SEISMIC RESILIENCE
Table 3. Changes to industry practice since 2011. Approximate
Preliminary Design Date
Pre-2011 2014
Nothing Nothing
Nothing Nothing
Nothing
Performance Specification
Developed Design
Detailed Design
Construction Phase Design
Nothing 2D Design
Construction Sporadic Construction
2016
Nothing
Nothing
2D Design
2D Design
Construction
2018
Nothing
Strategy
3D Design
3D Design
Construction
2022
Strategy
3D Design
3D Design
3D Design
Construction
modularised approaches, driven primarily by construction strategies. We see the seismic restraint discipline
playing a key role as ‘in-ceiling architect’ going forward. We also expect that seismic restraint will be at the forefront of pushing BIM as a deliverable. As the design methodology for seismic restraint has developed in a primarily BIM – rather than paper based – environment, it is feasible to imagine this progressing to a purely model based deliverable in the future.
Assessment of non-structural elements The seismic assessment of structures is well established in New Zealand, with a comprehensive and well used methodology. The assessment of non- structural elements is, by contrast a notably less established area.
Much of the current guidance stems
from the Seismic Assessment Guidelines, section C10. This is focuses on heavy elements, whose complete dislodgement or overturning can create a significant life safety hazard. However, it does not provide direct guidance for lighter systems, which can still have substantial impacts, such as elements whose movement and damage renders an area (or the whole building) unusable, or elements where movement can impact on the delivery of critical services. When considering healthcare facilities,
the operational continuity (SLS2) case can be just as critical as the life safety (ULS) case. As this relates to the functionality of a building after a seismic event, it requires the performance of services critical to that continued operation to be understood. Building services restraint systems contain an
order of magnitude more individual elements than primary structural systems, making the assessment of individual elements an impractical exercise. Assessments undertaken by Beca, and
by other engineering consultancies, on existing hospital buildings have started approaching non-structural element assessment using qualitative approaches to assess functional continuity risk. This is in contrast to the quantitative approach to risk used for structures, and also in contrast to the compliance-based approach used for most new designs. The approach aims to qualitatively
assess the following aspects: l Vulnerability: Relative likelihood of system losing functionality following an earthquake.
l Consequence: Impact of loss of functionality on post-earthquake operations.
Performance Specification
Figure 1. 86 IFHE DIGEST 2024
2D Mark-ups
3D Modelling
Coordinated 3D Modelling
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
