Today Aotearoa continues to take tentative steps back into level 2 of the Covid-19 response, so you might think it strange that I would be voluntarily stepping back into quarantine. But we’re the stepping back into the history – all … Continue reading →
There is a growing awareness of the need for the earthquake engineering practice to incorporate in addition to empirical approaches in evaluation of liquefaction hazards advanced methods which can more realistically represent soil behaviour during earthquakes. Currently, this implementation is hindered by a number of challenges mainly associated with the amount of data and user-experience required for such advanced methods. In this study, we present key steps of an advanced seismic effective-stress analysis procedure, which on the one hand can be fully automated and, on the other hand, requires no additional input (at least for preliminary applications) compared to simplified cone penetration test (CPT)-based liquefaction procedures. In this way, effective-stress analysis can be routinely applied for quick, yet more robust estimations of liquefaction hazards, in a similar fashion to the simplified procedures. Important insights regarding the dynamic interactions in liquefying soils and the actual system response of a deposit can be gained from such analyses, as illustrated with the application to two sites from Christchurch, New Zealand.
The performance of buildings in recent New Zealand earthquakes (Canterbury, Seddon and Kaikōura), delivered stark lessons on seismic resilience. Most of our buildings, with a few notable exceptions, performed as our Codes intended them to, that is, to safeguard people from injury. Many buildings only suffered minor structural damage but were unable to be reused and occupied for significant periods of time due to the damage and failure of non-structural elements. This resulted in substantial economic losses and major disruptions to our businesses and communities. Research has attributed the damage to poor overall design coordination, inadequate or lack of seismic restraints for non structural elements and insufficient clearances between building components to cater for the interaction of non structural elements under seismic actions. Investigations have found a clear connection between the poor performance of non-structural elements and the issues causing pain in the industry (procurement methods, risk aversion, the lack of clear understanding of design and inspection responsibility and the need for better alignment of the design codes to enable a consistent integrated design approach). The challenge to improve the seismic performance of non structural elements in New Zealand is a complex one that cuts across a diverse construction industry. Adopting the key steps as recommended in this paper is expected to have significant co-benefits to the New Zealand construction industry, with improvements in productivity alongside reductions in costs and waste, as the rework which plagues the industry decreases.