This thesis studies the behaviour of diaphragms in multi-storey timber buildings by providing methods for the estimation of the diaphragm force demand, developing an Equivalent Truss Method for the analysis of timber diaphragms, and experimentally investigating the effects of displacement incompatibilities between the diaphragm and the lateral load resisting system and developing methods for their mitigation. The need to better understand the behaviour of diaphragms in timber buildings was highlighted by the recent 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake series, where a number of diaphragms in traditional concrete buildings performed poorly, compromising the lateral load resistance of the structure. Although shortcomings in the estimation of force demand, and in the analysis and design of concrete floor diaphragms have already been partially addressed by other researchers, the behaviour of diaphragms in modern multi-storey timber buildings in general, and in low damage Pres-Lam buildings (consisting of post-tensioned timber members) in particular is still unknown. The recent demand of mid-rise commercial timber buildings of ten storeys and beyond has further highlighted the lack of appropriate methods to analyse timber diaphragms with irregular floor geometries and large spans made of both light timber framing and massive timber panels. Due to the lower stiffness of timber lateral load resisting systems, compared with traditional construction materials, and the addition of in-plane flexible diaphragms, the effect of higher modes on the global dynamic behaviour of a structure becomes more critical. The results from a parametric non-linear time-history analysis on a series of timber frame and wall structures showed increased storey shear and moment demands even for four storey structures when compared to simplistic equivalent static analysis. This effect could successfully be predicted with methods available in literature. The presence of diaphragm flexibility increased diaphragm inter-storey drifts and the peak diaphragm demand in stiff wall structures, but had less influence on the storey shears and moments. Diaphragm force demands proved to be significantly higher than the forces derived from equivalent static analysis, leading to potentially unsafe designs. It is suggested to design all diaphragms for the same peak demand; a simplified approach to estimate these diaphragm forces is proposed for both frame and wall structures. Modern architecture often requires complex floor geometries with long spans leading to stress concentrations, high force demands and potentially large deformations in the diaphragms. There is a lack of guidance and regulation regarding the analysis and design of timber diaphragms and a practical alternative to the simplistic equivalent deep beam analysis or costly finite element modelling is required. An Equivalent Truss Method for the analysis of both light timber framed and massive timber diaphragms is proposed, based on analytical formulations and verified against finite element models. With this method the panel unit shear forces (shear flow) and therefore the fastener demand, chord forces and reaction forces can be evaluated. Because the panel stiffness and fastener stiffness are accounted for, diaphragm deflection, torsional effects and transfer forces can also be assessed. The proposed analysis method is intuitive and can be used with basic analysis software. If required, it can easily be adapted for the use with diaphragms working in the non-linear range. Damage to floor diaphragms resulting from displacement incompatibilities due to frame elongation or out-of plane deformation of walls can compromise the transfer of inertial forces to the lateral load resisting system as well as the stability of other structural elements. Two post-tensioned timber frame structures under quasi-static cyclic and dynamic load, respectively, were tested with different diaphragm panel layouts and connections investigating their ability to accommodate frame elongations. Additionally, a post-tensioned timber wall was loaded under horizontal cyclic loads through two pairs of collector beams. Several different connection details between the wall and the beams were tested, and no damage to the collector beams or connections was observed in any of the tests. To evaluate the increased strength and stiffness due to the wall-beam interaction an analytical procedure is presented. Finally, a timber staircase core was tested under bi-directional loading. Different connection details were used to study the effect of displacement incompatibilities between the orthogonal collector beams. These experiments showed that floor damage due to displacement incompatibilities can be prevented, even with high levels of lateral drift, by the flexibility of well-designed connections and the flexibility of the timber elements. It can be concluded that the flexibility of timber members and the flexibility of their connections play a major role in the behaviour of timber buildings in general and of diaphragms specifically under seismic loads. The increased flexibility enhances higher mode effects and alters the diaphragm force demand. Simple methods are provided to account for this effect on the storey shear, moment and drift demands as well as the diaphragm force demands. The analysis of light timber framing and massive timber diaphragms can be successfully analysed with an Equivalent Truss Method, which is calibrated by accounting for the panel shear and fastener stiffnesses. Finally, displacement incompatibilities in frame and wall structures can be accommodated by the flexibilities of the diaphragm panels and relative connections. A design recommendations chapter summarizes all findings and allows a designer to estimate diaphragm forces, to analyse the force path in timber diaphragms and to detail the connections to allow for displacement incompatibilities in multi-storey timber buildings.
In 1874 this modest two-storey farm house was built on the outskirts of Christchurch. It’s not the sort of house we normally see in Christchurch, in part because of its age, but also because it was built as a farm house, … Continue reading →
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
