Search

found 3638 results

Images for new building; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Christchurch-based technician, Nick Brown, and Ralph Moore, Deputy Task Force Leader for New Zealand Search and Rescue, talking to the press. Nick and Ralph were part of the USAR team working on the Cathedral and Press Buildings after the earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Christchurch-based technician, Nick Brown, and Ralph Moore, Deputy Task Force Leader for New Zealand Search and Rescue, talking to the press. Nick and Ralph were part of the USAR team working on the Cathedral and Press Buildings after the earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Christchurch-based technician, Nick Brown, and Ralph Moore, Deputy Task Force Leader for New Zealand Search and Rescue, talking to the press. Nick and Ralph were part of the USAR team working on the Cathedral and Press Buildings after the earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

An image from a Army News March 2011 photo compilation titled, "All in a Days Work". The image is captioned, "USAR workers sift through the crumbled ruins of a building". The building they are working on is the CTV building which collapsed during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In 2016, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 was introduced to address the issue of seismic vulnerability amongst existing buildings in Aotearoa New Zealand. This Act introduced a mandatory scheme to remediate buildings deemed particularly vulnerable to seismic hazard, as recommended by the 2012 Royal Commission into the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010–2011. This Earthquake-prone Building (EPB) framework is unusual internationally for the mandatory obligations that it introduces. This article explores and critiques the operation of the scheme in practice through an examination of its implementation provisions and the experiences of more recent seismic events (confirmed by engineering research). This analysis leads to the conclusion that the operation of the current scheme and particularly the application of the concept of EPB vulnerability excludes large numbers of (primarily urban) buildings which pose a significant risk in the event of a significant (but expected) seismic event. As a result, the EPB scheme fails to achieve its goals and instead may create a false impression that it does so