Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 737–757 | Cite as

Seismic performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes

  • Rijalul FikriEmail author
  • Dmytro Dizhur
  • Kevin Walsh
  • Jason Ingham
Original Research
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

As a result of the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes, Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill (RCFMI) buildings experienced a level of damage that was different to that observed for other construction systems. An extensive survey was conducted by the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority following the earthquakes to document damaged buildings in the affected area. The collected data were then merged into the Canterbury Earthquake Building Assessment (CEBA) database, and the database was utilised to assess the damage sustained by RCFMI buildings. In order to provide a reliable estimation of the seismic vulnerability for RCFMI buildings in the region, empirical fragility curves were generated using the Lognormal Cumulative Distribution method by utilising the post-earthquake dataset provided in the CEBA database, with the expected median and standard deviation values derived using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method. Results showed that the majority of low-rise to mid-rise RCFMI buildings performed satisfactorily during the Canterbury earthquakes, with several high-rise RCFMI buildings sustaining moderate to heavy damage.

Keywords

Empirical fragility curves Masonry infill Post-earthquake assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Sheng-Lin Lin from GNS Science is thanked for supplying the CEBA database. Don Robertson from Christchurch City Council (CCC), Ali Sahin Tasligedik from the University of Canterbury (UC) Quake Centre and Glenys Browne from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) are also thanked for providing additional data. In addition, the authors greatly appreciate the financial assistance provided by the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) for the field work in Christchurch.

References

  1. Beattie G, Megget L, Andrews A (2008) The historic development of earthquake engineering in New Zealand. In: Proceeding of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, October 12–17, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley B, Cubrinovski M (2011) Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44:181–194Google Scholar
  3. Bradley BA, Hughes M (2012) Conditional peak ground accelerations in the Canterbury earthquakes for conventional liquefaction assessment. Technical Report for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  4. Cubrinovski M, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Green R, Bray J, Wood C, Pender M, Allen J, Bradshaw A, Rix G (2011) Geotechnical aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44:205–226Google Scholar
  5. Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2016a) Empirical fragility curves from damage data on RC buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1425–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Del Gaudio C, Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G (2016b) Observed and predicted earthquake damage scenarios: the case study of Pettino (L’Aquila) after the 6th April 2009 event. Bull Earthq Eng 14:2643–2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dizhur D, Lumantarna R, Ismail N, Ingham J, Knox C (2010) Performance of unreinforced and retrofitted masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 43:321–339Google Scholar
  8. Dizhur D, Ingham J, Moon L, Griffith M, Schultz A, Senaldi I, Magenes G, Dickie J, Lissel S, Centeno J (2011) Performance of masonry buildings and churches in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44:279–296Google Scholar
  9. Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M, Vona M (2003) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 1:115–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M (2006) Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng Struct 28:357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GeoNet (2014a) M 6.3, Christchurch, 22 February 2011. http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/M+6.3,+Christchurch,+22+February+2011. Accessed 30 Oct 2016
  12. GeoNet (2014b) M 7.1, Darfield (Canterbury), 4 September 2010. http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/M+7.1,+Darfield+(Canterbury),+4+September+2010. Accessed 30 Oct 2016
  13. Giaretton M, Dizhur D, Da Porto F, Ingham J (2016) Construction details and observed earthquake performance of unreinforced clay brick masonry cavity-walls. Structures 6:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). European Seismological Commission, Subcommission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scales. Conseil De l’Europe. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingham J, Griffith M (2010) Performance of unreinforced masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield (Christchurch, NZ) earthquake. Aus J Struct Eng 11:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingham J, Griffith M (2011) The performance of earthquake strengthened URM buildings in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Addendum Report to the Royal Commission of Inquiry, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  17. Kam WY, Pampanin S, Dhakal R, Gavin H, Roeder C (2010) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquakes. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 43:340–350Google Scholar
  18. Kam WY, Pampanin S, Elwood K (2011) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttelton) earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44:239–278Google Scholar
  19. Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King A, Middleton D, Brown C, Johnston D, Johal S (2014) Insurance: its role in recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 30:475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin S, Uma S, Nayyerloo M, Buxton R, King A (2014) Engineering characterisation of building performance with detailed engineering evaluation (DEE) data from the canterbury earthquake sequence. In: Proceeding of the ASEC 2014 Conference, Structural Engineering in Australasia–World Standards, 9–12 July, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin SL, Uma SR, King AB, Buxton R, Horspool NA (2016) A compiled and extensible database for building damage from the 2010–2011 earthquake sequence in Canterbury, New Zealand. GNS Science Report, Lower Hutt, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Moon L, Dizhur D, Senaldi I, Derakhshan H, Griffith M, Magenes G, Ingham J (2014) The demise of the URM building stock in Christchurch during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra 30:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NZS 95 (1935) Model building by-law. WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. NZS 4203 (1976) Code of practice for general structural design and design loading for buildings. WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. NZSEE Study Group (2002) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossetto T, Elnashai A (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 25:1241–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D (2013) Existing empirical fragility and vulnerability relationships: compendium and guide for selection. GEM Technical Report 2013-X, GEM Foundation, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  29. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:933–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarabandi P, Pachakis D, King S, Kiremidjian A (2004) Empirical fragility functions from recent earthquakes. In: Proceeding of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, August 1–6, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  31. Senaldi I, Magenes G, Ingham J (2012) The seismic performance of unreinforced stone masonry buildings during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. In: Proceeding of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, September 24–28, Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  32. Senaldi I, Magenes G, Ingham J (2015) Damage assessment of unreinforced stone masonry buildings after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Int J Archit Herit 9:605–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  3. 3.Frost Engineering and ConsultingMishawakaUSA

Personalised recommendations