The focus of the study presented herein is an assessment of the relative efficacy of recent Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and small strain shear wave velocity (Vs) based variants of the simplified procedure. Towards this end Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed on the CPT- and Vs-based procedures using the field case history databases from which the respective procedures were developed. The ROC analyses show that Factors of Safety (FS) against liquefaction computed using the most recent Vs-based simplified procedure is better able to separate the “liquefaction” from the “no liquefaction” case histories in the Vs liquefaction database than the CPT-based procedure is able to separate the “liquefaction” from the “no liquefaction” case histories in the CPT liquefaction database. However, this finding somewhat contradicts the assessed predictive capabilities of the CPT- and Vs-based procedures as quantified using select, high quality liquefaction case histories from the 20102011 Canterbury, New Zealand, Earthquake Sequence (CES), wherein the CPT-based procedure was found to yield more accurate predictions. The dichotomy of these findings may result from the fact that different liquefaction field case history databases were used in the respective ROC analyses for Vs and CPT, while the same case histories were used to evaluate both the CPT- and Vs-based procedures.
This study uses 44 high quality liquefaction case histories taken from 22 locations affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence to evaluate four commonly used CPT-VS correlations (i.e., Robertson, 2009; Hegazy and Mayne, 2006; Andrus et al., 2007; McGann et al., 2015b). Co-located CPT soundings and VS profiles, developed from surface wave testing, were obtained at 22 locations and case histories were developed for the Mw 7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield and Mw 6.2, 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. The CPT soundings are used to generate VS profiles using each of four CPT-VS correlations. These correlated VS profiles are used to estimate the factor of safety against liquefaction using the Kayen et al. (2013) VS-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure. An error index is used to quantify the predictive capabilities of these correlations in relation to the observations of liquefaction (or the lack thereof). Additionally, the error indices from the CPT-correlated VS profiles are compared to those obtained using: (1) the Kayen et al. (2013) procedure with surface wave-derived VS profiles, and (2) the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedure. Based on the error indices, the evaluation procedures based on direct measurements of either CPT or VS provided more accurate liquefaction triggering estimates than those obtained from any of the CPT-VS correlations. However, the performance of the CPT-VS correlations varied, with the Robertson (2009) and Hegazy and Mayne (2006) correlations performing relatively poorly for the Christchurch soils and the Andrus et al. (2007) and McGann et al. (2015b) correlations performing better. The McGann et al. (2015b) correlation had the lowest error indices of the CPT-VS correlations tested, however, none of the CPT-VS correlations provided accurate enough VS predictions to be used for the evaluation of liquefaction triggering using the VS-based liquefaction evaluation procedures.
This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).
