RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how? ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”? SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census? STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why? DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she accept her Ministry's advice that the value of New Zealand's onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion overall with $80 billion estimated in Schedule 4 land; if so, what plans does the Government have to allow their development? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup: What advice has the Prime Minister, the Government or Rugby New Zealand 2011 been given on Christchurch's ability to host Rugby World Cup matches later this year? 3. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy's prospects after New Zealand meets the immediate challenges of the Christchurch earthquake? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Would he indicate his agreement to a further extension, if it were required, to the report back date for the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 5. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he concerned to learn that New Zealand's first majority Māori-owned dairy company, Miraka, has reportedly stated that there is a serious risk that Fonterra's proposed Trading Among Farmers exchange will be illiquid, volatile and unstable; if so, what assurances can he give Miraka and other dairy processors and industry groups, that anti-competitive behaviour will not be tolerated? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister for Economic Development: Has he been advised by the Prime Minister whether his appointment as Acting Minister for Economic Development is temporary or expected to carry on to the election? 7. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on re-opening Christchurch schools and early childhood education centres since the 22 February earthquake? 8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Health: Does he favour the sale of any public hospitals in New Zealand; if so, which one or ones? 9. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister for Building and Construction: What advice has he received from the Department of Building and Housing regarding last month's Christchurch earthquake? 10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What factors did she consider in deciding to increase the minimum wage by 25 cents from 1 April in her latest review? 11. CHRIS TREMAIN to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on roading projects in the Hawke's Bay region? 12. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Finance: What steps, if any, is he taking to reduce New Zealand's economic vulnerability that stems from dependence on oil? Questions to Members 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submissions have been received so far on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill have requested an oral hearing? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Is he aware of any complaints about times allocated to submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill?
Field surveys and experimental studies have shown that light steel or timber framed plasterboard partition walls are particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage prompting the overarching objective of this research, which is to further the development of low damage seismic systems for non-structural partition walls in order to facilitate their adoption by industry to assist with reducing the losses associated with the maintenance and repair cost of buildings across their design life. In particular, this study focused on the behaviour of steel-framed partition walls systems with novel detailing that aim to be “low-damage” designed according to common practice for walls used in commercial and institutional buildings in New Zealand. This objective was investigated by (1) investigating the performance of a flexible track system proposed by researchers and industry by experimental testing of full-scale specimens; (2) investigating the performance of the seismic gap partition wall systems proposed in a number of studies, further developed in this study with input from industry, by experimental testing of full-scale specimens; and (3) investigating the potential implications of using these systems compared with traditionally detailed partition wall systems within multi-storey buildings using the Performance Based Earthquake Engineering loss assessment methodology. Three full-scale testing frames were designed in order to replicate, under controlled laboratory conditions, the effects of seismic shaking on partition walls within multi-storey buildings by the application of quasi-static uni-directional cyclic loading imposing an inter-storey drift. The typical configuration for test specimens was selected to be a unique “y-shape”, including one angled return wall, with typical dimensions of approximately 2400 mm along the main wall and 600 mm along (approximately) the returns walls with a height of 2405 mm from floor to ceiling. The specimens were aligned within test frames at an oblique angle to the direction of loading in order to investigate bi- directional effects. Three wall specimens with flexible track detailing, two identical plane specimens and the third including a doorway, were tested. The detailing involved removing top track anchors within the proximity of wall intersections, thus allowing the tracks to ‘bow’ out at these locations. Although the top track anchors were specified to be removed the proximity of wall intersections, a construction error was made whereby a single top track slab to concrete anchor was left in at the three-way wall junction. Despite this error, the experimental testing was deemed worthwhile since such errors will also occur in practice and because the behaviour of the wall can be examined with this fixing in mind. The specimens also included an acoustic/fire sealant at the top lining to floor boundary. In addition to providing drift capacities, the force-displacement behaviour is also reported, the dissipated energy was computed, and the parameters of the Wayne-Stewart hysteretic model were fitted to the results. The specimen with the door opening behaved significantly different to the plane specimens: damage to the doorway specimen began as cracking of the wallboard propagating from the corners of the doorway following which the L- and Y- shaped junctions behaved independently, whereas damage to the plane specimens began as cracking of the wallboard at the top of the L-junction and wall system deformed as a single unit. The results suggest that bi-directional behaviour is important even if its impact cannot be directly quantified by the experiments conducted. Damage to sealant implies that the bond between plasterboard and sealant is important for its seismic performance. Careful quality control is advised as defects in the bond may significantly impact its ability to withstand seismic movement. Two specimens with seismic gap detailing were tested: a steel stud specimen and a timber stud specimen. Observed drift capacities were significantly greater than traditional plasterboard partition systems. Equations were used to predict the drift at which damage state 1 (DS1) and damage state 2 (DS2) would initiate. The equation used to estimate the drift at the onset of DS1 accurately predicted the onset of plaster cracking but overestimated the drift at which the gap filling material was damaged. The equation used to predict the onset of DS2 provided a lower bound for both specimens and also when used to predict results of previous experimental tests on seismic gap systems. The gap-filling material reduced the drift at the onset of DS1, however, it had a beneficial effect on the re-centring behaviour of the linings. Out-of-plane displacements and return wall configuration did not appear to significantly impact the onset of plaster cracking in the specimens. A loss assessment according to the PBEE methodology was conducted on four steel MRF case study buildings: (1) a 4-storey building designed for the Christchurch region, (2) a 4-storey building designed for the Wellington region, (3) a 12-storey building designed for the Christchurch region, and (4) a 12- storey building designed for the Wellington region. The fragility parameters for a traditional partition system, the flexible track partition system, and the seismic gap steel stud and timber stud partition systems were included within the loss assessment. The order (lowest to highest) of each system in terms of the expected annual losses of each building when incorporating the system was, (1) the seismic gap timber stud system, (2) the seismic gap steel stud system, (3) the traditional/baseline system, and (4) the flexible track system. For the seismic gap timber stud system, which incurred the greatest reduction in expected annual losses for each case study building, the reduction in expected annual losses in comparison to the losses found when using the traditional system ranged from a 5% to a 30% reduction. This reinforces the fact that while there is a benefit to the using low damage partition systems in each building the extent of reduction in expected annual losses is significantly dependent on the particular building design and its location. The flexible track specimens had larger repair costs at small hazard levels compared to the traditional system but smaller repair costs at larger hazard levels. However, the resulting expected annual losses for the flexible track system was higher than the traditional system which reinforces findings from past studies which observed that the greatest contribution to expected annual losses arises from low to moderate intensity shaking seismic events (low hazard levels).
The Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010-2011, in particular the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake and the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, produced severe and widespread liquefaction in Christchurch and surrounding areas. The scale of the liquefaction was unprecedented, and caused extensive damage to a variety of man-made structures, including residential houses. Around 20,000 residential houses suffered serious damage as a direct result of the effects of liquefaction, and this resulted in approximately 7000 houses in the worst-hit areas being abandoned. Despite the good performance of light timber-framed houses under the inertial loads of the earthquake, these structures could not withstand the large loads and deformations associated with liquefaction, resulting in significant damage. The key structural component of houses subjected to liquefaction effects was found to be their foundations, as these are in direct contact with the ground. The performance of house foundations directly influenced the performance of the structure as a whole. Because of this, and due to the lack of research in this area, it was decided to investigate the performance of houses and in particular their foundations when subjected to the effects of liquefaction. The data from the inspections of approximately 500 houses conducted by a University of Canterbury summer research team following the 4th September 2010 earthquake in the worst-hit areas of Christchurch were analysed to determine the general performance of residential houses when subjected to high liquefaction loads. This was followed by the detailed inspection of around 170 houses with four different foundation types common to Christchurch and New Zealand: Concrete perimeter with short piers constructed to NZS3604, concrete slab-on-grade also to NZS3604, RibRaft slabs designed by Firth Industries and driven pile foundations. With a focus on foundations, floor levels and slopes were measured, and the damage to all areas of the house and property were recorded. Seven invasive inspections were also conducted on houses being demolished, to examine in more detail the deformation modes and the causes of damage in severely affected houses. The simplified modelling of concrete perimeter sections subjected to a variety of liquefaction-related scenarios was also performed, to examine the comparative performance of foundations built in different periods, and the loads generated under various bearing loss and lateral spreading cases. It was found that the level of foundation damage is directly related to the level of liquefaction experienced, and that foundation damage and liquefaction severity in turn influence the performance of the superstructure. Concrete perimeter foundations were found to have performed most poorly, suffering high local floor slopes and being likely to require foundation repairs even when liquefaction was low enough that no surface ejecta was seen. This was due to their weak, flexible foundation structure, which cannot withstand liquefaction loads without deforming. The vulnerability of concrete perimeter foundations was confirmed through modelling. Slab-on-grade foundations performed better, and were unlikely to require repairs at low levels of liquefaction. Ribraft and piled foundations performed the best, with repairs unlikely up to moderate levels of liquefaction. However, all foundation types were susceptible to significant damage at higher levels of liquefaction, with maximum differential settlements of 474mm, 202mm, 182mm and 250mm found for concrete perimeter, slab-on-grade, ribraft and piled foundations respectively when subjected to significant lateral spreading, the most severe loading scenario caused by liquefaction. It was found through the analysis of the data that the type of exterior wall cladding, either heavy or light, and the number of storeys, did not affect the performance of foundations. This was also shown through modelling for concrete perimeter foundations, and is due to the increased foundation strengths provided for heavily cladded and two-storey houses. Heavy roof claddings were found to increase the demands on foundations, worsening their performance. Pre-1930 concrete perimeter foundations were also found to be very vulnerable to damage under liquefaction loads, due to their weak and brittle construction.
