Search

found 996 results

Images for new building; more images...

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

Following the magnitude 6.3 aftershock in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 22 February 2011, a number of researchers were sent to Christchurch as part of the New Zealand Natural Hazard Research Platform funded “Project Masonry” Recovery Project. Their goal was to document and interpret the damage to the masonry buildings and churches in the region. Approximately 650 unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the Christchurch area were surveyed for commonly occurring failure patterns and collapse mechanisms. The entire building stock of Christchurch, and in particular the unreinforced masonry building stock, is similar to that in the rest of New Zealand, Australia, and abroad, so the observations made here are relevant for the entire world.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

The performance of retrofitted unreinforced masonry (URM) bearing wall buildings in Christchurch is examined, considering ground motion recordings from multiple events. Suggestions for how the experiences in Christchurch might be relevant to retrofit practices common to New Zealand, U.S. and Canada are also provided. Whilst the poor performance of unretrofitted URM buildings in earthquakes is well known, much less is known about how retrofitted URM buildings perform when subjected to strong ground shaking.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The former Government Life building in Christchurch's Cathedral Square will be demolished. On my walk around the city May 21, 2014 Christchurch New Zealand. www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christch...

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

Territorial authorities in New Zealand are responding to regulatory and market forces in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to assess and retrofit buildings determined to be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Pending legislation may shorten the permissible timeframes on such seismic improvement programmes, but Auckland Council’s Property Department is already engaging in a proactive effort to assess its portfolio of approximately 3500 buildings, prioritise these assets for retrofit, and forecast construction costs for improvements. Within the programme structure, the following varied and often competing factors must be accommodated: * The council’s legal, fiscal, and ethical obligations to the people of Auckland per building regulations, health and safety protocols, and economic growth and urban development planning strategies; * The council’s functional priorities for service delivery; * Varied and numerous stakeholders across the largest territorial region in New Zealand in both population and landmass; * Heritage preservation and community and cultural values; and * Auckland’s prominent economic role in New Zealand’s economy which requires Auckland’s continued economic production post-disaster. Identifying those buildings most at risk to an earthquake in such a large and varied portfolio has warranted a rapid field assessment programme supplemented by strategically chosen detailed assessments. Furthermore, Auckland Council will benefit greatly in time and resources by choosing retrofit solutions, techniques, and technologies applicable to a large number of buildings with similar configurations and materials. From a research perspective, the number and variety of buildings within the council’s property portfolio will provide valuable data for risk modellers on building typologies in Auckland, which are expected to be fairly representative of the New Zealand building stock as a whole.