
Part five of a video series about the first stage of the Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Land Damage Assessment and Reinstatement Report. The report was prepared for the Earthquake Commission after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
Part four of a video series about the first stage of the Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Land Damage Assessment and Reinstatement Report. The report was prepared for the Earthquake Commission after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
Part three of a video series about the first stage of the Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Land Damage Assessment and Reinstatement Report. The report was prepared for the Earthquake Commission after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
The 2013 Seddon earthquake (Mw 6.5), the 2013 Lake Grassmere earthquake (Mw 6.6), and the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake (Mw 7.8) provided an opportunity to assemble the most extensive damage database to wine storage tanks ever compiled worldwide. An overview of this damage database is presented herein based on the in-field post-earthquake damage data collected for 2058 wine storage tanks (1512 legged tanks and 546 flat-based tanks) following the 2013 earthquakes and 1401 wine storage tanks (599 legged tanks and 802 flat-based tanks) following the 2016 earthquake. Critique of the earthquake damage database revealed that in 2013, 39% and 47% of the flat-based wine tanks sustained damage to their base shells and anchors respectively, while due to resilience measures implemented following the 2013 earthquakes, in the 2016 earthquake the damage to tank base shells and tank anchors of flat-based wine tanks was reduced to 32% and 23% respectively and instead damage to tank barrels (54%) and tank cones (43%) was identified as the two most frequently occurring damage modes for this type of tank. Analysis of damage data for legged wine tanks revealed that the frame-legs of legged wine tanks sustained the greatest damage percentage among different parts of legged tanks in both the 2013 earthquakes (40%) and in the 2016 earthquake (44%). Analysis of damage data and socio-economic findings highlight the need for industry-wide standards, which may have socio-economic implications for wineries.
Earthquake damage. As a result of the September 2010 earthquake, with further damage from the February 2011 event.
Earthquake damage. As a result of the September 2010 earthquake, with further damage from the February 2011 event.
Earthquake damage. As a result of the September 2010 earthquake, with further damage from the February 2011 event.
Earthquake damage at the Arts Centre, Christchurch
An entry from Roz Johnson's blog for 24 December 2011 entitled, "Retaining Walls and Earthquakes".
"Heritage Buildings, Earthquake Strengthening and Damage: the Canterbury earthquakes September 2010 - January 2012", a report submitted by the then New Zealand Historic Places Trust to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. The report was written by Robert McClean.
The Canterbury earthquake's Royal Commission has heard that the Hotel Grand Chancellor was checked for earthquake damage - and cleared for use four times prior to the February 22nd earthquake.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 4 September 2010 entitled, "Our Earthquake".
Summary of oral history interview with Jenny May about her experiences of the Canterbury earthquakes.
A pdf transcript of Andrew Oxenburgh's earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox project.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 10 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 26 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 3 September 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
News breaks of an earthquake causing large amounts of damage in Canterbury.
News breaks of an earthquake causing large amounts of damage in Canterbury.
None
Part one of a video series about the first stage of the Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Land Damage Assessment and Reinstatement Report. The report was prepared for the Earthquake Commission after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
Damage from the Christchurch 7.1 earthquake on 4th Sept 2010
Typical of many homes in Kaiapoi still to be demolished and rebuit.
Site of government-owned company responsible for settling AMI policy-holders' claims for Canterbury earthquake damage.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 19 September 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 17 December 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Due to earthquake damage.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 13 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
This paper describes the pounding damage sustained by buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Approximately 6% of buildings in Christchurch CBD were observed to have suffered some form of serious pounding damage. Typical and exceptional examples of building pounding damage are presented and discussed. Almost all building pounding damage occurred in unreinforced masonry buildings, highlighting their vulnerability to this phenomenon. Modern buildings were found to be vulnerable to pounding damage where overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components were installed in existing building separations. Soil variability is identified as a key aspect that amplifies the relative movement of buildings, and hence increases the likelihood of pounding damage. Building pounding damage is compared to the predicted critical pounding weaknesses that have been identified in previous analytical research.
This paper describes the pounding damage sustained by buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Approximately 6% of buildings in Christchurch CBD were observed to have suffered some form of serious pounding damage. Typical and exceptional examples of building pounding damage are presented and discussed. Almost all building pounding damage occurred in unreinforced masonry buildings, highlighting their vulnerability to this phenomenon. Modern buildings were found to be vulnerable to pounding damage where overly stiff and strong ‘flashing’ components were installed in existing building separations. Soil variability is identified as a key aspect that amplifies the relative movement of buildings, and hence increases the likelihood of pounding damage. Building pounding damage is compared to the predicted critical pounding weaknesses that have been identified in previous analytical research.