Search

found 110 results

Images for box; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph submitted by Ginny Larsen to the QuakeStories website. The description reads, "I work for Neighbourhood Trust in Mairehau/Shirley. In April 2011 a group of people from Liberty Church came down to Christchurch to gift 100s of Easter boxes to residents – lots of treats to bring a smile.".

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A sculpture titled 'Passing Time' on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A sculpture titled 'Passing Time' on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A sculpture titled 'Passing Time' on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A sculpture titled 'Passing Time' on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Moira Fraser standing in front of the 'Passing Time' sculpture on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A plaque on the ground in front of the 'Passing Time' sculpture on the corner of Madras Street and St Asaph Street. The 'Passing Time' sculpture was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Moira Fraser standing in front of the 'Passing Time' sculpture on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Moira Fraser in front of the 'Passing Time' sculpture on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. 'Passing Time' was installed outside the CPIT Building for the 6th SCAPE (a contemporary public art programme in Christchurch) a few days prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The work features twisting boxes depicting each year between 1906 (the founding of CPIT) and 2010 (the date of the sculpture's production).

Other, UC QuakeStudies

A zip file containing the suite of SCIRT CAD customisation tools. This file contains:SCIRT CAD LISP routines (198 files)SCIRT CAD dialogue box filesa complete set of layer listsa full set of text files containing the complete list of street names in Christchurchtemplates and lists used for translating 12d outputs to useable dwg reference filesa full set of SCIRT CAD manualsThis file is not sufficient for someone to set up a full SCIRT CAD System, but it will allow a developer to select tools to incorporate with an existing system.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the University of Canterbury's Digital Media Group in their temporary office in KB02 in Kirkwood Village, the complex of prefabs set up after the earthquakes to provide temporary office and classroom space for the university. The photographer comments, "The e-learning group and the video conferencing team are now located in the Kirkwood Village at the University of Canterbury. It's a very impressive project, about 60 buildings arranged in various configurations with some used for teaching or computer labs, and others as staff offices. We will probably stay here for several years now. Nick Calvert from the video-conferencing team, Blair and Paul Nicholls behind. Nathan Gardiner with his head in a box".

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are often composed of traditional construction techniques, with poor connections between walls and diaphragms that results in poor performance when subjected to seismic actions. In these cases the application of the common equivalent static procedure is not applicable because it is not possible to assure “box like” behaviour of the structure. In such conditions the ultimate strength of the structure relies on the behaviour of the macro-elements that compose the deformation mechanisms of the whole structure. These macroelements are a single or combination of structural elements of the structure which are bonded one to each other. The Canterbury earthquake sequence was taken as a reference to estimate the most commonly occurring collapse mechanisms found in New Zealand URM buildings in order to define the most appropriate macroelements.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

Soil-structure interaction (SSI) has been widely studied during the last decades. The influence of the properties of the ground motion, the structure and the soil have been addressed. However, most of the studies in this field consider a stand-alone structure. This assumption is rarely justifiable in dense urban areas where structures are built close to one another. The dynamic interaction between adjacent structures has been studied since the early 1970s, mainly using numerical and analytical models. Even though the early works in this field have significantly contributed to understanding this problem, they commonly consider important simplifications such as assuming a linear behaviour of the structure and the soil. Some experimental works addressing adjacent structures have recently been conducted using geotechnical centrifuges and 1g shake tables. However, further research is needed to enhance the understanding of this complex phenomenon. A particular case of SSI is that of structures founded in fine loose saturated sandy soil. An iconic example was the devastating effects of liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand, during the Canterbury earthquake in 2011. In the case of adjacent structures on liquefiable soil, the experimental evidence is even scarcer. The present work addresses the dynamic interaction between adjacent structures by performing multiple experimental studies. The work starts with two-adjacent structures on a small soil container to expose the basics of the problem. Later, results from tests considering a more significant number of structures on a big laminar box filled with sand are presented. Finally, the response of adjacent structures on saturated sandy soil is addressed using a geotechnical centrifuge and a large 1g shake table. This research shows that the acceleration, lateral displacement, foundation rocking, damping ratio, and fundamental frequency of the structure of focus are considerably affected by the presence of neighbouring buildings. In general, adjacent buildings reduced the dynamic response of the structure of focus on dry sand. However, the acceleration was amplified when the structures had a similar fundamental frequency. In the case of structures on saturated sand, the presence of adjacent structures reduced the liquefaction potential. Neighbouring structures on saturated sand also presented larger rotation of the footing and lateral displacement of the top mass than that of the stand-alone case.

Research Papers, Lincoln University

During the 21st century, New Zealand has experienced increasing public concern over the quality of the design and appearance of new developments, and their effects on the urban environment. In response to this, a number of local authorities developed a range of tools to address this issue, including urban design panels to review proposals and provide independent advice. Following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the commitment to achieve high quality urban design within Christchurch was given further importance, with the city facing the unprecedented challenge of rebuilding a ‘vibrant and successful city’. The rebuild and regeneration reinforced the need for independent design review, putting more focus and emphasis on the role and use of the urban design panel; first through collaboratively assisting applicants in achieving a better design outcome for their development by providing an independent set of eyes on their design; and secondly in assisting Council officers in forming their recommendations on resource consent decisions. However, there is a perception that urban design and the role of the urban design panel is not fully understood, with some stakeholders arguing that Council’s urban design requirements are adding cost and complexity to their developments. The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding on the role of the Christchurch urban design panel post-earthquake in the central city; its direct and indirect influence on the built environment; and the deficiencies in the broader planning framework and institutional settings that it might be addressing. Ultimately, the perceived role of the Panel is understood, and there is agreement that urban design is having a positive influence on the built environment, albeit viewed differently amongst the varying groups involved. What has become clear throughout this research is that the perceived tension between the development community and urban design well and truly exists, with the urban design panel contributing towards this. This tension is exacerbated further through the cost of urban design to developers, and the drive for financial return from their investments. The panel, albeit promoting a positive experience, is simply a ‘tick box’ exercise for some, and as the research suggests, groups or professional are determining themselves what constitutes good urban design, based on their attitude, the context in which they sit and the financial constraints to incorporate good design elements. It is perhaps a bleak time for urban design, and more about building homes.