Search

found 171 results

Images for Information; more images...

Other, National Library of New Zealand

Site provides information for the Christchurch suburb of Redcliffs following the Feb. 22 earthquake. Includes information on basic services, local businesses, schools and community help; online request forms for people offering or needing services.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A CERA information sign on the fence in the Cathedral, placed to provide information to the public about the buildings seen from Cathedral Square. This one says "Regent Theatre: This has been demolished (see bottom left, now vacant site in photograph".

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A CERA information sign on the fence in the Cathedral Square, placed to provide information to the public about the buildings seen from Cathedral Square. This one says "Clarendon Tower: This will be demolished. Currently CERA is working towards the appointment of an accredited demolistion contractor".

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A CERA information sign on the fence in the Cathedral Square placed to provide information for the public about the buildings seen from Cathedral Square. This one says "BNZ Building: This is a dangerous building. The demolition will begin in the New Year. Once the demolition begins walking access will not be able to continue into Cathedral Square. Plans are currently underway to retrieve tenants' essential items".

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

The sequence of earthquakes that has greatly affected Christchurch and Canterbury since September 2010 has again demonstrated the need for seismic retrofit of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. Commencing in April 2011, the damage to unreinforced stone masonry buildings in Christchurch was assessed and recorded with the primary objective being to document the seismic performance of these structures, recognising that they constitute an important component of New Zealand’s heritage architecture. A damage statistics database was compiled by combining the results of safety evaluation placarding and post-earthquake inspections, and it was determined that the damage observed was consistent with observations previously made on the seismic performance of stone masonry structures in large earthquakes. Details are also given on typical building characteristics and on failure modes observed. Suggestions on appropriate seismic retrofit and remediation techniques are presented, in relation also to strengthening interventions that are typical for similar unreinforced stone masonry structures in Europe.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

In the early morning of 4th September 2010 the region of Canterbury, New Zealand, was subjected to a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. The epicentre was located near the town of Darfield, 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. This was the country’s most damaging earthquake since the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake (GeoNet, 2010). Since 4th September 2010 the region has been subjected to thousands of aftershocks, including several more damaging events such as a magnitude 6.3 aftershock on 22nd February 2011. Although of a smaller magnitude, the earthquake on 22nd February produced peak ground accelerations in the Christchurch region three times greater than the 4th September earthquake and in some cases shaking intensities greater than twice the design level (GeoNet, 2011; IPENZ, 2011). While in September 2010 most earthquake shaking damage was limited to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in February all types of buildings sustained damage. Temporary shoring and strengthening techniques applied to buildings following the Darfield earthquake were tested in February 2011. In addition, two large aftershocks occurred on 13th June 2011 (magnitudes 5.7 and 6.2), further damaging many already weakened structures. The damage to unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake has already been reported by Ingham and Griffith (2011) and Dizhur et al. (2010b). A brief review of damage from the 22nd February 2011 earthquake is presented here

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings have repeatedly been shown to perform poorly in large magnitude earthquakes, with both New Zealand and Australia having a history of past earthquakes that have resulted in fatalities due to collapsed URM buildings. A comparison is presented here of the URM building stock and the seismic vulnerability of Christchurch and Adelaide in order to demonstrate the relevance to Australian cities of observations in Christchurch resulting from the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake swarm. It is shown that the materials, architecture and hence earthquake strength of URM buildings in both countries is comparable and that Adelaide and other cities of Australia have seismic vulnerability sufficient to cause major damage to their URM buildings should a design level earthquake occur. Such an earthquake is expected to cause major building damage, and fatalities should be expected.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Surface rupture of the previously unrecognised Greendale Fault extended west-east for ~30 km across alluvial plains west of Christchurch, New Zealand, during the Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake of September 2010. Surface rupture displacement was predominantly dextral strike-slip, averaging ~2.5 m, with maxima of ~5 m. Vertical displacement was generally less than 0.75 m. The surface rupture deformation zone ranged in width from ~30 to 300 m, and comprised discrete shears, localised bulges and, primarily, horizontal dextral flexure. About a dozen buildings, mainly single-storey houses and farm sheds, were affected by surface rupture, but none collapsed, largely because most of the buildings were relatively flexible and resilient timber-framed structures and also because deformation was distributed over a relatively wide zone. There were, however, notable differences in the respective performances of the buildings. Houses with only lightly-reinforced concrete slab foundations suffered moderate to severe structural and non-structural damage. Three other buildings performed more favourably: one had a robust concrete slab foundation, another had a shallow-seated pile foundation that isolated ground deformation from the superstructure, and the third had a structural system that enabled the house to tilt and rotate as a rigid body. Roads, power lines, underground pipes, and fences were also deformed by surface fault rupture and suffered damage commensurate with the type of feature, its orientation to the fault, and the amount, sense and width of surface rupture deformation.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

On 22 February 2011，a magnitude Mw 6.3 earthquake occurred with an epicenter located near Lyttelton at about 10km from Christchurch in Canterbury region on the South Island of New Zealand (Figure 1). Since this earthquake occurred in the midst of the aftershock activity which had continued since the 4 September 2010 Darfield Earthquake occurrence, it was considered to be an aftershock of the initial earthquake. Because of the short distance to the city and the shallower depth of the epicenter, this earthquake caused more significant damage to pipelines, traffic facilities, residential houses/properties and multi-story buildings in the central business district than the September 2010 Darfield Earthquake in spite of its smaller earthquake magnitude. Unfortunately, this earthquake resulted in significant number of casualties due to the collapse of multi-story buildings and unreinforced masonry structures in the city center of Christchurch. As of 4 April, 172 casualties were reported and the final death toll is expected to be 181. While it is extremely regrettable that Christchurch suffered a terrible number of victims, civil and geotechnical engineers have this hard-to-find opportunity to learn the response of real ground from two gigantic earthquakes which occurred in less than six months from each other. From geotechnical engineering point of view, it is interesting to discuss the widespread liquefaction in natural sediments, repeated liquefaction within short period and further damage to earth structures which have been damaged in the previous earthquake. Following the earthquake, an intensive geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted to capture evidence and perishable data from this event. The team included the following members: Misko Cubrinovski (University of Canterbury, NZ, Team Leader), Susumu Yasuda (Tokyo Denki University, Japan, JGS Team Leader), Rolando Orense (University of Auckland, NZ), Kohji Tokimatsu (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan), Ryosuke Uzuoka (Tokushima University, Japan), Takashi Kiyota (University of Tokyo, Japan), Yasuyo Hosono (Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan) and Suguru Yamada (University of Tokyo, Japan).

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In order to provide information related to seismic vulnerability of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, and as a complementary investigation on innovative feasible retrofit solutions developed in the past six years at the University of Canterbury on pre-19170 reinforced concrete buildings, a frame building representative of older construction practice was tested on the shake table. The specimen, 1/2.5 scale, consists of two 3-storey 2-bay asymmetric frames in parallel, one interior and one exterior, jointed together by transverse beams and floor slabs. The as-built (benchmark) specimen was first tested under increasing ground motion amplitudes using records from Loma Prieta Earthquake (California, 1989) and suffered significant damage at the upper floor, most of it due to lap splices failure. As a consequence, in a second stage, the specimen was repaired and modified by removing the concrete in the lap splice region, welding the column longitudinal bars, replacing the removed concrete with structural mortar, and injecting cracks with epoxy resin. The modified as-built specimen was then tested using data recorded during Darfield (New Zealand, 2010) and Maule (Chile, 2010) Earthquakes, with whom the specimen showed remarkably different responses attributed to the main variation in frequency content and duration. In this contribution, the seismic performance of the three series of experiments are presented and compared.