Search

found 32 results

Images for figure; more images...

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: How many claims does the Earthquake Commission expect to receive as a result of the earthquakes in Canterbury since 4 September 2010? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "rebuilding Christchurch is a key priority for the Government this year"; if so, what rebuilding plans are currently in place? 3. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that state support is for "people to fall back on when they really need it"? 4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealanders were "more than compensated" for last year's increase in GST? 5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is her Ministry responding to support the Christchurch recovery following last month's earthquake? 6. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question number one on 8 March 2011; if not, why not? 7. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Corrections: What support has the Department of Corrections provided to the people of Christchurch following last month's earthquake? 8. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Finance: How much has he budgeted to raise from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal and has this figure been revised in light of the Japanese earthquake? 9. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What work will the New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue team be carrying out in Japan? 10. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that the $300 million bill for restoring the Christchurch road network won't be causing any "dramatic issues" and what is his timeframe for the completion of this work? 11. COLIN KING to the Minister of Transport: What work has been done to repair and reopen Christchurch's roads and highways following the 22 February earthquake? 12. Hon STEVE CHADWICK to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Has he had any discussions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery about heritage buildings or recovering cultural artefacts from buildings damaged by the earthquake on 22 February; if so, what did he say to the Minister?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This report presents the simplified seismic assessment of a case study reinforced concrete (RC) building following the newly developed and refined NZSEE/MBIE guidelines on seismic assessment (NZSEE/MBIE, semi-final draft 26 October 2016). After an overview of the step-by-step ‘diagnostic’ process, including an holistic and qualitative description of the expected vulnerabilities and of the assessment strategy/methodology, focus is given, whilst not limited, to the implementation of a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) (NZSEE/MBIE, 2016c). The DSA is intended to provide a more reliable and consistent outcome than what can be provided by an initial seismic assessment (ISA). In fact, while the Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA), of which the Initial Evaluation Procedure is only a part of, is the more natural and still recommended first step in the overall assessment process, it is mostly intended to be a coarse evaluation involving as few resources as reasonably possible. It is thus expected that an ISA will be followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) not only where the threshold of 33%NBS is not achieved but also where important decisions are intended that are reliant on the seismic status of the building. The use of %NBS (% New Building Standard) as a capacity/demand ratio to describe the result of the seismic assessment at all levels of assessment procedure (ISA through to DSA) is deliberate by the NZSEE/MBIE guidelines (Part A) (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a). The rating for the building needs only be based on the lowest level of assessment that is warranted for the particular circumstances. Discussion on how the %NBS rating is to be determined can be found in Section A3.3 (NZSEE/MBIE 2016a), and, more specifically, in Part B for the ISA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016b) and Part C for the DSA (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c). As per other international approaches, the DSA can be based on several analysis procedures to assess the structural behaviour (linear, nonlinear, static or dynamic, force or displacement-based). The significantly revamped NZSEE 2016 Seismic Assessment Guidelines strongly recommend the use of an analytical (basically ‘by hand’) method, referred to the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) as a first phase of any other numerically-based analysis method. Significant effort has thus been dedicated to provide within the NZSEE 2016 guidelines (NZSEE/MBIE 2016c) a step-by-step description of the procedure, either in general terms (Chapter 2) or with specific reference to Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Chapter 5). More specifically, extract from the guidelines, NZSEE “recommend using the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) procedure as a first step in any assessment. While SLaMA is essentially an analysis technique, it enables assessors to investigate (and present in a simple form) the potential contribution and interaction of a number of structural elements and their likely effect on the building’s global capacity. In some cases, the results of a SLaMA will only be indicative. However, it is expected that its use should help assessors achieve a more reliable outcome than if they only carried out a detailed analysis, especially if that analysis is limited to the elastic range For complex structural systems, a 3D dynamic analysis may be necessary to supplement the simplified nonlinear Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA).” This report presents the development of a full design example for the the implementation of the SLaMA method on a case study buildings and a validation/comparison with a non-linear static (pushover) analysis. The step-by-step-procedure, summarized in Figure 1, will be herein demonstrated from a component level (beams, columns, wall elements) to a subassembly level (hierarchy of strength in a beam-column joint) and to a system level (frame, C-Wall) assuming initially a 2D behaviour of the key structural system, and then incorporating a by-hand 3D behaviour (torsional effects).