A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a staff member entering an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury, after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a staff room in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a toppled bookcase in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering and the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
Using case studies from the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence, this study assesses the accuracies of paleoliquefaction back-analysis methods and explores the challenges, techniques, and uncertainties associated with their application. While liquefaction-based back-analyses have been widely used to estimate the magnitudes of paleoearthquakes, their uncertain efficacies continue to significantly affect the computed seismic hazard in regions where they are relied upon. Accordingly, their performance is evaluated herein using liquefaction data from modern earthquakes with known magnitudes. It is shown that when the earthquake source location and mechanism are known, back-analysis methods are capable of accurately deriving seismic parameters from liquefaction evidence. However, because the source location and mechanism are often unknown in paleoseismic studies, and because accurate interpretation is shown to be more difficult in such cases, new analysis techniques are proposed herein. An objective parameter is proposed to geospatially assess the likelihood of any provisional source location, enabling an analyst to more accurately estimate the magnitude of a liquefaction-inducing paleoearthquake. This study demonstrates the application of back-analysis methods, provides insight into their potential accuracies, and provides a framework for performing paleoliquefaction analyses worldwide.
Severe liquefaction was repeatedly observed during the 2010 - 2011 C hristchurch earthquake s , particularly affecting deposits of fine sands and silty sands of recent fluvial or estuarine origin. The effects of liquefaction included major sliding of soil tow ard water bodies ( i.e. lateral spreading ) rang ing from centimetres to several metres. In this paper, a series of undrained cyclic torsional shear tests were conducted to evaluate the liquefaction and extremely large deformation properties of Christchurch b oiled sand . In these tests, the simple shear conditions were reproduced in order to apply realistic stress conditions that soil s experience in the field during horizontal seismic shaking. Several hollow cylindrical medium dense specimens ( D r = 50%) were pr epared by pluviation method, isotropically consolidated at an effective stress of 100 kPa and then cyclically sheared under undrained conditions up to 10 0% double amplitude shear strain (γ DA ) . The cyclic strength at different levels of γ DA of 7.5%, 15%, 3 0 % and 6 0%, development of extremely large post - liquefaction deformation and shear strain locali s ation properties were assessed from the analysis of the effective stress paths and stress - strain responses . To reveal possible distinctiveness, the cyclic undra ined behaviour of CHCH boiled sand was compared with that of Toyoura sand previously examined under similar testing conditions
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.
Improving community resilience requires a way of thinking about the nature of a community. Two complementary aspects are proposed: the flows connecting the community with its surrounding environment and the resources the community needs for its ongoing life. The body of necessary resources is complex, with many interactions between its elements. A systems approach is required to understand the issues adequately. Community resilience is discussed in general terms together with strategies for improving it. The ideas are then illustrated and amplified by an extended case study addressing means of improving the resilience of a community on the West Coast of New Zealand to natural disasters. The case study is in two phases. The first relies on a mix of on-the-ground observations and constructed scenarios to provide recommendations for enhancing community resilience, while the second complements the first by developing a set of general lessons and issues to be addressed from observations of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.
8-pages High-Force-to-Volume lead dampers (HF2V) have been recently developed through an experimental research program at University of Canterbury – New Zealand. Testing of the device and applications on beam column joints have demonstrated stable hysteretic behaviour with almost no damage. This paper reports testing of HF2V devices with straight, bulged and constricted shaft configurations subjected to velocities of 0.15 - 5.0mm/s. The effect of the shaft configuration on the hysteresis loop shape, design relationships and the effect of the velocity on the resistive force of the device are described. Results show that hysteresis loop shape of the device is almost square regardless of the shaft configuration, and that devices are characterized by noticeable velocity dependence in the range of 0.15-1.0mm/s.
Research report N. 2016-2 This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).