Industry impact of QuakeCoRE Flagship Programme 4

Fox, Matthew P.; Keen, Jared

doi:10.5459/bnzsee.55.1.58-63

“…In many cases, the adopted structural systems are not covered by existing design standards and are approved as alternate solutions through expert peer-review. The "low-damage" attribute of most structural systems has been validated by component (or sub-assembly) level experimental tests [53], but their interactions with other building components and implications of their use in buildings have yet to be rigorously investigated.…”

Section: How Effective Are the Emerging Low-damage Building Technolog...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Dhakal

2024

BNZSEE

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically reviews the current building seismic design approach based on the observed performance of modern building stock in recent earthquakes, highlights the inability of the current design approach in controlling seismic damage and losses, and proposes a conceptual framework for next generation seismic design codes that is likely to meet public expectations. In addition to ensuring life-safety in rare earthquakes, the proposed loss-optimization seismic design approach also aims to ensure quick functional recovery and minimum loss (i.e. repair, downtime, and injury/fatality) in moderate-strong earthquakes by limiting damage to building’s structural and non-structural components. Based on comparison of performances of building stock in some recent major earthquakes in different countries, the paper presents some simple strategies to render buildings more resilient and suffer significantly less seismic damage (and consequentially incur less loss). Finally, the paper scrutinizes the efficacy of some commonly used low-damage technologies in minimizing building seismic losses.

show abstract

“…3. This cost is 82% from labour, and 18% from materials as derived from the NZ loss database developed by Fox et al (2021). The median value of inspection time/hole was found as the labour cost/hole (= 82% × NZ $1100/hole) divided by the NZ labour rate of $ 60/hour as 15 hours, or 2 worker days.…”

Section: Inspection Approach and Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit of structural access panels (SAP) for post-earthquake structural health monitoring

Luo,

MacRae,

Xue

et al. 2023

Bull Earthquake Eng

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a method to quantify the benefit of using structural access panels (SAPs) placed in internal partition walls (IPWs) or ceilings near the dissipative elements of structures for post-earthquake structural health monitoring (SHM) without damaging the building non-skeletal elements (NSEs). The benefit of SAPS is considered for different levels of shaking considering the possibility of (i) no likely structural damage, (ii) likely building irreparability, or (iii) building NSE damage. The methodology is developed for shaking intensity scenarios with annual shaking probabilities of exceedance ranging from 1/25 to 1/10,000. Structural demands for different scenarios are initially obtained using time history analysis. The number of scenarios was increased by additionally generated demands assuming lognormal distributions of response. Monte-Carlo analysis was used to assess the likelihood of reaching particular decision states, considering uncertainty associated with achieving these states. Probabilistic (time-based) benefits of using SAPs are also considered. Additionally, buildings with both conventional IPWs and low-damage IPWs are considered. Finally, the methodology is applied to a realistic 6 storey eccentrically braced frame (EBF) structure. In the study, the scenario-based analysis indicated that the SAPs were not effective during very small earthquake events where the post-earthquake inspection will not be triggered, or during very large events where the building is externally observed to be irreparable. Furthermore, if the NSEs equipped with SAPs sustain significant damage, SAPs were not needed for inspection. As a result, the SAPs were more beneficial when installed in low-damage NSEs, as compared to conventional NSEs, especially during moderate to high shaking levels. For the casestudy building considered, the probabilistic loss study indicates the break-even time for SAPs to be economical, considering initial installation costs, and inspection savings related to direct damage and downtime losses, was less than 2 years. The benefit-to-cost ratio of SAPs for rapid and reliable post-earthquake inspection was up to 26 over the expected building life of 50 years.

show abstract

Benefit of Structural Access Panels (SAP) for Post-Earthquake Structural Health Monitoring

Luo,

MacRae,

Xue

et al. 2023

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a method to quantify the benefit of using structural access panels (SAPs) placed in internal partition walls (IPWs) or ceilings near the dissipative elements of structures for post-earthquake structural health monitoring (SHM) without damaging the building non-skeletal elements (NSEs). The benefit of SAPS is considered for different levels of shaking considering the possibility of (i) no likely structural damage, (ii) likely building irreparability, or (iii) building NSE damage. The methodology is developed for shaking intensity scenarios with annual shaking probabilities of exceedance ranging from 1/25 to 1/10,000. Structural demands for different scenarios are initially obtained using time history analysis. The number of scenarios was increased by additionally generated demands assuming lognormal distributions of response. Monte-Carlo analysis was used to assess the likelihood of reaching particular decision states, considering uncertainty associated with achieving these states. Probabilistic (time-based) benefits of using SAPs are also considered. Additionally, buildings with both conventional IPWs and low-damage IPWs are considered. Finally, the methodology is applied to a realistic 6 storey eccentrically braced frame (EBF) structure. In the study, the scenario-based analysis indicated that the SAPs were not effective during very small earthquake events where the post-earthquake inspection will not be triggered, or during very large events where the building is externally observed to be irreparable. Furthermore, if the NSEs equipped with SAPs sustain significant damage, SAPs were not needed for inspection. As a result, the SAPs were more beneficial when installed in low-damage NSEs, as compared to conventional NSEs, especially during moderate to high shaking levels. For the casestudy building considered, the probabilistic loss study indicates the break-even time for SAPs to be economical, considering initial installation costs, and inspection savings related to direct damage and downtime losses, was less than 2 years. The benefit-to-cost ratio of SAPs for rapid and reliable post-earthquake inspection was up to 26 over the expected building life of 50 years.

show abstract

Industry impact of QuakeCoRE Flagship Programme 4

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Benefit of structural access panels (SAP) for post-earthquake structural health monitoring

Benefit of Structural Access Panels (SAP) for Post-Earthquake Structural Health Monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About