Search

found 5904 results

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph of the earthquake damage to the Iconic Bar and the former Christchurch City Council offices on Manchester Street. The outer walls of the Council offices and the top storey of Iconic have collapsed, exposing the insides of the buildings. The bricks and other rubble have been cleared from the footpath in front. USAR codes have been spray-painted next to the entrance of Iconic.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph of the earthquake-damaged Observatory tower at the Christchurch Arts Centre. The photograph was taken using a cellphone camera. The top of the tower collapsed during the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The rubble from the tower has been cleared and a tarpaulin has been placed over the top of the broken tower. Tyres have been placed on the tarpaulin to hold it down. A temporary roof has also been constructed over the tower to keep out the rain.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph of campervans parked in Hagley Park. The campervans served as temporary accommodation for emergency management personnel who travelled to Christchurch after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010-2011 (CES) induced widespread liquefaction in many parts of Christchurch city. Liquefaction was more commonly observed in the eastern suburbs and along the Avon River where the soils were characterised by thick sandy deposits with a shallow water table. On the other hand, suburbs to the north, west and south of the CBD (e.g. Riccarton, Papanui) exhibited less severe to no liquefaction. These soils were more commonly characterised by inter-layered liquefiable and non-liquefiable deposits. As part of a related large-scale study of the performance of Christchurch soils during the CES, detailed borehole data including CPT, Vs and Vp have been collected for 55 sites in Christchurch. For this subset of Christchurch sites, predictions of liquefaction triggering using the simplified method (Boulanger & Idriss, 2014) indicated that liquefaction was over-predicted for 94% of sites that did not manifest liquefaction during the CES, and under-predicted for 50% of sites that did manifest liquefaction. The focus of this study was to investigate these discrepancies between prediction and observation. To assess if these discrepancies were due to soil-layer interaction and to determine the effect that soil stratification has on the develop-ment of liquefaction and the system response of soil deposits.