Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJazmyne Causey Modified over 10 years ago
1
Performance of buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake Associate Prof Rajesh Dhakal University of Canterbury Christchurch, NZ Sixth International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 16-18 May 2011, Tehran, Iran
2
URM Buildings: General Observations Extensive damage to URM buildings in general Many URM buildings in the city flattened Most of the remaining buildings very severely damaged Few well constructed URM buildings in the western suburbs were subjected to moderate shakings and suffered repairable damage In the CBD, very few (unretrofitted) URM buildings will exist in future. Some examples of typical URM building damage/collapse follow
6
Many buildings were about to collapse (short duration effect)
7
In-plane wall/pier failure
8
Gable wall failure
9
Parapet Failures
10
Anchorage Failure
11
Out-of-plane wall failure
12
Vulnerability of cavity construction Out-of-plane failures (Cavity walls)
13
Poor quality of mortar Many tested samples 1.0-1.5 MPa compression strength Τ = C + µ N
14
Poor quality of diaphragm timber
15
Inadequate Cavity Wall Ties
16
Pounding of URM Buildings Acknowledgement: Several slides in this section are provided by Gregory Cole, University of Canterbury
17
Pounding Survey statistics
18
Typical masonry pounding damage
19
URM pounding damage mechanism
20
Diagonal damage path due to pounding
22
Buildings in a row with little separation
23
Example: Pounding damage
27
Inadequate building flashing details
28
Performance of Retrofitted URM Buildings Acknowledgement: Several slides in this section are provided by A/P Jason Ingham, University of Auckland
29
Some well-anchored walls did well
30
Damage to anchored walls
31
Steel strong backs generally performed well
32
Steel Frames: Generally did well
33
Steel Frames: Some suffered damage Failed frame to wall connections mounted perpendicular to wall
34
Wall confined by steel plates (cracks visible, but not wide)
35
Shotcrete In general shotcreted masonry walls performed well. Minor cracking seen in some walls.
36
Floor Diaphragms Retrofit
37
Successful parapet strengthening
38
Unsuccessful Parapet Strengthening (require protection at corners)
39
Unsuccessful Parapet Strengthening Wall detached from struts
40
Performance of Old RC buildings Designed for smaller strength (compared to now) Subjected to large acceleration (higher than current design level) Lacked ductility (specially the pre-1980 buildings) Mostly not retrofitted As expected, damaged severely
41
CTV Building (117 dead)
42
Hotel Grand Chancellor (Demolished)
43
Performance of Modern RC buildings Subjected to large acceleration (higher than current design level) Inherent ductility As expected, most buildings damaged But no collapse (post 1990) Most buildings can be reused after repair (bonus?) In general, performance better than expected
44
Example: Clarendon Tower
45
Dislodging of precast stair from landing
47
Vertical acceleration effect
48
Issues related to performance of modern buildings Staircase in many buildings collapsed (change of current practice needed) Precast floor (issues with interaction between floor and beam elongation) Irregularity of buildings (irregular buildings performed poorly) Foundation: Not adequate for the soft soil underneath Compression failure of columns: high vertical acceleration
49
Non-structural damage
50
Non-structural performance Structural performance: no surprises Non-structural performance: DISAPPOINTING Ceiling: Very few buildings with ceilings intact Facade/Partition: Damaged severely in most buildings Parapets: Most unrestrained parapets fell September earthquake: Minor structural damage (modern buildings); severe non-structural damage February earthquake: Moderate-severe damage to modern buildings; Collapse of non-structural elements Clearly, a mismatch between the structural and non- structural performance Need more focus in future
51
Non-structural damage could have killed more people
52
Falling objects could have, too It is time that we start explicitly aiming for minimisation of NON-STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and DOWNTIME in seismic design.
53
Relevance to Iran 1.There are many unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings which can suffer severe damage in moderate shakings and collapse in strong shakings. The brittle failure of URM building components can be fatal. 2.Systematically strengthened/retrofitted URM buildings perform noticeably better. Although they may suffer damage in large earthquakes, they are unlikely to collapse completely; thereby saving lives of inhabitants. 3.Hence, if you want to reduce the life safety threat from these URM buildings, you MUST retrofit them. 4.Be careful, there is a difference between strengthening and retrofitting.
54
Thank You! Acknowledgements: Jason Ingham, and Gregory Cole for providing some photographs and slides
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.