{"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}
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.