Search

found 2 results

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The need for a simple but rigorous seismic assessment procedure to predict damage to reinforced concrete buildings during a seismic event has been highlighted following the Canterbury Earthquake sequence. Such simplified assessment procedure, applied to individual structure or large building inventory, should not only have low requirement in terms of input information and involve straightforward analyses, but also should be capable to provide reliable predictive results within short timeframe. This research provides a general overview and critical comparison of alternative simplified assessment procedures adopted in NZSEE 2006 Guidelines (Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes), ASCE 41-13 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings), and EN: 1998-3: 2005 (Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings). Particular focus is given to the evaluation of the capability of Simplified Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMa), which is an analytical pushover method adopted in NZSEE 2006 Guidelines. The predictive results from SLaMa are compared to damages observed for a set of reinforced concrete buildings in Christchurch, as well as the results from more detailed assessment procedure based on numerical modelling. This research also suggests improvements to SLaMa, together with validation of the improvements, to include assessment of local mechanism by strength hierarchy evaluation, as well as to develop assessment of global mechanism including post-yield mechanism sequence based on local mechanism.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Data from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess and advance the current state of practice for evaluating liquefaction triggering. Towards this end, select case histories from the CES are used herein to assess the predictive capabilities of three alternative CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures: Robertson and Wride (1998); Moss et al. (2006); and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). Additionally, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) framework for predicting the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is also used to assess the predictive capabilities of the liquefaction evaluation procedures. Although it is not without limitations, use of the LPI framework for this purpose circumvents the need for selecting “critical” layers and their representative properties for study sites, which inherently involves subjectivity and thus has been a point of contention among researchers. It was found that while all the assessed liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures performed well for the parameter ranges of the sites analyzed, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) yielded predictions that are more consistent with field observations than the other procedures. However, use of the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure in conjunction with a Christchurch-specific correlation to estimate fines content showed a decreased performance relative to using a generic fines content correlation. As a result, the fines correction for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure needs further study.