The Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand caused significant damage to a number of reinforced concrete (RC) walls and subsequent research that has been conducted to investigate the design provisions for lightly reinforced RC walls and precast concrete wall connection details is presented. A combination of numerical modelling and large-scale tests were conducted to investigate the seismic behaviour of lightly RC walls. The model and test results confirmed the observed behaviour of an RC wall building in Christchurch that exhibited a single flexural crack and also raised questions regarding the ability of current minimum reinforcement requirements to prevent the concentration of inelastic deformation at a small number of flexural cracks. These findings have led to changes to the minimum vertical reinforcement limits for RC walls in in the Concrete Structures Standard (NZS 3101:2006), with increased vertical reinforcement required in the end region of ductile RC walls. An additional series of wall tests were conducted to investigate the seismic behaviour of panel-to-foundation connections in singly reinforced precast concrete panels that often lack robustness. Both in-plane and out-of-plane panel tests were conducted to assess both grouted connections and dowel connections that use shallow embedded inserts. The initial test results have confirmed some of the previously identified vulnerabilities and tests are ongoing to refine the connection designs. http://www.aees.org.au/downloads/conference-papers/2015-2/
There is very little research on total house strength that includes contributions of non-structural elements. This testing programme provides inclusive stiffness and response data for five houses of varying ages. These light timber framed houses in Christchurch, New Zealand had minor earthquake damage from the 2011 earthquakes and were lateral load tested on site to determine their strength and/or stiffness, and to identify damage thresholds. Dynamic characteristics including natural periods, which ranged from 0.14 to 0.29s were also investigated. Two houses were quasi-statically loaded up to approximately 130kN above the foundation in one direction. Another unidirectional test was undertaken on a slab-on-grade two-storey house, which was also snapback tested. Two other houses were tested using cyclic quasi-static loading, and between cycles snapback tests were undertaken to identify the natural period of each house, including foundation and damage effects. A more detailed dynamic analysis on one of the houses provided important information on seismic safety levels of post-quake houses with respect to different hazard levels in the Christchurch area. While compared to New Zealand Building Standards all tested houses had an excess of strength, damage is a significant consideration in earthquake resilience and was observed in all of the houses. http://www.aees.org.au/downloads/conference-papers/2015-2/
During the recent devastating earthquakes in Christchurch, many residential houses were damaged due to widespread liquefaction of the ground. In-situ testing is widely used as a convenient method for evaluating liquefaction potential of soils. Cone penetration test (CPT) and standard penetration test (SPT) are the two popular in situ tests which are widely used in New Zealand for site characterization. The Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) method is a relatively new operating system developed in Japan consisting of a machine that drills a rod into the ground by applying torque at seven steps of axial loading. This machine can continuously measure the required torque, load, speed of penetration and rod friction during the test, and therefore can give a clear overview of the soil profile along the depth of penetration. In this paper, based on a number of SDS tests conducted in Christchurch, a correlation was developed between tip resistance of CPT test and SDS parameters for layers consisting of different fines contents. Moreover, using the obtained correlation, a chart was proposed which relates the cyclic resistance ratio to the appropriate SDS parameter. Using the proposed chart, liquefaction potential of soil can be estimated directly using SDS data. As SDS method is simpler, faster and more economical test than CPT and SPT, it can be a reliable alternative in-situ test for soil characterization, especially in residential house constructions.
Following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a renewed focus has been directed across New Zealand to the hazard posed by the country‘s earthquake-vulnerable buildings, namely unreinforced masonry (URM) and reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with potentially nonductile components that have historically performed poorly in large earthquakes. The research reported herein was pursued with the intention of addressing several recommendations made by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Inquiry which were classified into the following general categories: Identification and provisional vulnerability assessment of URM and RC buildings and building components; Testing, assessment, and retrofitting of URM walls loaded out-of-plane, with a particular focus on highly vulnerable URM cavity walls; Testing and assessment of RC frame components, especially those with presumably non-ductile reinforcement detailing; Portfolio management considering risks, regulations, and potential costs for a portfolio that includes several potentially earthquake-vulnerable buildings; and Ongoing investigations and proposed research needs. While the findings from the reported research have implications for seismic assessments of buildings across New Zealand and elsewhere, an emphasis was placed on Auckland given this research program‘s partnership with the Auckland Council, the Auckland region accounting for about a third each of the country‘s population and economic production, and the number and variety of buildings within the Auckland building stock. An additional evaluation of a historic building stock was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay, and additional experimental testing was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay and Christchurch.
Page 2 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 3 of Section C of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 4 of Section C of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 5 of Section D of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 7 of Section D of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 3 of the Zest section of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 2 of the Zest section of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 1 of the Zest section of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 January 2015.
Page 13 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 22 January 2015.
Page 12 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 22 January 2015.
Page 11 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 22 January 2015.
Page 8 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 22 January 2015.
Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 22 January 2015.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 22 January 2015.
Page 12 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 12 January 2015.
Page 13 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 12 January 2015.
Page 3 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 6 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 12 January 2015.
Page 14 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 12 January 2015.
Page 10 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 8 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 3 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 14 January 2015.
Page 12 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.
Page 1 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 14 January 2015.
Page 7 of The Box section of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 13 January 2015.