Search

found 993 results

Images for new building; more images...

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

The earthquake re-pair work has started on the Knox Church on Bealey Avenue, August 14, 2013 Christchurch New Zealand. While building after building is torn down in Christchurch, plans are in place to ensure as much of a 131-year-old church is retained as possible. Knox Church on Bealey Avenue suffered major damage in the February 22 earthquak...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Buildings subject to earthquake shaking will tend to move not only horizontally but also rotate in plan. In-plan rotation is known as “building torsion” and it may occur for a variety of reasons, including stiffness and strength eccentricity and/or torsional effects from ground motions. Methods to consider torsion in structural design standards generally involve analysis of the structure in its elastic state. This is despite the fact that the structural elements can yield, thereby significantly altering the building response and the structural element demands. If demands become too large, the structure may collapse. While a number of studies have been conducted into the behavior of structures considering inelastic building torsion, there appears to be no consensus that one method is better than another and as a result, provisions within current design standards have not adopted recent proposals in the literature. However, the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission recently made the recommendation that provisions to account for inelastic torsional response of buildings be introduced within New Zealand building standards. Consequently, this study examines how and to what extent the torsional response due to system eccentricity may affect the seismic performance of a building and considers what a simple design method should account for. It is concluded that new methods should be simple, be applicable to both the elastic and inelastic range of response, consider bidirectional excitation and include guidance for multi-story systems.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Damage to Lyttelton following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Forbes' Store on Norwich Quay with a broken awning and damage visible on the brick walls. Scaffolding placed around the building since the 4 September 2010 earthquake has tumbled during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Damage to Lyttelton following the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Forbes' Store on Norwich Quay with a broken awning and damage visible on the brick walls. Scaffolding placed around the building since the 4 September 2010 earthquake has tumbled during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photograph looking east down Gloucester Street from near the Manchester Street intersection. Members of the Wellington Emergency Management Office Emergency Response Team and construction workers are walking down the street. To their right is the new Press House building with many broken windows. In the foreground, the Coachman building has sustained earthquake damage to the façade. Wire fences have been placed around the building as a cordon.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes, one of the biggest threats to our heritage buildings is the risk of earthquakes and the associated drive to strengthen or demolish buildings. Can Small Town NZ balance the requirements of the EQPB legislation and economic realities of their places? The government’s priority is on safety of building occupants and citizens in the streets. However, maintaining and strengthening privately-owned heritage buildings is often cost prohibitive. Hence, heritage regulation has frequently been perceived as interfering with private property rights, especially when heritage buildings occupy a special place in the community becoming an important place for people (i.e. public benefits are larger than private). We investigate several case studies where building owners have been given green light to demolish heritage listed buildings to make way for modern developments. In two of the case studies developers provided evidence of unaffordable strengthening costs. A new trend that has emerged is a voluntary offer of contributing to an incentive fund to assist with heritage preservation of other buildings. This is a unique example where private owners offer incentives (via council controlled organisations) instead of it being purely the domain of the central or local governments.