The seismic performance and parameter identification of the base isolated Christchurch Women’s Hospital (CWH) building are investigated using the recorded seismic accelerations during the two large earthquakes in Christchurch. A four degrees of freedom shear model is applied to characterize the dynamic behaviour of the CWH building during these earthquakes. A modified Gauss-Newton method is employed to identify the equivalent stiffness and Rayleigh damping coefficients of the building. The identification method is first validated using a simulated example structure and finally applied to the CWH building using recorded measurements from the Mw 6.0 and Mw 5.8 Christchurch earthquakes on December 23, 2011. The estimated response and recorded response for both earthquakes are compared with the cross correlation coefficients and the mean absolute percentage errors reported. The results indicate that the dynamic behaviour of the superstructure and base isolator was essentially within elastic range and the proposed shear linear model is sufficient for the prediction of the structural response of the CWH Hospital during these events.
Live monitoring data and simple dynamic reduced-order models of the Christchurch Women’s Hospital (CWH) help explain the performance of the base isolation (BI) system of the hospital during the series of Canterbury earthquakes in 2011-2012. A Park-Wen-Ang hysteresis model is employed to simulate the performance of the BI system and results are compared to measured data recorded above the isolation layer and on the 6th story. Simplified single, two and three degree of freedom models (SDOF, 2DOF and 3DOF) show that the CWH structure did not behave as an isolated but as a fixed-base structure. Comparisons of accelerations and deflections between simulated and monitored data show a good match for isolation stiffness values of approximately two times of the value documented in the design specification and test protocol. Furthermore, an analysis of purely measured data revealed very little to no relative motion across the isolators for large events of moment magnitude scale (Mw) 5.8 and 6.0 that occurred within 3 hours of each other on December 23, 2011. One of the major findings is that the BI system during the seismic events on December 23, 2011 did not yield and that the superstructure performed as a fixed-base building, indicating a need to reevaluate the analysis, design and implementation of these structures.
Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, lightly reinforced wall structures in the Christchurch central business district were observed to form undesirable crack patterns in the plastic hinge region, while yield penetration either side of cracks and into development zones was less than predicted using empirical expressions. To some extent this structural behaviour was unexpected and has therefore demonstrated that there may be less confidence in the seismic performance of conventionally designed reinforced concrete (RC) structures than previously anticipated. This paper provides an observation-based comparison between the behaviour of RC structural components in laboratory testing and the unexpected structural behaviour of some case study buildings in Christchurch that formed concentrated inelastic deformations. The unexpected behaviour and poor overall seismic performance of ‘real’ buildings (compared to the behaviour of laboratory test specimens) was due to the localization of peak inelastic strains, which in some cases has arguably led to: (i) significantly less ductility capacity; (ii) less hysteretic energy dissipation; and (iii) the fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement. These observations have raised concerns about whether lightly reinforced wall structures can satisfy the performance objective of “Life Safety” at the Ultimate Limit State. The significance of these issues and potential consequences has prompted a review of potential problems with the testing conditions and procedures that are commonly used in seismic experimentations on RC structures. This paper attempts to revisit the principles of RC mechanics, in particular, the influence of loading history, concrete tensile strength, and the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement on the performance of real RC structures. Consideration of these issues in future research on the seismic performance of RC might improve the current confidence levels in newly designed conventional RC structures.
Base isolation is arguably the most reliable method for providing enhanced protection of buildings against earthquake-induced actions, by virtue of a physical separation between the structure and the ground through elements/devices with controlled force capacity, significant lateral deformation capacity and (often) enhanced energy dissipation. Such a design solution has shown its effectiveness in protecting both structural and non-structural components, hence preserving their functionality even in the aftermath of a major seismic event. Despite lead rubber bearings being invented in New Zealand almost forty years ago, the Christchurch Women's hospital was the only isolated building in Christchurch when the Canterbury earthquake sequence struck in 2010/11. Furthermore, a reference code for designing base-isolated buildings in New Zealand is still missing. The absence of a design standard or at least of a consensus on design guidelines is a potential source for a lack of uniformity in terms of performance criteria and compliance design approaches. It may also limit more widespread use of the technology in New Zealand. The present paper provides an overview of the major international codes (American, Japanese and European) for the design of base-isolated buildings. The design performance requirements, the analysis procedures, the design review process and approval/quality control of devices outlined in each code are discussed and their respective pros and cons are compared through a design application on a benchmark building in New Zealand. The results gathered from this comparison are intended to set the basis for the development of guidelines specific for the New Zealand environment.
In practice, several competing liquefaction evaluation procedures (LEPs) are used to compute factors of safety against soil liquefaction, often for use within a liquefaction potential index (LPI) framework to assess liquefaction hazard. At present, the influence of the selected LEP on the accuracy of LPI hazard assessment is unknown, and the need for LEP-specific calibrations of the LPI hazard scale has never been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of three CPT-based LEPs from the literature, operating within the LPI framework, for predicting the severity of liquefaction manifestation. Utilising more than 7000 liquefaction case studies from the 2010–2011 Canterbury (NZ) earthquake sequence, this study found that: (a) the relationship between liquefaction manifestation severity and computed LPI values is LEP-specific; (b) using a calibrated, LEP-specific hazard scale, the performance of the LPI models is essentially equivalent; and (c) the existing LPI framework has inherent limitations, resulting in inconsistent severity predictions against field observations for certain soil profiles, regardless of which LEP is used. It is unlikely that revisions of the LEPs will completely resolve these erroneous assessments. Rather, a revised index which more adequately accounts for the mechanics of liquefaction manifestation is needed.
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.
