In major seismic events, a number of plan-asymmetric buildings which experienced element failure or structural collapse had twisted significantly about their vertical axis during the earthquake shaking. This twist, known as “building torsion”, results in greater demands on one side of a structure than on the other side. The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission’s reports describe the response of a number of buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. As a result of the catastrophic collapse of one multi-storey building with significant torsional irregularity, and significant torsional effects also in other buildings, the Royal Commission recommended that further studies be undertaken to develop improved simple and effective guides to consider torsional effects in buildings which respond inelastically during earthquake shaking. Separately from this, as building owners, the government, and other stakeholders, are planning for possible earthquake scenarios, they need good estimates of the likely performance of both new and existing buildings. These estimates, often made using performance based earthquake engineering considerations and loss estimation techniques, inform decision making. Since all buildings may experience torsion to some extent, and torsional effects can influence demands on building structural and non-structural elements, it is crucial that demand estimates consider torsion. Building seismic response considering torsion can be evaluated with nonlinear time history analysis. However, such analysis involves significant computational effort, expertise and cost. Therefore, from an engineers’ point of view, simpler analysis methods, with reasonable accuracy, are beneficial. The consideration of torsion in simple analysis methods has been investigated by many researchers. However, many studies are theoretical without direct relevance to structural design/assessment. Some existing methods also have limited applicability, or they are difficult to use in routine design office practice. In addition, there has been no consensus about which method is best. As a result, there is a notable lack of recommendations in current building design codes for torsion of buildings that respond inelastically. There is a need for building torsion to be considered in yielding structures, and for simple guidance to be developed and adopted into building design standards. This study aims to undertaken to address this need for plan-asymmetric structures which are regular over their height. Time history analyses are first conducted to quantify the effects of building plan irregularity, that lead to torsional response, on the seismic response of building structures. Effects of some key structural and ground motion characteristics (e.g. hysteretic model, ground motion duration, etc.) are considered. Mass eccentricity is found to result in rather smaller torsional response compared to stiffness/strength eccentricity. Mass rotational inertia generally decreases the torsional response; however, the trend is not clearly defined for torsionally restrained systems (i.e. large λty). Systems with EPP and bilinear models have close displacements and systems with Takeda, SINA, and flag-shaped models yield almost the same displacements. Damping has no specific effect on the torsional response for the single-storey systems with the unidirectional eccentricity and excitation. Displacements of the single-storey systems subject to long duration ground motion records are smaller than those for short duration records. A method to consider torsional response of ductile building structures under earthquake shaking is then developed based on structural dynamics for a wide range of structural systems and configurations, including those with low and high torsional restraint. The method is then simplified for use in engineering practice. A novel method is also proposed to simply account for the effects of strength eccentricity on response of highly inelastic systems. A comparison of the accuracy of some existing methods (including code-base equivalent static method and model response spectrum analysis method), and the proposed method, is conducted for single-storey structures. It is shown that the proposed method generally provides better accuracy over a wide range of parameters. In general, the equivalent static method is not adequate in capturing the torsional effects and the elastic modal response spectrum analysis method is generally adequate for some common parameters. Record-to-record variation in maximum displacement demand on the structures with different degrees of torsional response is considered in a simple way. Bidirectional torsional response is then considered. Bidirectional eccentricity and excitation has varying effects on the torsional response; however, it generally increases the weak and strong edges displacements. The proposed method is then generalized to consider the bidirectional torsion due to bidirectional stiffness/strength eccentricity and bidirectional seismic excitation. The method is shown to predict displacements conservatively; however, the conservatism decreases slightly for cases with bidirectional excitation compared to those subject to unidirectional excitation. In is shown that the roof displacement of multi-storey structures with torsional response can be predicted by considering the first mode of vibration. The method is then further generalized to estimate torsional effects on multi-storey structure displacement demands. The proposed procedure is tested multi-storey structures and shown to predict the displacements with a good accuracy and conservatively. For buildings which twist in plan during earthquake shaking, the effect of P-Δλ action is evaluated and recommendations for design are made. P-Δλ has more significant effects on systems with small post- yield stiffness. Therefore, system stability coefficient is shown not to be the best indicator of the importance of P-Δλ and it is recommended to use post-yield stiffness of system computed with allowance for P-Δλ effects. For systems with torsional response, the global system stability coefficient and post- yield stiffness ration do not reflect the significance of P-Δλ effects properly. Therefore, for torsional systems individual seismic force resisting systems should be considered. Accuracy of MRSA is investigated and it is found that the MRSA is not always conservative for estimating the centre of mass and strong edge displacements as well as displacements of ductile systems with strength eccentricity larger than stiffness eccentricity. Some modifications are proposed to get the MRSA yields a conservative estimation of displacement demands for all cases.
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
