Repairing SLS anomalies in NZ seismic code to reduce earthquake losses

  • Thomas (Tom) A. Moore IDS Consultants, Dunedin, New Zealand

Abstract

The 1992 advent of the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) was for the purpose of eliminating structural and non-structural damage to buildings subjected to small or moderate Earthquakes (EQs). This goal complimented the prior 1976 goal of minimising life-loss due to large Ultimate Limit State (ULS) EQs.

However, moderate direct damage and large indirect losses occurred to many medium-rise pre-2004’ precast concrete-framed buildings in Christchurch and Wellington CBDs as a result of small or moderate EQ ground motions in 2010 [1-3], 2013 and 2016 [4-6.]

A precedence for a proposed SLS level 1 upgrade was set when Christchurch upgraded to a 50 year recurrence SLS following the 2010-2011 earthquakes [7].

Many modern buildings have been engineered with little regard for SLS [8] nor the goal of eliminating disruption from moderate EQs [9, 10]. The proliferation of SLS building damage and large indirect losses [1] have arisen in NZ primarily because of the specification of a too-small SLS demand which corresponds to a ground motion with 25 year return period and because the Structural Performance factor (Sp) is specified in NZ as 0.7 for SLS, which results in a further 30% reduction of the SLS demand. There are also vulnerabilities in ‘pre-2004’ precast floor-to-beam connection detailing [3].

Cost-benefit analyses show that these building losses may be relieved by first correcting the precast vulnerabilities, then using a SLS limit of 50 year (rather than the current 25 year) return period and/or by specifying Sp = 1. The thus proposed ‘maxi-50 year SLS’ with a drift limit of 0.25%, has the same elastic seismic demand as the 100 year international SLS event [10, 11] (with Sp = 0.7) and will minimise non-structural and business disruption losses in small to moderate earthquakes.

References

Elwood KJ, Marquis F and Kim JH (2015). “Post-Earthquake Assessment and Reparability of RC Buildings: Lessons from Canterbury and Emerging Challenges”. Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building and Earthquake-Resilient, November, Sydney, pp. 218.1 - 218.9.

Hare J, Oliver S and Galloway B (2012). “Performance Objectives for Low Damage Seismic Design of Buildings”. Proceedings of the Annual NZSEE Conference, Christchurch, pp 91-99.

Corney S, Henry RS and Ingham JM (2014). “Performance of precast concrete floor systems during the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake series”. Magazine of Concrete Research NZ, 23 pages.

MBIE Panel (2017). “Investigation into the performance of Statistics House in the 14 November 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake”. MBIE 2017, New Zealand, 36 pages.

Brunsdon DR, Elwood KJ and Henry RS (2017). “Technical Report 20170507, Technical Report for the Wellington City Council Targeted Assessment Programme”. Wellington City Council, May 2017, 59 pages.

Chandramohan R, Quincy Ma, Wotherspoon L, Bradley BA, Nayyerloo M, Uma SR and Stephens MT (2017). “Response of Instrumented Buildings under the 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 50(2): 237-252.

Amaris AD and Hoglund K (2012). “Construction Cost Implications of the Increased Seismic Coefficient Z for Christchurch: A Case Study”. Proceedings of the Annual NZSEE Conference, Christchurch, Paper 124, 10 pages.

Brunsdon DR and Clark WDC (2001). “Modern Multi-storey Buildings and Moderate Earthquakes”. Proceedings of NZSEE Annual Conference, Paper 3.02.01, 9 pages.

MacRae GA, Clifton GC and Megget L (2011). “Review of NZ Building Codes of Practice”. Report to Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Building Failure caused by Christchurch Earthquakes, ENG.ACA.016, 59 pages.

Hachem M, Ingham JM and Mathias N (2010). “An International Comparison of Ground Motion Selection Criteria for Seismic Design”. Joint IABSE-FIB Conference on Codes in Structural Engineering, Croatia, 15 pages.

CEN (2004). “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Standard EN 1998 1”. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

Dymiotis-Wellington C and Vlachaki C (2004). “Serviceability Limit State Criteria for the Seismic Assessment of RC Buildings”. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, 50 pages.

Kam WY, Pampanin S, Dhakal RP, Gavin HP and Roeder C (2011). “Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the September 2010 Darfield Earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Darfield Earthquake Special Issue, 43(4): 340-351

Fenwick RC and MacRae GA (2009). “Comparisons of New Zealand Standards used for Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(3): 187-203.

Uma SR, Dhakal RP and Nayyerloo M (2013). “Displacement-based vulnerability assessment of Christchurch buildings in February 2011 Christchurch earthquake”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 43(15): 2319-1339.

Bradley BA (2012). “Ground motions observed in the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes and the importance of local site response effects”. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 55(3): 279-286.

Bradley BA (2013). “A Summary of Strong Ground Motions Observed in the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence”. NZ – Japan Workshop on Soil Liquefaction during Recent Large-Scale Earthquakes. Auckland, NZ, 10 pages.

Carr AJ (2011). “Inelastic Response Spectra for the Christchurch Earthquake Records”. Report to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, NZ.

MacPherson C (2005). “Seismic Performance and Forensic Analysis of Precast Concrete Hollow-core Floor Super-assemblage”. ME thesis, Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, 246 pages.

Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, Cubrinovski M and MacRae GA (2009). “Seismic loss estimation for efficient decision making”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(2): 96-110.

Wen YK (2001). “Reliability and Performance-based Design”. Structural Safety, 23: 407-428.

Moore TA and Arnold C (1988). “Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook and Supporting Documentation”. FEMA 154 and 155 and the NEHERP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Building. First Edition, 206 pages.

Applied Technology Council (1985). “ATC 13: Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California”. ATC, Redwood City, CA, 492 pages.

Mander JB (2006). “On Improving the Seismic Performance of Precast Concrete Frames”. University of Canterbury, Final Report to EQC N0. 6RSF1C2 81 pages.

Bradley BA, Dhakal RP and Mander JB (2007). “Probable Loss Model and Spatial Distribution of Damage for Probabilistic Financial Risk Assessment of Structures”. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Applications of Probability and Statistics in Civil Engineering (ICAPS10), Tokyo, Japan, Paper No 43, 423-425.

Dhakal RP, Khare RK and Mander JB (2006). “Economic payback of improved detailing for concrete buildings with precast hollow-core floors.” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 39(2): 106-119.

Gould NC (2003). “Earthquake Performance of Non-structural Components.” IRMI. https://www.irmi.com/articles/

Marquis F (2015). “A Framework for Understanding Post-Earthquake Decisions on Multi-Storey Concrete Buildings in Christchurch, NZ”. Masters Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Published
2018-03-31
How to Cite
Moore, T. (Tom) A. (2018). Repairing SLS anomalies in NZ seismic code to reduce earthquake losses. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 51(1), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.51.1.34-46
Section
Articles