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

R. Dhakal
{"title":"Hybrid posttensioned rocking (HPR) frame buildings: Low-damage vs low-loss paradox","authors":"R. Dhakal","doi":"10.5459/bnzsee.54.4.i-viii","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. \nIn 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. \nOne 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.","PeriodicalId":46396,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.54.4.i-viii","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
混合后张摇(HPR)框架建筑:低损伤与低损失悖论
2010-11年坎特伯雷地震序列造成的地震损失超过400亿美元,约占新西兰GDP的25%(根据2011年的数据)。其中80%以上的损失已投保,其中包括地震委员会(一家为住宅业主提供保险的新西兰官方实体)承保的100多亿美元,以及私人保险公司承保的220多亿美元(包括国内和商业索赔的大致相等份额)[1]。鉴于新西兰的建筑监管制度相对严格,地震和余震震级中等,金融影响的规模被认为不成比例。众所周知,惠灵顿地区的一些主要断层和穿过新西兰中心的俯冲边界可能会引发更大的地震(8级以上),人们不得不思考新西兰是否有能力应对更大地震的财务影响。这种恐惧的认识逐渐导致人们对仅仅是生命安全的建筑感到不满,并要求更具弹性的建筑满足基于性能的设计目标;即遭受较少的破坏,遭受较少的损失,并且在地震后可以保持功能。鉴于最近的地震对建筑物造成了广泛的破坏,导致了高昂的经济损失,新西兰的执业工程师和研究人员一直主张修改当前的设计方法,以提高新结构和基础设施在未来地震中的性能[2-5]。因此,在过去十年中建造的大部分建筑(包括为取代地震受损建筑而建造的建筑)都避开了传统的损伤友好型延性结构系统,而是采用了一种新出现的声称“低损伤”的结构系统。在许多情况下,采用的结构系统不在现有设计标准的范围内,而是通过专家同行评审批准为替代解决方案。大多数结构系统的“低损伤”特性已经通过组件(或子组件)级实验测试得到了验证,但它们与其他建筑组件的相互作用以及在建筑中使用的影响尚未得到严格审查。因此,在未来的地震中,建筑中仓促采用其中一些系统可能会让工程界感到惊讶,因为建筑的预期性能和实际性能不匹配;类似于新西兰工程界目前正在经历的情况,因为人们意识到预制空心地板系统的抗震性能较差,该系统在新西兰建筑中广泛使用,没有经过严格审查。一种这样的“低损伤”结构系统是带有补充消能器的预制后张摇摆框架。本文总结了该结构系统的发展,批判性地回顾了报告该系统抗震性能的文献,并定性地评估了其在建筑中使用的系统级影响。本文旨在更好地告知工程师使用该结构系统的建筑可能的抗震性能,以便他们能够通过适当考虑其对其他建筑构件的影响来优化其效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
17.60%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Method to identify if torsional mode of a building is its first mode Earthquake design loads for retaining walls Infrastructure planning emergency levels of service for the Wellington region, Aotearoa New Zealand – An operationalised framework Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete buildings with hollow-core flooring systems Evaluation of the Inter-frequency Correlation of New Zealand CyberShake Crustal Earthquake Simulations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1