修复新西兰地震规范中的SLS异常,减少地震损失

T. Moore
{"title":"修复新西兰地震规范中的SLS异常,减少地震损失","authors":"T. Moore","doi":"10.5459/BNZSEE.51.1.34-46","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 1992 advent of the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) was for the purpose of eliminating structural and non-structural damage to buildings subjected to small or moderate Earthquakes (EQs). This goal complimented the prior 1976 goal of minimising life-loss due to large Ultimate Limit State (ULS) EQs. \nHowever, moderate direct damage and large indirect losses occurred to many medium-rise pre-2004’ precast concrete-framed buildings in Christchurch and Wellington CBDs as a result of small or moderate EQ ground motions in 2010 [1-3], 2013 and 2016 [4-6.] \nA precedence for a proposed SLS level 1 upgrade was set when Christchurch upgraded to a 50 year recurrence SLS following the 2010-2011 earthquakes [7]. \nMany modern buildings have been engineered with little regard for SLS [8] nor the goal of eliminating disruption from moderate EQs [9, 10]. The proliferation of SLS building damage and large indirect losses [1] have arisen in NZ primarily because of the specification of a too-small SLS demand which corresponds to a ground motion with 25 year return period and because the Structural Performance factor (Sp) is specified in NZ as 0.7 for SLS, which results in a further 30% reduction of the SLS demand. There are also vulnerabilities in ‘pre-2004’ precast floor-to-beam connection detailing [3]. \nCost-benefit analyses show that these building losses may be relieved by first correcting the precast vulnerabilities, then using a SLS limit of 50 year (rather than the current 25 year) return period and/or by specifying Sp = 1. The thus proposed ‘maxi-50 year SLS’ with a drift limit of 0.25%, has the same elastic seismic demand as the 100 year international SLS event [10, 11] (with Sp = 0.7) and will minimise non-structural and business disruption losses in small to moderate earthquakes.","PeriodicalId":343472,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":"139 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repairing SLS anomalies in NZ seismic code to reduce earthquake losses\",\"authors\":\"T. Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.5459/BNZSEE.51.1.34-46\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 1992 advent of the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) was for the purpose of eliminating structural and non-structural damage to buildings subjected to small or moderate Earthquakes (EQs). This goal complimented the prior 1976 goal of minimising life-loss due to large Ultimate Limit State (ULS) EQs. \\nHowever, moderate direct damage and large indirect losses occurred to many medium-rise pre-2004’ precast concrete-framed buildings in Christchurch and Wellington CBDs as a result of small or moderate EQ ground motions in 2010 [1-3], 2013 and 2016 [4-6.] \\nA precedence for a proposed SLS level 1 upgrade was set when Christchurch upgraded to a 50 year recurrence SLS following the 2010-2011 earthquakes [7]. \\nMany modern buildings have been engineered with little regard for SLS [8] nor the goal of eliminating disruption from moderate EQs [9, 10]. The proliferation of SLS building damage and large indirect losses [1] have arisen in NZ primarily because of the specification of a too-small SLS demand which corresponds to a ground motion with 25 year return period and because the Structural Performance factor (Sp) is specified in NZ as 0.7 for SLS, which results in a further 30% reduction of the SLS demand. There are also vulnerabilities in ‘pre-2004’ precast floor-to-beam connection detailing [3]. \\nCost-benefit analyses show that these building losses may be relieved by first correcting the precast vulnerabilities, then using a SLS limit of 50 year (rather than the current 25 year) return period and/or by specifying Sp = 1. The thus proposed ‘maxi-50 year SLS’ with a drift limit of 0.25%, has the same elastic seismic demand as the 100 year international SLS event [10, 11] (with Sp = 0.7) and will minimise non-structural and business disruption losses in small to moderate earthquakes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":343472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"volume\":\"139 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5459/BNZSEE.51.1.34-46\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/BNZSEE.51.1.34-46","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

1992年出现的适用性极限状态(SLS)是为了消除遭受小型或中型地震(eq)的建筑物的结构和非结构损坏。这个目标补充了1976年之前的目标,即最大限度地减少由于大型极限状态(ULS) eq造成的生命损失。然而,由于2010年[1-3]、2013年和2016年[4-6]的轻微或中度EQ地面运动,克赖斯特彻奇和惠灵顿cbd的许多2004年以前的预制混凝土框架中高层建筑遭受了中度直接破坏和较大间接损失。2010-2011年地震后,基督城将SLS升级为50年复发一次的SLS,这为SLS 1级升级提出了先例[7]。许多现代建筑在设计时很少考虑SLS[8],也没有考虑消除中等eq干扰的目标[9,10]。SLS建筑破坏的扩散和巨大的间接损失[1]已经在新西兰出现,主要是因为SLS需求规格太小,对应于25年回复期的地面运动,因为新西兰规定SLS的结构性能系数(Sp)为0.7,这导致SLS需求进一步减少30%。在“2004年以前”预制楼板-梁连接细节中也存在漏洞[3]。成本效益分析表明,通过首先纠正预制构件的脆弱性,然后使用50年(而不是目前的25年)的SLS限制回报期和/或指定Sp = 1,可以减轻这些建筑损失。因此提出的“最大50年SLS”的漂移极限为0.25%,具有与100年国际SLS事件相同的弹性地震需求[10,11](Sp = 0.7),并且将在小到中等地震中最大限度地减少非结构性和业务中断损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Repairing SLS anomalies in NZ seismic code to reduce earthquake losses
The 1992 advent of the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) was for the purpose of eliminating structural and non-structural damage to buildings subjected to small or moderate Earthquakes (EQs). This goal complimented the prior 1976 goal of minimising life-loss due to large Ultimate Limit State (ULS) EQs. However, moderate direct damage and large indirect losses occurred to many medium-rise pre-2004’ precast concrete-framed buildings in Christchurch and Wellington CBDs as a result of small or moderate EQ ground motions in 2010 [1-3], 2013 and 2016 [4-6.] A precedence for a proposed SLS level 1 upgrade was set when Christchurch upgraded to a 50 year recurrence SLS following the 2010-2011 earthquakes [7]. Many modern buildings have been engineered with little regard for SLS [8] nor the goal of eliminating disruption from moderate EQs [9, 10]. The proliferation of SLS building damage and large indirect losses [1] have arisen in NZ primarily because of the specification of a too-small SLS demand which corresponds to a ground motion with 25 year return period and because the Structural Performance factor (Sp) is specified in NZ as 0.7 for SLS, which results in a further 30% reduction of the SLS demand. There are also vulnerabilities in ‘pre-2004’ precast floor-to-beam connection detailing [3]. Cost-benefit analyses show that these building losses may be relieved by first correcting the precast vulnerabilities, then using a SLS limit of 50 year (rather than the current 25 year) return period and/or by specifying Sp = 1. The thus proposed ‘maxi-50 year SLS’ with a drift limit of 0.25%, has the same elastic seismic demand as the 100 year international SLS event [10, 11] (with Sp = 0.7) and will minimise non-structural and business disruption losses in small to moderate earthquakes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Integrated Wellington region land transport resilience study Improving Wellington region’s resilience through integrated infrastructure resilience investments ‘End to end’ linkage structure for integrated impact assessment of infrastructure networks under natural hazards Strengthening heritage tunnels to enhance the resilience of Wellington’s transport network Resilience of infrastructure networks
×
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