Seismic performance of non-structural elements (SPONSE) and Learning from earthquakes (LFE)

Dhakal, Rajesh

doi:10.5459/bnzsee.53.3.113-115

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equation (1) gives the mean annual rate of exceedance of a decision variable dv. In assembly-based vulnerability, where the loss of a building is derived by combining the losses of its components, expected value of a decision variable (i.e., loss measure) is more useful than its rate of exceedance.…”

Section: Challenges In Implementing Loss Based Design Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, despite all the ongoing efforts in research and profession, construction industries worldwide are still facing significant issues related to NSEs [1], due mainly to: (i) inadequate procurement/tendering practice; (ii) standards not up-to-date with rapidly evolving state-of-the-knowledge; (iii) inconsistency between design standards/practices; (iv) noncompliance to existing standards; (v) lack of coordination among different NSE-related trades; and (vi) faulty installations not identified due to inadequate quality control measures. Needless to mention, these problems cannot be solved by improving only a single aspect of the spectrum and will need all stakeholders to work together for many years to come.…”

Section: Improving Seismic Performance Of Nsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, seismic performance of non-structural elements (SPONSE) needs to improve in order to minimize financial loss in future earthquakes. Unsurprisingly, awareness of the importance of SPONSE research has significantly increased in NZ in the recent years [1][2][3], and researchers are striving to identify and amend the inherent weaknesses in the current design and installation practices [4][5][6][7] and to develop low-damage solutions for key NSEs [8][9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Dhakal

2024

BNZSEE

Self Cite

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

Section: Challenges In Implementing Loss Based Design Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improving Seismic Performance Of Nsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Dhakal

2024

BNZSEE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through experimental tests and theoretical derivations, it highlights the strengths and weaknesses of this common type of internal partitions. Following on from the special issue dedicated to Seismic Performance on Non-Structural Elements (SPONSE) published in the Bulletin in 2017 and a stream of other papers published more recently on different aspects/issues of NSEs [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50], these two papers further underline the emergence of the Bulletin as a prominent outlet of state-of-the-art papers on this important topic.…”

Section: Articles In This Issue Of Nzsee Bulletinmentioning

confidence: 97%

Hybrid posttensioned rocking (HPR) frame buildings: Low-damage vs low-loss paradox

Dhakal

2021

BNZSEE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2010-11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence inflicted seismic losses worth more than $40B, which is about 25% of the GDP of New Zealand (as per 2011 data). More than 80% of these losses were insured, which comprised of more than $10B covered by the Earthquake Commission (a New Zealand crown entity providing insurance to residential property owners) and more than $22B (comprising of roughly equal split between domestic and commercial claims) by private insurers [1]. The scale of financial impact has been perceived to be disproportionately large given the building regulatory regime in New Zealand is relatively stringent and the earthquakes and aftershocks were of moderate magnitude. As it is well known that some of the major faults spread in the Wellington region and the subduction boundary passing through the centre of New Zealand can generate much bigger earthquakes (upwards of magnitude 8), people are left pondering whether New Zealand is able to cope with the financial impact of larger earthquakes. This fearful realisation gradually led to people being dissatisfied with merely life-safe buildings and demanding more resilient buildings that meet the objectives of performance based design; i.e. suffer less damage, incur less loss, and can remain functional after earthquakes. In light of the extensive building damage resulting in high financial loss in recent earthquakes, practicing engineers and researchers in New Zealand have been advocating for revising the current design approach to improve performance of new structures and infrastructure in future earthquakes [2-5]. As a result, large proportion of buildings constructed in the last decade (including those built to replace earthquake-damaged buildings) have shied away from the traditional damage-friendly ductile structural systems and instead adopted one of the new and emerging structural systems claimed to be “low-damage”. 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, but their interactions with other building components and implications of their use in buildings have not been rigorously scrutinised. Hence, the rushed adoption of some of these systems in buildings can surprise the engineering community in future earthquakes with mismatch between the expected and real performances of the buildings; akin to what New Zealand engineering fraternity is currently going through due to realisation of poor seismic performance of precast hollow-core flooring system that has been widely used in New Zealand buildings without rigorous scrutiny. One such “low-damage” structural system is precast post-tensioned rocking frames with supplemental energy dissipaters. This paper summarises the development of this structural system, critically reviews the literature reporting the seismic performance of this system, and qualitatively evaluates system-level implications of its use in buildings. This paper is intended to better inform engineers of the likely seismic performance of buildings with this structural system so that they can optimise its benefits by giving due consideration to its effect on other building components.

show abstract

Seismic performance of non-structural elements (SPONSE) and Learning from earthquakes (LFE)

Cited by 2 publications

References 26 publications

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Seismic design of buildings: Where to next?

Hybrid posttensioned rocking (HPR) frame buildings: Low-damage vs low-loss paradox

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About