Search

found 6 results

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Low tide on the Avon River at New Brighton/Bexley. Note the original bank and the rock wall slipage on right. The white additions were added in March and April 2011 to protect the properties behind from flooding. Ultimately this area was "red zoned" with all houses removed or to be removed and the ground left till a rehabilitation method can ...

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Today (04/09/14) marks the fourth anniversary since the first earthquake rocked the city and greater Christchurch area. That first quake was magnitude 7.1, and luckily there was only one fatality (possible a heart attack). Since then we have had over 14,000 quakes, most very small in magnitude, but well over 500 of magnitude 4 or greater. 5...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Active faults capable of generating highly damaging earthquakes may not cause surface rupture (i.e., blind faults) or cause surface ruptures that evade detection due to subsequent burial or erosion by surface processes. Fault populations and earthquake frequency-­‐magnitude distributions adhere to power laws, implying that faults too small to cause surface rupture but large enough to cause localized strong ground shaking densely populate continental crust. The rupture of blind, previously undetected faults beneath Christchurch, New Zealand in a suite of earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, including the fatal 22 February 2011 moment magnitude (Mw) 6.2 Christchurch earthquake and other large aftershocks, caused a variety of environmental impacts, including major rockfall, severe liquefaction, and differential surface uplift and subsidence. All of these effects occurred where geologic evidence for penultimate effects of the same nature existed. To what extent could the geologic record have been used to infer the presence of proximal, blind and / or unidentified faults near Christchurch? In this instance, we argue that phenomena induced by high intensity shaking, such as rock fragmentation and rockfall, revealed the presence of proximal active faults in the Christchurch area prior to the recent earthquake sequence. Development of robust earthquake shaking proxy datasets should become a higher scientific priority, particularly in populated regions.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.

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.