SEISMIC RESILIENCE
Table 1. Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand Assets with Seismic Assessments. High Seismic Hazard Medium Seismic Hazard Low Seismic Hazard Overall
Assessment Rating recorded No Assessment Rating recorded Totals
some of the areas where seismic assessments of hospital buildings necessarily differ from the seismic assessment guidelines, and where additional assessment is likely required. These areas include:
l Inconsistencies with how seismic assessments are applied to hospital business cases.
l Inconsistencies in assigning Importance Levels to hospitals.
l Lack of guidance on the SLS2 performance criteria for hospitals.
l Lack of guidance for assessment of non-structural elements.
l Effects of interconnectivity of buildings and infrastructure.
This report is anticipated to be the catalyst for further improvement in the understanding and improvement of New Zealand’s health infrastructure. It is expected to lead to hospital specific seismic engineering guidelines, to more comprehensive and complete assessments, and to better consideration of operational continuity. Ultimately, this should lead to a more resilient health system.
Design of new structures The Canterbury earthquake sequence resulted in a step-change in the public perception of earthquakes, and expectations of building seismic performance from building owners and occupiers.
348 100 448
78% 254 22% 169 423
60% 184 40% 183
367 This led to a number of important
changes to seismic design approaches. Most notably: l Much more widespread use of low- damage structural solutions in buildings, including seismic isolation, viscous dampers, and buckling restrained braces.
l Development of industry guidance, including the New Zealand seismic isolation design guidelines2
damage design guidelines (in development)
l Significant and ongoing research into lower damage buildings, including the quantification of losses associated with earthquakes.
l Considerable emphasis placed on improved seismic performance of both traditional structural forms, and non- structural elements.
This broader industry shift towards lower damage designs has been most evident in hospital design. Many of the hospital developments in the last decade have included seismic isolation or similar systems as part of their design. Currently, the process of designing for damage reduction is driven by the relatively general requirements of the New Zealand seismic standards to design for operational continuity.3
It is expected that,
with the establishment of seismic engineering guidelines recommended by the Seismic Resilience of Hospital Buildings report, performance objectives
Table 2. Seismic restraint of non-structural elements since 2010. Year Development
2010 Considerable increase in monitoring and enforcement of
performance specification requirements of seismic restraint of NSE by design teams and territorial authorities
2014 Engagement of specialist seismic restraint sub-consultants Need to deliver on the requirements of the NZ by contractors – initially from the USA
than fully imported options standards – from both a design and supply perspective
2015 Establishment of local suppliers and local design companies Need for more cost effective and responsive solutions providing 2D design (typically sketches) to contractors
2016 Shift from construction phase design by contractors to undertaking all or part of design during design phase by design team
Need for early phase cost certainty
Need to supply compliance documentation as part design phase
2018 Undertaking 3D modelling of services seismic restraint within Need for better coordination detailed design phase
2022 Shift toward full 3D modelling of all non-structural element support and restraint
IFHE DIGEST 2024
Increasing BIM expectations from clients and contractors for all elements
85 Driver Initial response to historic non-compliances and the low
50% 50%
786 452
1238
will become clarified and standardised, with designs likely to follow.
Design of non-structural elements While structural design for hospitals has continued its evolution to lower damage principles over the last decade, seismic restraint of non-structural elements has undergone a revolution. Prior to the Canterbury earthquakes, the seismic performance of services, ceilings, and partitions was typically performance-specified and left for contractors to address. Both the Canterbury and Kaikoura earthquakes exposed industry-wide deficiencies in the seismic performance of these elements. The industry has thus moved through a
series of rapid changes since 2010, as shown in Table 2 Changes to industry practice have
coincided with developments to the design process for non-structural elements (see Table 3). For a new design of a heavily serviced building, we would now expect a 3D- modelled seismic restraint design occurring concurrently with the broader in-ceiling design (Fig 1). Our expectation is that the
development of seismic restraint BIM models in particular will be a focus of continued development. We expect that the increased rigour
that restraint modelling brings to the in- ceiling coordination will push designs towards more regularised and
63% 37%
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98
