Flagship Leader (2017): Ken Elwood (k.elwood@auckland.ac.nz )
Flagship Leader (2018): Tim Sullivan (timothy.sullivan@canterbury.ac.nz )
Flagship Deputy:
Flagship Summary
This flagship will seek a new design paradigm whereby reparability and damage-control is explicitly considered in the design process. This requires the development of new low-damage systems, quantification of the reparability (cost and time) of conventional systems, and design process methodologies for implementation. This flagship will also result in important changes to implementation standards; which provide the mainstream technology transfer mechanism given that all future designs must satisfy these standards. Significant economic benefits are also expected through both reductions in future earthquake losses and increased international competitiveness of New Zealand engineering consultants and marketing of new seismic protective devices.
The key thrust areas are:
- Development of new technologies for buildings (structural and non-structural) to control damage in future events and enable rapid recovery.
- Development of procedures to reliably assess and communicate the performance of new and conventional systems, including consideration of residual capacity of earthquake-damaged infrastructure and cost-effective repair techniques.
- Integration of reparability performance objectives into implementation standards and alignment with insurance policies optimised for rapid recovery.
Thrust Areas | Key tasks/Deliverables | Start | Finish |
FP4.1 New technologies for buildings | 1. Develop low damage systems for buildings (with focus on whole-of-building performance) including guidance for their design and construction. | 1/01/2016 | 31/12/2020 |
2. Development of a risk-targeted design methodology for new systems. | 1/01/2018 | 31/12/2020 | |
FP4.2 Performance objectives and reparability of systems | 1. Develop methodology for assessing residual capacity of building structures (generalised and material specific) | 1/01/2016 | 31/12/2016 |
2. Use of large-scale test results for validation of models to assess performance (including residual capacity and repair techniques) | 1/01/2018 | 31/12/2020 | |
3. Develop improved means of considering reparability within the performance assessment of new and conventional buildings systems | 1/01/2018 | 31/12/2020 | |
4. Develop alternative repair strategies for existing structures considering advanced performance measures | 1/01/2018 | 31/12/2020 | |
FP4.3 Implementation | 1. Identify means (economic, regulatory, etc) to implementation of low-damage systems | 1/01/2016 | 31/12/2020 |
2. Propose alternative methods to assess performance (economic or other relevant reparability performance objectives) of traditional building solutions with that of low-damage systems | 1/01/2017 | 31/12/2020 |
Opportunity
...
Earthquake resilience requires a built environment that not only protects citizens from death and injury, but also enables communities to return to the norms of everyday life soon after a major earthquake. In contrast, for example, current NZ and international building codes focus only on achieving “life safety” performance when a building is subjected to a major earthquake, and do not provide any assurance infrastructure will be repairable afterwards. After the Canterbury Earthquakes with approximately 70% of buildings in the CBD have been demolished, it is time for a new design paradigm whereby reparability or damage-control is explicitly considered in the design process. This requires both the development of new low damage systems and quantification of the reparability (cost and time) of conventional systems.
...