Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lessons for loss assessment from the Canterbury earthquakes: a 22-storey building

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By comparing damage and loss predictions with those observed for a 22-storey steel building with eccentrically based frames (EBF) that underwent the Canterbury earthquakes, this paper gauges the performance and explores the benefits of applying the PEER performance-based earthquake engineering assessment procedure. The study shows that steel EBF repair costs are significantly affected by the work required to remove and reinstate non-structural elements in order to access the steel structure. It is therefore concluded that the location of non-structural elements relative to structural elements should be considered in the seismic design of new buildings and within loss assessment procedures. Two retrofit and/or rehabilitation options are considered for the building; improving the deformation capacity of drywall partitions, and re-detailing the exterior cladding connections to better accommodate structural deformations. The findings show that, for the specific building, improving the drywall partitions should lead to a reduction in expected annual losses whereas the use of improved detailing for the precast concrete cladding would not. This suggests a general strategy for cost-effective decisions might be to focus on increasing the performance of the most vulnerable components (plasterboard partition walls, in this case). An examination of the potential effects of aftershocks to the selection of cost-effective options adds support to this conclusion. Aftershocks are found to increase the predicted losses by around 10%, emphasizing the need to consider aftershocks when assessing expected annual losses due to earthquakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Araya-Letelier G Miranda E (2012). Novel sliding/frictional connections for improved seismic performance of gypsum wallboard partitions, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 0–9.

  • Arifin FA (2018). Identification of cost-effective retrofit and/or rehabilitation strategies for steel buildings, Master’s Thesis, University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.

  • Baird A (2014). Seismic performance of precast concrete cladding systems, Master’s Thesis, University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.

  • Bradley BA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 39(12):1321–1342

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr A (2017) 3D Ruaumoko: inelastic three-dimensional dynamic analysis program. University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton C, Bruneau M, MacRae G, Leon R, Fussell A (2011) Steel structures damage from the Christchurch earthquake series of 2010 and 2011. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44(4):297–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Corus New Zealand (2005) ComFlor 80 composite floor decking. Auckland, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Deierlein GG, Krawinkler H, Cornell CA (2003) A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. Pacific Conference on Earthq Eng 273:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhakal RP, Pourali A, Saha SK (2016) Simplified Seismic Loss Functions for Suspended Ceilings and Drywall Partitions. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 49(1):64–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012). “FEMA P-58.1: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1 – Methodology”. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA, 340 pp.

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012) FEMA P-58.3: seismic performance assessment of buildings – PACT. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA, CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  • Filiatrault A, Sullivan TJ (2014) Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components: the next frontier of earthquake engineering. Earthq Eng Eng Vibrat 13(1):17–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner S (2012) Post-earthquake assessment detailed engineering evaluation and repair recommendations. Christchurch City Council, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner S, Clifton GC, MacRae GA (2013) Performance damage assessment and repair of a multistorey eccentrically braced framed building following the Christchurch earthquake series . Steel Innovations Conference 2013:21–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H (2017) Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(3):369–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2008) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves. Nat Hazards 45(1):33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khakurel S, Dhakal RP, Yeow TZ, Saha SK (2020) Performance group weighting factors for rapid seismic loss estimation of buildings of different usage. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019901311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q, Ellingwood BR (2007) Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under main shock–aftershock earthquake sequences. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(3):405–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrani-Reiser J (2007) An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based earthquake engineering. California Institute of Technology, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2016) Fragility functions for eccentrically braced steel frame structures. Earthq Struct 10(2):367–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly GJ, Monteiro R, Nafeh AMB, Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM (2020) Displacement-based framework for simplified seismic loss assessment. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1730272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okazaki T, Nakashima M, Suita K, Matusmiya T (2007) Interaction between cladding and structural frame observed in a full-scale steel building test. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(1):35–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV, Au SK, Mizukoshi K, Miyamura M, Ishida H, Moroi T, Tsukada Y, Masuda M (2002) Effect of seismic risk on lifetime property values. Earthq Spectra 20(4):1211–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retamales R, Davies RD, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A (2011) Experimental seismic evaluation, model parameterization and effects of cold-formed steel-framed gypsum partition walls on the seismic performance of an essential facility, Technical Report MCEER-11-0005. Buffalo, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Standards New Zealand. (1997). "NZS3404:Part 1&2:1997: Steel structures standard (Incorporating amendment 1 and 2)”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 396 & 283 pp.

  • Standards New Zealand (2004) NZS1170.5:2004: Structural design actions-Part 5: earthquake actions-New Zealand. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, p 76

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EL, Habibullah A (2002) Structural analysis program: SAP 2000. Computer and Structures Inc., California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009) Building life-cycle cost analysis due to mainshock and aftershock occurrences. Struct Saf 31(5):396–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeow TZ, Sullivan TJ, Elwood KJ (2018a) Evaluation of fragility functions with potential relevance for use in New Zealand. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 51(3):127–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeow TZ, Orumiyehei A, Sullivan TJ, MacRae GA, Clifton GC, Elwood KJ (2018b) Seismic performance of steel friction connections considering direct-repair costs. Bull Earthq Eng 16(12):5963–5993

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is a result of a Master’s Thesis research (Arifin 2017) which was funded by the Indonesian Government through Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan. The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support offered by The International Collaborative Research program of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University under Project Number 28W-03 (PI: Timothy Sullivan). This project was (partially) supported by QuakeCoRE, a New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission-funded Centre. This is QuakeCoRE publication number 0635.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Fransiscus Asisi Arifin, Timothy J. Sullivan & Gregory MacRae

  2. University of Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan

    Masahiro Kurata

  3. Mitsubishi Corporation Urban Development, Tokyo, Japan

    Tadahisa Takeda

Authors
  1. Fransiscus Asisi Arifin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy J. Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory MacRae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masahiro Kurata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tadahisa Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fransiscus Asisi Arifin.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arifin, F.A., Sullivan, T.J., MacRae, G. et al. Lessons for loss assessment from the Canterbury earthquakes: a 22-storey building. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 2081–2104 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01055-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01055-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation