Performance objectives for non-structural elements

  • Helen Ferner Beca Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand
  • Rob Jury Beca Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
  • Andrew King GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
  • Martin Wemyss Beca Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand
  • Andrew Baird Beca Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

The recent earthquakes in New Zealand have raised awareness of the seismic vulnerability of non-structural elements and the costly consequences when non-structural elements perform poorly. Impacts on business continuity due to the damage of non-structural elements has been identified as a major cost and disruption issue in recent earthquakes in New Zealand, as well as worldwide. Clearly improvements in performance of non-structural elements under earthquake loads will yield benefits to society.

This paper explores the intended and expected performance objectives for non-structural elements. Possible historic differences in performance objective expectations for non-structural elements between building services engineers, fire engineers and structural engineers are discussed. Wider construction industry expectations are explored along with our experience of client and regulatory authority views.

The paper discusses the application and interpretation of the New Zealand earthquake loadings Standard NZS1170.5:2004 for the design of non-structural elements including possible differences in interpretation between building services, structural and fire engineers leading to confusion around the expected performance of non-structural elements under different limit states. It is based on the experience of several of the authors as members of the Standards committee for NZS1170.5:2004.

The paper concludes by discussing changes to NZS1170.5:2004 the authors have proposed as members of the NZS1170.5 Standards committee to clarify and address the identified issues. These changes clarify the classification of parts, requirements for consideration earthquake imposed deformations, parts supported on ledges, potential falling of parts, the combination of fire and earthquake loads, and the requirement for parts to be designed for both serviceability and ultimate limit states along with the effective introduction of a serviceability limit state for parts for occupational continuity.

References

Schouten H (2013). “Call for more controls for ceilings, fittings” in Stuff, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/commercial-property/8800732/Call-for-more-controls-for-ceilings-fittings

Thomson EM and Bradley BA (2014). “Preliminary Analysis of Instrumented Wellington Building Responses in the July/August 2013 Seddon/Lake Grassmere Earthquakes”. Proceedings of the NZSEE Conference, 21-23 March 2014.

Helm N (2014). “The Cost of Earthquake Resilience” in BUILD 145. Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ).

CERC (2012). “Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission Final Report”. Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, Christchurch, NZ.

New Zealand Standard (2004). “Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions”. NZS 1170.5:2004, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

New Zealand Standard (2009). “Seismic Performance of Engineering Systems in Buildings”. NZS 4219:2009, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

New Zealand Standard (2013). “Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems”. NZS 4541:2013, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

New Zealand Standard (2004). “Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions”. NZS 1170.5 Supp 1:2004, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

Zareian F and Krawinkler H (2007). “Assessment of Probability of Collapse and Design for Collapse Safety”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(13): 1901-1914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.702

Standards New Zealand (2002). “Structural Design Actions, Part 0: General Principles”. AS/NZS 1170.0:2002, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

Chen M, Pantoli E, Wang X, Espino E, Mintz S, Conte J, Hutchinson T, Marin C, Meacham B, Restrepo J, Walsh K, Englekirk R, Faghihi M and Hoehler M (2012). “Design and Construction of a Full-Scale 5-Story Base Isolated Building Outfitted with Nonstructural Components for Earthquake Testing at the UCSD-NEES Facility”. Proceedings of Structures Congress 2012, pp. 1349-1360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412367.121

New Zealand Standard (2008). “Fire Hydrant Systems for Buildings”. NZS 4510:2008, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

Berrill J (2011). “Some Aspects of the M6.3 February 22nd Earthquake”. http://www.csi.net.nz/documents/Some%20Aspects%20of%20the%20Feb22%20M6-3_R3.pdf

Kam WY, Pampanin S and Elwood KJ (2011). “Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the 22 Feburary Christchurch (Lyttelton) Earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4): 239-278.

Department of Building and Housing (2011). “Practice Advisory 13: Egress Stairs: Earthquake checks needed for some”. MBIE, NZ.

Dhakal RP, MacRae GA and Hogg K (2011). “Performance of Ceilings in the February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4): 379-389.

Morris GJ, Bradley BA, Walker A and Matuschka T (2013). “Ground Motions and Damage Observations in the Marlborough Region from the 2013 Lake Grassmere Earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 46(4).

Published
2016-03-31
How to Cite
Ferner, H., Jury, R., King, A., Wemyss, M., & Baird, A. (2016). Performance objectives for non-structural elements. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 49(1), 79-85. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.49.1.79-85
Section
Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)