Search

found 67 results

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

The title reads 'Shipping container shopping for Merivale?.. The cartoon shows a row of shops that have been created from containers. An oil slick seeps from one of them. Someone in 'Chez Merivale' says 'Nice idea darling. But did they have to use the Rena's containers?' Context: Refers to the container ship 'Rena' which is grounded on the Astrolabe Reef off the Bay of Plenty and threatens to become a disaster of huge proportions as oil spews into the sea. Modified shipping containers have been put in place in the suburb of Merivale to replace broken shops. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

Text reads 'Uses for Christchurch rubble?...' The cartoon shows a bridge made partially of earthquake rubble leading from Lyttelton Harbour to Diamond Harbour on Banks Peninsula. Someone in a van says 'At long last... A bridge to Diamond Harbour!' And someone else says 'And somewhere to fish!' Context - Rubble from the earthquake may be used for the construction of watersides and bridges. This cartoon is a fanciful use for Christchurch earthquake rubble. Currently a ferry connects Diamond Harbour to Lyttelton, on the harbour's northern shore. In combination with buses from Lyttelton to downtown Christchurch, this allows residents of Diamond Bay to commute to the city. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

The M7.1 Darfield earthquake shook the town of Christchurch (New Zealand) in the early morning on Saturday 4th September 2010 and caused damage to a number of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. No fatalities were reported directly linked to the earthquake, but the damage to important heritage buildings was the most extensive to have occurred since the 1931 Hawke‟s Bay earthquake. In general, the nature of damage was consistent with observations previously made on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in large earthquakes, with aspects such as toppled chimneys and parapets, failure of gables and poorly secured face-loaded walls, and in-plane damage to masonry frames all being extensively documented. This report on the performance of the unreinforced masonry buildings in the 2010 Darfield earthquake provides details on typical building characteristics, a review of damage statistics obtained by interrogating the building assessment database that was compiled in association with post-earthquake building inspections, and a review of the characteristic failure modes that were observed.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

An as-built reinforced concrete (RC) frame building designed and constructed according to pre-1970s code design construction practice has been recently tested on the shake table at the University of Canterbury. The specimen, 1/2.5 scaled version of the original prototype, consists of two 3-storey 2-bay asymmetric frames in parallel, one interior and one exterior, jointed together by transverse beams and floor slabs. Following the benchmark test, a retrofit intervention has been proposed to rehabilitate the tested specimen. In this paper, detailed information on the assessment and design of the seismic retrofit procedure using GFRP (glass fibre reinforced polymer) materials is given for the whole frame. Hierarchy of strength and sequence of events (damage mechanisms) in the panel zone region are evaluated using a moment-axial load (M-N) interaction performance domain, according to a performance-based retrofit philosophy. Specific limit states or design objectives are targeted with attention given to both strength and deformation limits. In addition, an innovative retrofit solution using FRP anchor dowels for the corner beam-column joints with slabs is proposed. Finally, in order to provide a practical tool for engineering practice, the retrofit procedure is provided in a step-by step flowchart fashion.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In order to provide information related to seismic vulnerability of non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, and as a complementary investigation on innovative feasible retrofit solutions developed in the past six years at the University of Canterbury on pre-19170 reinforced concrete buildings, a frame building representative of older construction practice was tested on the shake table. The specimen, 1/2.5 scale, consists of two 3-storey 2-bay asymmetric frames in parallel, one interior and one exterior, jointed together by transverse beams and floor slabs. The as-built (benchmark) specimen was first tested under increasing ground motion amplitudes using records from Loma Prieta Earthquake (California, 1989) and suffered significant damage at the upper floor, most of it due to lap splices failure. As a consequence, in a second stage, the specimen was repaired and modified by removing the concrete in the lap splice region, welding the column longitudinal bars, replacing the removed concrete with structural mortar, and injecting cracks with epoxy resin. The modified as-built specimen was then tested using data recorded during Darfield (New Zealand, 2010) and Maule (Chile, 2010) Earthquakes, with whom the specimen showed remarkably different responses attributed to the main variation in frequency content and duration. In this contribution, the seismic performance of the three series of experiments are presented and compared.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

In the early morning of 4th September 2010 the region of Canterbury, New Zealand, was subjected to a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. The epicentre was located near the town of Darfield, 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. This was the country’s most damaging earthquake since the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake (GeoNet, 2010). Since 4th September 2010 the region has been subjected to thousands of aftershocks, including several more damaging events such as a magnitude 6.3 aftershock on 22nd February 2011. Although of a smaller magnitude, the earthquake on 22nd February produced peak ground accelerations in the Christchurch region three times greater than the 4th September earthquake and in some cases shaking intensities greater than twice the design level (GeoNet, 2011; IPENZ, 2011). While in September 2010 most earthquake shaking damage was limited to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in February all types of buildings sustained damage. Temporary shoring and strengthening techniques applied to buildings following the Darfield earthquake were tested in February 2011. In addition, two large aftershocks occurred on 13th June 2011 (magnitudes 5.7 and 6.2), further damaging many already weakened structures. The damage to unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake has already been reported by Ingham and Griffith (2011) and Dizhur et al. (2010b). A brief review of damage from the 22nd February 2011 earthquake is presented here

Audio, Radio New Zealand

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?