DOCSLIB.ORG

Securing of Unreinforced Masonry Parapets and Facades – from Fundamental Research to National Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Securing of Unreinforced Masonry Parapets and Facades – from Fundamental Research to National Policy MASONRY TODAY AND TOMORROW 11 - 14 February, 2018 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA www.10amc.com SECURING OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY PARAPETS AND FACADES – FROM FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH TO NATIONAL POLICY J.M. Ingham1, D. Dizhur2, M. Giaretton3, K.Q. Walsh4, H. Derakhshan5, R. Jafarzadeh6, M.C. Griffith7 and M.J. Masia8 1 Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, [email protected] 2 Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, [email protected] 3 Post-doctoral Researcher, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, [email protected] 4 Assistant Professor of Practice, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, United States; Senior Structural Engineer, Frost Engineering and Consulting, Mishawaka, Indiana, United States, [email protected] 5 Post-doctoral Researcher, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, [email protected] 6 Engineer, Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142, New Zealand, [email protected] 7 Professor, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, [email protected] 8 Associate Professor, Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia, [email protected] The study of unreinforced masonry buildings and their performance in earthquakes is a topic that has led to strong Australasian collaboration amongst masonry researchers over the last decade, that has resulted in significant advances in knowledge and empirical evidence, comprehensive capture of post-earthquake ‘perishable data’, the development of new numerical assessment and design procedures, and the training of a new generation of masonry researchers. These efforts have significantly influenced national policy and professional practice, particularly in New Zealand. A chronology of these events is reported. Keywords: Unreinforced masonry, parapet, façade, legislation 1 INTRODUCTION Since the time of European settlement, New Zealand has a sustained history of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings having performed poorly in large earthquakes, with several notable examples from the mid-1800s and early 1900s shown in Figure 1. Although less seismically active, Australia also has a notable history of earthquakes having caused damage to URM buildings (see Figure 2). From the mid-1970s through until today research has been undertaken in New Zealand and Australia that has assisted in framing national policy and practice on the seismic assessment and improvement of URM buildings, with some of this research reviewed herein. (a) 1848 MW 7.8 Marlborough earthquake (b) 1929 MW 7.8 Murchison earthquake (source: http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/historic- (source: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/detail/?id=42847&recordNum=4& earthquakes/top-nz/quake-01.html) q=earthquake&f=tapuhigroupref%24PAColl-3051&s=a&l=mi) Figure 1: The poor performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in past New Zealand earthquakes (magnitude data sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_New_Zealand) 2 (c) 1901 ML 6.8 Cheviot earthquake (d) 1931 MW 7.8 Hawke’s Bay (Source: http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/photos/disc5/img earthquake 0067.asp) (Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/historic- earthquakes/8/1) Figure FRQWLQXHG : The poor performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in past New Zealand earthquakes (magnitude data sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_earthquakes_in_New_Zealand) (a) 1989 ML 5.6 Newcastle, NSW (b) 2010 MW 5.2 Kalgoorlie- earthquake Boulder, WA earthquake Figure : The poor performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in past Australian earthquakes (magnitude data sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Newcastle_earthquake and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Kalgoorlie-Boulder_earthquake) HONOURING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROFESSOR NIGEL PRIESTLEY Between 1974 and 1985 Professor Nigel Priestley undertook several landmark studies in New Zealand on clay brick masonry, first at the Ministry of Works Central Laboratories and then at the University of Canterbury, commencing with an investigation of reinforced clay brick masonry walls (Priestley and Bridgeman 1974) in collaboration with the New Zealand Pottery and Ceramics Research Association. In 1979 Nigel again collaborated with researchers from the New Zealand Pottery and Ceramics Research Association to investigate the dynamic performance of brick masonry veneer panels (Priestley et al. 1979). The 1979 study was motivated by the poor 3 reputation of unreinforced masonry veneers when subjected to earthquakes, with much of this reputation being attributed to the failure of brick masonry facades and walls during the 1931 Napier and the 1968 Inangahua earthquakes. Seven unreinforced and two reinforced clay brick masonry veneer walls tied to conventional timber-frame backings were subjected to out-of-plane sinusoidal accelerations in the appropriate frequency range imitating earthquake loading, see Figure 3, where the stud spacing, veneer-tie type and the initial distribution of pre-formed cracking were the main variables. Out-of-plane face loading was specifically considered because the draft Code of Practice for light timber frame construction required the entire in-plane load demands to be carried by the timber frame bracing to which the masonry veneer wall is fixed. From this testing, it was concluded that when unreinforced masonry veneers were built to the specifications prescribed in the draft Code of Practice, acceptable response could be expected for earthquake loading levels in excess of those expected for the highest seismic zone in New Zealand. Furthermore, it was found that pre- formed horizontal or diagonal panel cracking had little or no apparent influence on the ultimate performance of the veneers. Figure : Test set-up for out-of-plane dynamic loading of clay brick masonry veneer walls (Priestley et al. 1979) In 1985 Nigel added a new dimension to his masonry research by investigating the out-of-plane response of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls (Priestley 1985). This research was focused on assessing the earthquake characteristics of existing URM walls, rather than the design of new reinforced masonry buildings, and Nigel commented that: “the response of unreinforced masonry walls to out-of-plane (face load) seismic excitation is one of the most complex and ill-understood areas of seismic analysis”. It is noted that the elastic analysis technique that was commonly applied at that time was focused on masonry stress levels that were “rather insignificant for unreinforced masonry”, resulting in 4 excessively conservative results, and that the seismic capacity of URM walls responding out-of- plane is instead governed by stability and energy considerations. Load paths within unreinforced masonry buildings were discussed, as was the influence of flexible diaphragms. The conditions at wall failure were presented in terms of displacements necessary to cause instability, see Figure 4, and it was recommended that dynamic testing and corresponding analysis be undertaken to further refine the presented methodology for assessment. It was noted that the walls in the upper levels of unreinforced masonry buildings were likely to be most critical, and that adequately securing the walls to diaphragms is an essential step for ensuring satisfactory earthquake performance of face- loaded URM walls. Figure : Consideration of seismic loading and out-of-plane wall stability for unreinforced masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms (Priestley, 1985) SEISMIC RETROFIT SOLUTIONS PROJECT Between the mid-1980s and 2004 there was a period in New Zealand of roughly two decades where little formal research attention was devoted to the seismic performance of URM buildings. However, in 2004 researchers at the University of Auckland commenced a 6-year study on the earthquake response of URM buildings, with the ambitious goal of developing methodologies for detailed seismic assessment and retrofit. The study began with efforts to count and architecturally characterise the national inventory of URM buildings (Russell and Ingham, 2010), gain an understanding of representative material characteristics for the existing New Zealand URM building stock (Almesfer et al. 2014; Lumantarna et al. 2014a,b; Dizhur et al. 2016, 2017), do structural testing on URM sub-assemblages (Derakhshan et al. 2103; Dizhur and Ingham 2103; Dizhur et al. 2013; Lin 2016; Mahmood and Ingham 2011; Ismail et al. 2011; Ismail and Ingham 2012a,b, 2016; Wilson et al. 2014a) and undertake both lab and field studies on larger test specimens representative of real buildings (Giongo et al. 2013, 2015; Wilson et al. 2014b; Knox et al. 2017; Oyarzo-Vera et al. 2017). These efforts concluded in September 2010 with the release of a draft guidance document for professional engineers on how to undertake detailed seismic assessment and improvement of URM buildings. 5 THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE The first event in the Canterbury earthquake sequence occurred on 4 September 2010. Researchers from the University Auckland collaborated with colleagues from Adelaide and Newcastle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake of 22 February 2011
    THE MW 6.3 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE OF 22 FEBRUARY 2011 A FIELD REPORT BY EEFIT THE CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE OF 22 FEBRUARY 2011 A FIELD REPORT BY EEFIT Sean Wilkinson Matthew Free Damian Grant David Boon Sarah Paganoni Anna Mason Elizabeth Williams Stuart Fraser Jenny Haskell Earthquake Field Investigation Team Institution of Structural Engineers 47 - 58 Bastwick Street London EC1V 3PS Tel 0207235 4535 Fax 0207235 4294 Email: [email protected] June 2011 The Mw 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake of 22 February 2011 1 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. REGIONAL TECTONIC AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING 6 3. SEISMOLOGICAL ASPECTS 12 4. NEW ZEALAND BUILDING STOCK AND DESIGN PRACTICE 25 5. PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 32 6. PERFORMANCE OF LIFELINES 53 7. GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS 62 8. DISASTER MANAGEMENT 96 9. ECONOMIC LOSSES AND INSURANCE 108 10. CONCLUSIONS 110 11. REFERENCES 112 APPENDIX A: DETAILED RESIDENTIAL DAMAGE SURVEY 117 The Mw 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake of 22 February 2011 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to express their thanks to the many individuals and organisations that have assisted with the EEFIT mission to Christchurch and in the preparation of this report. We thank Arup for enabling Matthew Free to attend this mission and the British Geological Survey for allowing David Boon to attend. We would also like to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for providing funding for Sean Wilkinson, Damian Grant, Elizabeth Paganoni and Sarah Paganoni to join the team. Their continued support in enabling UK academics to witness the aftermath of earthquakes and the effects on structures and the communities they serve is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Number 19 2005 - 2006 06 2005 Departmental Staff * - Emeritus Professors
    CE News Number 19 2005 - 2006 06 2005 Departmental Staff * - Emeritus professors Academic/Research Staff Technical and General Staff Chris Allington : Structural concrete Ray Allan : Fabrication John Berrill : Geomechanics, engineering seismology Colin Bliss : Fabrication Lis Bowman : Geomechanics Melody Callahan : Graphics, publicity, webmistress Andy Buchanan : Timber and fire engineering Peter Coursey : Computer and electronics technician Des Bull: Structural concrete design, earthquake engineering Nigel Dixon : Structures laboratory Athol Carr : Structural dynamics, finite element analysis Grant Dunlop : Fire engineering laboratory Tom Cochrane : Natural resources engineering Siale Faitotonu : Geomechanical laboratory Misko Cubrinovski : Geomechanics Frank Greenslade : Transport laboratory Erica Dalziell : Risk, systems Gary Harvey : Concrete laboratory Andre Dantas : Transport planning, GIS Brandon Hutchison : Computer analyst Mark Davidson : Fluid mechanics David MacPherson : Technical Services Mgr, Environmental eng. laboratory Roger Dawe : Surveying Russell McConchie : Fabrication and testing Bruce Deam : Earthquake and timber engineering John Maley : Structures laboratory Rajesh Dhakal : Structural engineering Richard Newton : Electronics workshop Charley Fleischmann : Fire engineering Tim Perigo : Structures laboratory Massimo Fragiacomo : Timber engineering Alan Poynter : Model structures laboratory Bruce Hunt : Fluid mechanics, groundwater flow Ian Sheppard : Fluids laboratory Glen Koorey : Transport and traffic engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Observations and Implications of Damage from the Magnitude Mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake of 22Nd February 2011
    Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript: Observations of Damage From Mw 6 Christchurch earthquake_revision1.docClick here to view linked References OBSERVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGE FROM THE MAGNITUDE MW 6.3 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE OF 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 Sean Wilkinson, Damian Grant, Elizabeth Williams, Sara Paganoni, Stuart Fraser, David Boon, Anna Mason, Matthew Free ABSTRACT This paper describes the observations made by a reconnaissance team following the 22nd February 2011, Mw 6.3, Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake (GNS Science; 2011). The team comprised of members of the UK based Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT) who spent five days collecting observations on damage resulting from the earthquake. Although the magnitude of this earthquake was not particularly high (Mw 6.3), the shallow focus and close proximity resulted in locally very high ground motions, widespread damage and 182 fatalities. The earthquake is also particularly notable for the widespread liquefaction it caused, landslides and rockfalls in the hills south of Christchurch, and the significant damage suffered by unreinforced masonry and historic structures. Over wide areas of central Christchurch, recorded accelerations were in excess of those required by the current New Zealand seismic loadings standard (NZS1170.5:2004): Standards New Zealand (2004), and therefore the earthquake presented a valuable opportunity to assess performance of modern buildings under code-level ground acceleration. INTRODUCTION th At 04:35 (local time) on the 4 September 2010 the province of Canterbury suffered a magnitude Mw 7.1 earthquake. The epicentre of this earthquake was approximately 40 km West of Christchurch near the town of Darfield (GNS Science, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Our Vision Uplifting Prospects for New Zealanders Through Engineering
    Our Vision Uplifting prospects for New Zealanders through engineering Annual Review 2013 Our Mission Advance the profession of engineering 2 Contents About us 4 Associated Reports 28 The Organisation 6 Registration Authority 30 Our Membership 8 Practice College 32 President's Report 11 Branches 33 Our Governing Board 12 Special and Technical Interest Groups 38 Chief Executive's Comment 13 Collaborating Technical Societies 43 Our Staff 14 Roll of Honour 47 IPENZ Foundation 49 Making our Vision a reality 16 Professional Standards 18 Financial Statements 50 Engineering Leadership 20 How we use our Financial Resources 58 Informed Engagement 22 IPENZ Foundation Financial Summary 62 Enhanced Understanding 23 Enduring Capability 24 Behind the Scenes 27 This is how we 3 progressed this year… 4 14,936 About us As at 30 September, IPENZ Membership stood at 14,936. The fields of engineering our Members are practising in are expanding and our Members are to be found all over the globe, thanks to our internationally accepted educational, professional and ethical standards. 14,936 5 ABOUT US The Organisation IPENZ is the professional body for engineers in New Zealand. The Institution operates a wide range of activities and services for engineers and the general public. The Institution of Professional 6 Engineers New Zealand Incorporated IPENZ activities and services include: (IPENZ) is the professional body for Enforcing standards The voice professional engineers, engineering Enforcing the standards of professional Providing a voice to bring an engin- technologists and engineering competence for the engineering profes- eering perspective to inform public technicians from all engineering sion, and ethical behaviour for its Mem- policy development and explain disciplines in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evolving Order the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand 1914–2014
    An Evolving Order The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand 1914–2014 Peter Cooke An Evolving Order The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand, 1914-2014 Peter Cooke Published by Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand, 158 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand © 2014 Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand The author, Peter Cooke, asserts his moral right in the work. First published 2014 This book is copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. ISBN 978-0-908960-58-3 (print copy) ISBN 978-0-908960-59-0 (electronic book) Book design by Cluster Creative CONTENTS Foreword vii Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations x Chapter 1: Beginnings 1 The arrival of New Zealand’s surveyors/engineers 1 Motivation for engineering independence 4 Local government engineers 1912 6 “One strong society” 8 Other institutions 10 Plumbers, architects, and the New Zealand Society of Civil Engineers 12 First World War 15 Chapter 2: 1920s 21 Engineers Registration Act 1924 21 Getting registered 24 The Society’s first premises 26 Perception of the Society 27 Attempting advocacy 29 What’s in a name? Early debates 30 Benevolence 32 New Zealand engineering and the Society’s history 33 Chapter 3: 1930s 37 A recurring issue: the status of engineers 37 Engineering education and qualifications 38 Earthquake engineering 40 Standardisation 42 Building bylaw 44 Professional etiquette/ethics 45 A test of ethics 47 Professional
    [Show full text]
  • NZ Geomechanics News Newsletter of the New Zealand Geotechnical Society Inc
    NZ Geomecha december 2010 issue 80 N ics News ics NZ GeomechaNics News Newsletter of the New Zealand Geotechnical Society Inc. ISSN 0111–6851 ■ Darfield (Canterbury) Earthquake Darfield www.nzgs.org ■ IAEG 2010 Congress ■ Numerical Modelling ■ Student Awards Darfield (Canterbury) ■ To RQD or not to Earthquake IAEG 2010 Congress december Numerical Modelling 2010 Student Awards issue 80 To RQD or not to RQD NZGS NZGSDeccv_OUT.indd 1 25/05/14 12:18 pm NEW ZEALAND GEOMECHANICS NEWS CONTENTS DECEMBER 2010, ISSUE 80 21 70 99 Chairman’s Corner ............................................ 2 Website Review ............................................. 69 Editorial ................................................................ 3 IAEG 2010 Congress (4-10 September 2010) .. 70 The Secretary’s News ........................................ 6 Book Reviews Geotechnical Engineering in Residual Soils .... 72 Editorial Policy .................................................... 9 Letters to the Editors .......................................... 9 Conference Reports Observations of the IAEG Congress from a Roving International Society Reports Reporter for NZGS ........................................ 73 ISRM ............................................................ 11 Conversations with IAEG Key-note Speakers .. 76 IAEG ............................................................ 13 11th IAEG Congress, NZGS Stand ................ 79 NZGS Branch Activities..................................... 14 Students at IAEG 2010 Congress ................... 81 CETANZ
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook.Pdf
    ISBN - 978-0-908960-57-6 Published by New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Inc. P.O. Box 2193, Wellington 6140, New Zealand April 2011 Conference Convenors Quincy Ma and Jason Ingham University of Auckland Scientific and Logistics Subcommittee Luke Allen Rajesh Dhakal Victoria University, Wellington University of Canterbury Carl Ashby Caroline Holden Spencer Holmes Limited GNS Science Jitendra Bothara Alessandro Palermo Beca University of Canterbury Win Clark Peter Wood NZSEE Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management Editors Quincy Ma (University of Auckland) and Bruce Deam (University of Canterbury) Printed at The Caxton Press Ltd. Welcome A Warm Welcome to Auckland and the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society On behalf of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, it is our pleasure to welcome you to Auckland and to the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. A special welcome is extended to our international guests and keynote speakers who will enrich the conference experience. We have organised an exciting programme including addresses from international practitioners, and oral and poster sessions covering a wide range of topic areas. This ninth conference in the series promises to be another important forum for the exchange of findings and experiences associated with mitigating the effects of earthquake and earthquake related hazards around the Pacific Rim. The special sessions will offer the opportunity to partake in discussions and the exchanging of knowledge between presenters and the audience. For our first time visitors to Auckland, please feel free to approach any of our conference team who will be happy to assist you with any questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report 2010/2011
    Research Report 2010/2011 Produced by Research & Innovation and Communications & External Relations, University of Canterbury Design by Communications & External Relations, University of Canterbury CD produced by Amstore Publication printed by Kalamazoo Wyatt & Wilson April 2012 ISSN 1176-8193 Cover image: University of Canterbury zoology PhD student Sara Kross. University of Canterbury Through research one is able to venture beyond the horizons into unchartered waters, unidentified fields, unseen domains, and unexplored knowledge/s to piece together the unfamiliar in the creation of new patterns; new ways of knowing; as is suggested in the Māori word for research, “rangahau”. It is through research that we can tap into our potentials and ascend to new heights; like “te piki kōtuku” (the ascending heron). The bird that partakes of the miro berry reigns in the forest. The bird that partakes of the power of knowledge has access to the world. Nōna te Ao. Mixed media (ink, watercolour) by Mere Skerrett, Waitaha, Kāti Mamoe, Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Pikiao and Ngāti Mahuta (Senior Lecturer, School of Māori, Social and Cultural Studies in Education). Research Report 2010/2011 1 Research & Innovation Connecting UC’s research with the world Research & Innovation is the first point of contact for external organisations who are interested in: discussions on how UC resources might help your organisation; assistance in accessing UC expertise and facilities, including the areas of science, engineering, education, Sara Kross, zoology PhD student business and economics, arts, and law; consulting services and contract research; opportunities to use or commercialise UC’s intellectual The New York-born student studied for her property; assistance in identifying business or investment opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT HERRICK, CHRISTOPHER KELLY. An
    ABSTRACT HERRICK, CHRISTOPHER KELLY. An Analysis of Local Out-of-Plane Buckling of Ductile Reinforced Structural Walls Due to In-Plane Loading. (Under direction of Mervyn J. Kowalsky.) Reinforced structural walls are often implemented as an effective lateral force resisting system in multi-story buildings, and despite often being referred to as “shear walls,” they are usually designed as cantilevers that deform elastically under wind loads and form a plastic hinge at their base due to seismic loadings. Past research suggests that these plastic tensile demands and subsequent load reversals cause a plastic, localized lateral instability in walls. While lateral stability is addressed by some building codes, and good engineering judgment often prevents overly slender walls, plastic buckling is rarely directly addressed in current design standards. Even where design codes attempt to prevent local lateral instability, the effectiveness of such measures has not been fully examined. In 2010 and 2011, New Zealand experienced earthquakes that damaged many structural wall buildings, and plastic buckling was observed to occur. This thesis re-examines two existing local buckling models using a range of data sources. A review of prior experimental work assesses the models' accuracy at predicting plastic buckling capacities. A parametric study on a range of walls examines the variables most influential in determining the point at which a structural wall is likely to develop lateral instability and buckle. Additionally, results from three non-linear time history analyses of buildings that experienced the 2010 and 2011 New Zealand earthquakes are presented and compared with damage observed in the field to assess each buckling model's accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Thursday, 14 April 2011
    Thursday, 14 April 2011 8:00 – 8:30 Registration L0 Foyer 8:30 – 8:50 Conference Opening F&PPA President Welcome 8:50 – 9:00 F&PPA Peter Wood, President of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Christchurch Earthquakes Summary I Session Chair: Peter Wood Seismotectonics Kelvin Berryman, GNS Science Civil Defence John Hamilton, Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management 9:00 – 10:30 Urban Search and Rescue F&PPA David Brunsdon, Kestrel Group Ground Performance Misko Cubrinovski, University of Canterbury Structural Performance John Hare, Holmes Consulting Ltd. Heritage Building Matters Win Clark, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 10:30 – 10:50 Morning Tea Christchurch Earthquakes Summary II Session Chair: David Middleton Performance of Lifelines To be advised Earthquake Commission Hugh Cowan, EQC 10:50 – 12:20 F&PPA Rebuilding (Housing and Infrastructure) Mark Binns, Fletcher Building Limited Land Remediation Sjoerd Van Ballegooy, Tonkin & Taylor Limited Question and Answer Session 12:20 – 1:05 Lunch Keynote Session Problems with Seismic Design Based on Elastic Stiffness 1: 05 – 1:45 Professor Nigel Priestley, Emeritus Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California at San Diego F&PPA Session Chair: Stefano Pampanin Christchurch Earthquake Forums Theme 1: Building Societal Resilience Theme 2: Understanding the Natural Environment Theme 3: Resilient Buildings and Infrastructure 1:50 – 3:20 Chair: David Johnston and Chair: Hannah Brackley and Chair: David Brunsdon and Ljubica Mamula-Seadon
    [Show full text]
  • Number 18 February 2005 05 2004 Departmental Staff * - Emeritus Professors
    CE News Number 18 February 2005 05 2004 Departmental Staff * - Emeritus professors Alan Nicholson Frank Greenslade Academic/Research Staff Transport planning, engineering and safety Transport laboratory Chris Allington Roger Nokes Gary Harvey Structural concrete Fluid mechanics Concrete laboratory John Berrill Aisling O’Sullivan Brandon Hutchison Geomechanics, engineering seismology Natural resources engineering Computer analyst Andy Buchanan Alessandro Palermo David MacPherson Timber and fire engineering Structural engineering Technical Services Mgr, Environmental Eng. Des Bull Bob Park* laboratory and Department Safety Officer Structural concrete design, earthquake engineering Structural engineering Russell McConchie Athol Carr David Painter Fabrication and testing Structural dynamics, finite element analysis Water resources engineering John Maley Nigel Cooke Stefano Pampanin Structures laboratory Structural engineering Structural engineering Richard Newton Erica Dalziell Tom Paulay* Electronics workshop Risk, systems Structural design Tim Perigo Andre Dantas Mofreh Saleh Structures laboratory Transport planning, GIS Transport and pavement engineering Alan Poynter Rob Davis* Michael Spearpoint Model structures laboratory Geomechanics, continuum mechanics Fire engineering Ian Sheppard Mark Davidson Bruce Steven Fluids laboratory Fluid mechanics Transport and pavement engineering Bob Wilsea-Smith Roger Dawe Alex Sutherland Fire laboratory Surveying Sediment transport, coastal engineering Stuart Toase Bruce Deam Hugh Thorpe Fabrication,
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Professors Paulay, Park and Priestley
    REMEMBERING PROFESSORS PAULAY, PARK AND PRIESTLEY JASON INGHAM 1, DES BULL 2, KIMBERLEY TWIGDEN 2 1 University of Auckland 2 Holmes Consulting Group ABSTRACT Professors Tom Paulay, Bob Park and Nigel Priestley each made a massive contribution to structural seismic concrete design both in New Zealand and internationally, receiving numerous international awards and commendations for their research. Alas, all have now passed away and in this article the authors seek to honour their memory and their contribution to the New Zealand concrete industry. The reported information derives from archive material and memories from colleagues and former students, to not only explain the technical contributions of these three great men, but also the mentoring and training that they provided to a generation of civil engineers. INTRODUCTION It is quite something to realise that three of the most globally influential structural earthquake engineers of the last 50 years were New Zealanders. Tom Paulay, Robert Park, and Nigel Priestley (pictured in Figure 1) have together revolutionised the seismic design philosophy and way of practice common amongst the global engineering community, with a particular focus on reinforced concrete. Each of them received numerous awards and honours during their lifetimes and each of them had different research highlights and contributions, but a common theme across all of their work was a focus on research that could be used by the engineering industry that derived from strong academic-industry collaboration. This industry engagement was a primary factor to their success, impact and ground breaking research ideas. Tom Paulay (Reitherman Robert Park (Reitherman Nigel Priestley (Priestley 2006a) 2006a) 2015) Figure 1.
    [Show full text]