Date: |
24 Nov 2026, 12.00PM – 1.00PM |
duration: |
1 hr |
Location: |
Online |
CPD hours: |
1 hrs |
Cost: |
Free event |
Seismic restraint for non-structural elements (NSEs) is usually designed from individual component capacities or overseas data. Testing complete assemblies suggests that’s not the whole story.
In this 60-minute CPD webinar, presented by FDG, three presenters share what two independent test programmes found when they tested complete ModFrame® restraint assemblies:
-
Hayden Wright, Senior Structural Engineer, on quasi-static cyclic testing to the adapted FEMA 461 protocol, carried out by Holmes Solutions (now Inition)
-
Professor Tim Sullivan, University of Canterbury, on shake-table testing at UC’s Structural Engineering Laboratory, a research project led by Dr Kieran Haymes
-
Kyle Segmiller, Technical Lead at FDG, on why system-level testing matters, and how to read the two sets of results side by side
The focus is shared learning.The session ends with a panel Q&A on what the findings might mean for NZS 4219 and TS 1170.5. Attendees can request the test reports for a limited time after the webinar.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
-
Explain what quasi-static cyclic testing and shake-table testing each reveal about a restraint assembly, and why component data alone may not tell the whole story.
-
Identify the detailing and installation choices that seem to govern performance in testing: load path, wall thickness, base fixity, restraint type and fastener loss of preload.
-
Consider how test evidence might feed into everyday services design, from coordination and clearances to installation.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
Structural engineers who design, review or sign off NSE seismic restraint, and mechanical and building services engineers who specify and coordinate it, from early career to senior.
This event is run by Engineering New Zealand partner FDG. While we are pleased to share insights from our partners, Engineering New Zealand does not verify all claims and does not endorse specific products or services.
How does a seismic restraint assembly behave under cyclic displacement and simulated NZ earthquake conditions? Two independent test programmes, quasi-static and dynamic, tested complete ModFrame restraint assemblies. Hear what they found, and what it might mean for NSE restraint design.
Seismic restraint for non-structural elements (NSEs) is usually designed from individual component capacities or overseas data. Testing complete assemblies suggests that’s not the whole story.
In this 60-minute CPD webinar, presented by FDG, three presenters share what two independent test programmes found when they tested complete ModFrame® restraint assemblies:
-
Hayden Wright, Senior Structural Engineer, on quasi-static cyclic testing to the adapted FEMA 461 protocol, carried out by Holmes Solutions (now Inition)
-
Professor Tim Sullivan, University of Canterbury, on shake-table testing at UC’s Structural Engineering Laboratory, a research project led by Dr Kieran Haymes
-
Kyle Segmiller, Technical Lead at FDG, on why system-level testing matters, and how to read the two sets of results side by side
The focus is shared learning.The session ends with a panel Q&A on what the findings might mean for NZS 4219 and TS 1170.5. Attendees can request the test reports for a limited time after the webinar.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
-
Explain what quasi-static cyclic testing and shake-table testing each reveal about a restraint assembly, and why component data alone may not tell the whole story.
-
Identify the detailing and installation choices that seem to govern performance in testing: load path, wall thickness, base fixity, restraint type and fastener loss of preload.
-
Consider how test evidence might feed into everyday services design, from coordination and clearances to installation.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
Structural engineers who design, review or sign off NSE seismic restraint, and mechanical and building services engineers who specify and coordinate it, from early career to senior.
This event is run by Engineering New Zealand partner FDG. While we are pleased to share insights from our partners, Engineering New Zealand does not verify all claims and does not endorse specific products or services.
