No abstract

This paper argues that the increasing international salience of homelessness can be partially explained by reference to the revanchist thesis (involving processes of coerced exclusion and abjection), but the situation on the ground is more complex. It reports on interviews with 18 representatives of 11 homelessness service providers in one city in England. As Cloke et al. found, these providers tended to be either larger, more ‘professional’, ‘insider’ services or smaller, more ‘amateur’, ‘outsider’ services. However, this does not mean that the former were necessarily more revanchist and the latter less so. Rather, the actions of both types of organisation could, in some cases, be construed as both advancing and counteracting a revanchist project.

This paper presents various aspects of the preliminary damage observations caused by ground motions in the Marlborough region following the Mw6.6 Lake Grassmere earthquake on 16 August 2013. To emphasize the severity of the ground shaking, the observed pseudo-acceleration response spectra are compared to those from the 21 July 2013 Mw6.5 Cook Strait earthquake and the NZS1170.5:2004 design spectrum. The near-source damage to State Highway 1 roads, bridges and buildings is presented within. Stainless steel wine storage tanks showed various damage states that were consistent with observations from previous earthquake events. The performance of wine tanks and other winemaking infrastructure are discussed with future design considerations. Eleven water storage dams within 12 kilometres of the earthquake source were inspected and preliminary observations are discussed. A 250,000 cubic metre dam located 10 kilometres southwest of Seddon suffered moderate damage following the 21 July event while significant further damage was sustained following the 16 August event and emergency earthworks were undertaken to reduce the risk of dam failure (to those living downstream). The performance of residential housing in rural townships of Seddon and Ward was satisfactory with respect to preserving life safety however there was moderate levels of damage which are presented within. Post-earthquake business disruption was minimal as commercial buildings in the Blenheim central business district sustained either minor or no damage.

Nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA), or so-called "nonlinear time history analysis", is adopted by practicing structural engineers who implement performance-based seismic design and/or assessment procedures. One important aspect in obtaining reliable output from the NLRHA procedure is the input ground motion records. The underlying intention of ground motion selection and amplitude-scaling procedures is to ensure the input for NLRHA is representative of the ground shaking hazard level, for a given site and structure.The purpose of this paper is to highlight the salient limitations of the ground motion selection and scaling requirements in Sections 5.5 and 6.4 of the New Zealand (NZ) loading standard NZS 1170.5 (2004). From a NZ regulatory perspective; there is no specific framework for seismic hazard analysis and ground motion selection (thus self-regulation is the current norm). In contrast, NZS 1170.5 contains many prescriptive requirements for scaling and applying records which are challenging to satisfy in practice. Also discussed within, there are implications for more modern guidance documents in NZ, such as the 2017 "Assessment Guidelines" for existing buildings, which cite NZS 1170.5, a standard which is at least 16 years old (draft issued in 2002). To emphasize the above issues with NZS 1170.5, this paper presents a summary of the more contemporary approaches in the US standards ASCE 7-16 (new buildings) and ASCE 41-17 (existing buildings), along with some examples of the more stringent US requirements for Tall Buildings.

Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, lightly reinforced wall structures in the Christchurch central business district were observed to form undesirable crack patterns in the plastic hinge region, while yield penetration either side of cracks and into development zones was less than predicted using empirical expressions. To some extent this structural behaviour was unexpected and has therefore demonstrated that there may be less confidence in the seismic performance of conventionally designed reinforced concrete (RC) structures than previously anticipated. This paper provides an observation-based comparison between the behaviour of RC structural components in laboratory testing and the unexpected structural behaviour of some case study buildings in Christchurch that formed concentrated inelastic deformations. The unexpected behaviour and poor overall seismic performance of ‘real’ buildings (compared to the behaviour of laboratory test specimens) was due to the localization of peak inelastic strains, which in some cases has arguably led to: (i) significantly less ductility capacity; (ii) less hysteretic energy dissipation; and (iii) the fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement. These observations have raised concerns about whether lightly reinforced wall structures can satisfy the performance objective of “Life Safety” at the Ultimate Limit State. The significance of these issues and potential consequences has prompted a review of potential problems with the testing conditions and procedures that are commonly used in seismic experimentations on RC structures. This paper attempts to revisit the principles of RC mechanics, in particular, the influence of loading history, concrete tensile strength, and the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement on the performance of real RC structures. Consideration of these issues in future research on the seismic performance of RC might improve the current confidence levels in newly designed conventional RC structures.