, regarded to approximately represent a 1 in 500 year earthquake event and a 1 in 2500 year earthquake event, respectively. It is shown that the wall structure results in lower direct losses than the frame structure in the less severe ground motion scenario. However, in the more severe ground motion scenario, the frame structure results in lower direct losses. Hence, this study demonstrates that which structural system has the lower direct losses depends on the ground motion intensity level.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Low Damage Seismic Design (LDSD) guidance material being developed by Engineering NZ is considering a design drift limit for multi-storey buildings of 0.5% at a new damage control limit state (DCLS). The impact of this new design requirement on the expected annual loss due to repair costs is investigated for a four-storey office building with reinforced concrete walls located in Christchurch. The LDSD guidance material aims to reduce the expected annual loss of complying buildings to below 0.1% of building replacement cost. The research tested this expectation. Losses were estimated in accordance with FEMA P58, using building responses from non-linear time history analyses (performed with OpenSees using lumped plasticity models). The equivalent static method, in line with NZS 1170.5 and NZS 3101, was used to design the building to LDSD specifications, representing a future state-of-practice design. The building designed to low-damage specification returned an expected annual loss of 0.10%, and the building designed conventionally returned an expected annual loss of 0.13%. Limitations with the NZS 3101 method for determining wall stiffness were identified, and a different method acknowledging the relationship between strength and stiffness was used to redesign the building. Along with improving this design assumption, the study finds that LDSD design criteria could be an effective way of limiting damage and losses.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

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.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper presents the probabilistic seismic performance and loss assessment of an actual bridge– foundation–soil system, the Fitzgerald Avenue twin bridges in Christchurch, New Zealand. A two-dimensional finite element model of the longitudinal direction of the system is modelled using advanced soil and structural constitutive models. Ground motions at multiple levels of intensity are selected based on the seismic hazard deaggregation at the site. Based on rigorous examination of several deterministic analyses, engineering demand parameters (EDP’s), which capture the global and local demand, and consequent damage to the bridge and foundation are determined. A probabilistic seismic loss assessment of the structure considering both direct repair and loss of functionality consequences was performed to holistically assess the seismi risk of the system. It was found that the non-horizontal stratification of the soils, liquefaction, and soil–structure interaction had pronounced effects on the seismic demand distribution of the bridge components, of which the north abutment piles and central pier were critical in the systems seismic performance. The consequences due to loss of functionality of the bridge during repair were significantly larger than the direct repair costs, with over a 2% in 50 year probability of the total loss exceeding twice the book-value of the structure.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The article asks whether disasters that destroy life but leave the material infrastructure relatively intact tend to prompt communal coping focussing on loss, while disasters that destroy significant material infrastructure tend to prompt coping through restoration / re-building. After comparing memorials to New Zealand’s Christchurch earthquake and Pike River mine disasters, we outline circumstances in which collective restorative endeavour may be grassroots, organised from above, or manipulated, along with limits to effective restoration. We conclude that bereavement literature may need to take restoration more seriously, while disaster literature may need to take loss more seriously.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES), induced extensive damage in residential buildings and led to over NZ$40 billion in total economic losses. Due to the unique insurance setting in New Zealand, up to 80% of the financial losses were insured. Over the CES, the Earthquake Commission (EQC) received more than 412,000 insurance claims for residential buildings. The 4 September 2010 earthquake is the event for which most of the claims have been lodged with more than 138,000 residential claims for this event only. This research project uses EQC claim database to develop a seismic loss prediction model for residential buildings in Christchurch. It uses machine learning to create a procedure capable of highlighting critical features that affected the most buildings loss. A future study of those features enables the generation of insights that can be used by various stakeholders, for example, to better understand the influence of a structural system on the building loss or to select appropriate risk mitigation measures. Previous to the training of the machine learning model, the claim dataset was supplemented with additional data sourced from private and open access databases giving complementary information related to the building characteristics, seismic demand, liquefaction occurrence and soil conditions. This poster presents results of a machine learning model trained on a merged dataset using residential claims from the 4 September 2010.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.