@mastersthesis {bnh-8097, title = {Collapse behaviour of limited ductile high-strength RC columns under multidirectional earthquake actions}, volume = {Doctor of Philosophy}, year = {2020}, school = {Swinburne University of Technology}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Raza (2020) employed experimental, numerical and empirical methods to develop a fundamental understanding of the collapse behaviour of limited ductile high-strength reinforced concrete columns, designed as per Australian concrete standard, under multidirectional earthquake loading. The adequacy of the requirements of the concrete design standard in Australia was assessed and adequate design recommendations were proposed to ensure collapse prevention of such columns in a major earthquake event. The research outcomes are expected to have important implications for the earthquake safety of building stocks in Australia and globally.

}, keywords = {actions, Behaviour, Collapse, ductile, earthquake, high-strength RC columns, limited, multidirectional}, doi = {http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/456529}, url = {https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/items/10dd9ce0-2aa2-4a20-b78b-dd5695225dbe/1/}, author = {Saim Raza} } @conference {bnh-6388, title = {How Safe is Safe Enough? Melbourne Case Study}, booktitle = {Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2019 Conference}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, address = {Newcastle}, abstract = {

Residual risk exists in our buildings even if they were designed in conformance with modern codes of practice. The risk of being killed by earthquakes in Melbourne was discussed in the AEES 2018 Conference (Tsang et al. 2018a). This follow-up paper attempts to address a fundamental question in seismic design: {\textquotedblleft}How Safe is Safe Enough?{\textquotedblright} Various approaches have been implemented or proposed in the last decade for setting risk-targeted performance requirements for seismic design. A target collapse risk limit for a single building may be considered very low by some; however, the aggregated risk for society could become significant, especially for a metropolitan city like Melbourne. This paper introduces an approach proposed by the authors (refer Tsang et al. 2019for full details and discussion)for evaluating the adequacy of existing code level for collapse prevention and life safety by comparing societal risk functions based on regional earthquake loss modelling with a proposed regulatory requirement that aims to limit the earthquake mortality rate to {\textquotedblleft}as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP){\textquotedblright}. The proposed approach is then applied to Melbourne in a case study. The results show that the earthquake fatality risk for society appears to be unacceptable.

}, keywords = {building, Collapse, earthquake, Earthquake fatality, F-N function, Societal risk}, url = {https://aees.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/66-Hing-Ho-Tsang.pdf}, author = {Hing-Ho Tsang and James Daniell and Friedemann Wenzel and John Wilson} } @article {bnh-6395, title = {The potential role of the commonwealth in responding to catastrophic disasters}, number = {530}, year = {2019}, month = {05/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

he research question posed, and considered in this paper, is {\textquoteleft}in the absence of legislation, what is the role in, and more importantly what power might the Commonwealth have, when responding and recovering from a catastrophic disaster? Currently the Commonwealth has no overarching or specific counter-disaster legislation.\  This paper argues that even in the absence of legislation there is Commonwealth power to respond to emergencies within the areas of Commonwealth responsibility.\  Further there is an inherent power to deal with catastrophic disasters vested in the Crown as part of the prerogative power of the Crown and now incorporated into the Executive Power of the Commonwealth.\  Exactly what constitutes a {\textquoteleft}catastrophic disaster{\textquoteright} would be open to debate and, in the absence of legislation, may be the subject of judicial challenge. It is argued that a disaster where a state government is overwhelmed so that the state itself is at risk of collapse and there is no effective state government would be a national catastrophic disaster that would justify Commonwealth intervention in the affairs of the state in order to restore effective state government.\  What disaster, short of the collapse of state government, would be sufficient for direct Commonwealth action cannot be conclusively defined.\  \ 
In the absence of legislation and a truly catastrophic event, the Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s authority to exercise national leadership and coordinate Commonwealth, state and private assets will depend on good will and cooperation.\  The extent of the Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s executive power cannot be identified until the circumstances of the particular disaster have been identified.
Failing to define, in legislation, the role and power of the Commonwealth will leave the Commonwealth to {\textquoteleft}cope ugly{\textquoteright} with any particular catastrophe.\  That may be acceptable as it will leave the Commonwealth with adaptive flexibility. It has however been a consistent recommendation of commentators that the Commonwealth should legislate to ensure that the Commonwealth is able to cope with an inevitable catastrophe.\  \ 
The absence of legislation makes it impossible to define, except in the most generic terms, what the Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s powers are.

}, keywords = {Cascading Events, Collapse, Disaster management, Emergency management, Fire, hazards}, issn = {530}, author = {Michael Eburn and Cameron Moore and Andrew Gissing} } @article {bnh-6141, title = {A universal approach for evaluating earthquake safety level based on societal fatality risk}, journal = {Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering}, year = {2019}, month = {10/2019}, pages = {1-24}, abstract = {

Residual risk exists in our buildings even if they were designed in conformance with modern codes of practice. Various approaches have been implemented or proposed in the last decade for setting risk-based performance requirements for seismic design of building structures. However, there is insufficient consideration about the aggregated risk for society, which could be significant especially for a densely populated metropolitan city. This paper introduces a rational and universal approach for evaluating the adequacy of structural safety requirements by comparing societal risk functions based on probabilistic loss assessment with a proposed regulatory requirement that aims to limit the mortality rate to {\textquotedblleft}as low as reasonably practicable\ (ALARP){\textquotedblright}. The proposed approach is then applied to Melbourne, Australia, in a case study, which shows that the earthquake fatality risk for the society appears to be unacceptable. The outcome can be used for justification of a seismic retrofitting policy or a required change of the design code level. The proposed scheme is also applicable to other natural hazards and for safety engineering applications generally.

}, keywords = {Building structure, Collapse, Earthquake fatality, F{\textendash}N, Seismic safety, Societal risk}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00727-9}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10518-019-00727-9}, author = {Hing-Ho Tsang and James Daniell and Friedemann Wenzel and John Wilson} }