Search

found 68 results

Images for earthquake-affected; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2-6.3 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings, and most of the city lifelines and infrastructure. This manuscript presents an overview of observed geotechnical aspects of this earthquake as well as some of the completed and on-going research investigations. A unique aspect, which is particularly emphasized, is the severity and spatial extent of liquefaction occurring in native soils. Overall, both the spatial extent and severity of liquefaction in the city was greater than in the preceding 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake, including numerous areas that liquefied in both events. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, variable over both large and short spatial scales, affected commercial structures in the Central Business District (CBD) in a variety of ways including: total and differential settlements and tilting; punching settlements of structures with shallow foundations; differential movements of components of complex structures; and interaction of adjacent structures via common foundation soils. Liquefaction was most severe in residential areas located to the east of the CBD as a result of stronger ground shaking due to the proximity to the causative fault, a high water table approximately 1m from the surface, and soils with composition and states of high susceptibility and potential for liquefaction. Total and differential settlements, and lateral movements, due to liquefaction and lateral spreading is estimated to have severely compromised 15,000 residential structures, the majority of which otherwise sustained only minor to moderate damage directly due to inertial loading from ground shaking. Liquefaction also had a profound effect on lifelines and other infrastructure, particularly bridge structures, and underground services. Minor damage was also observed at flood stop banks to the north of the city, which were more severely impacted in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake. Due to the large high-frequency ground motion in the Port hills numerous rock falls and landslides also occurred, resulting in several fatalities and rendering some residential areas uninhabitable.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Disaster recovery is significantly affected by funding availability. The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are not only impacted by the extent of the funding but also the mechanisms with which funding is prioritised, allocated and delivered. This research addresses the impact of funding mechanisms on the effectiveness and efficiency of post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. A qualitative assessment of the impacts on recovery of different funding sources and mechanisms was carried out, using the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake as well as other recent international events as case studies. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness, environmental, economic and social impacts. Of the case studies investigated, the Canterbury Earthquake was the only disaster response to rely solely on a privatised approach to insurance for debris management. Due to the low level of resident displacement and low level of hazard in the waste, this was a satisfactory approach, though not ideal. This approach has led to greater organisational complexity and delays. For many other events, the potential community wide impacts caused by the prolonged presence of disaster debris means that publicly funded and centrally facilitated programmes appear to be the most common and effective method of managing disaster waste.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Finance: When he said recently "where the Government does have some influence, we are working hard to keep prices low", which prices was he referring to? 2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the likely impacts on the Government's finances of the Christchurch earthquake? 3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Acting Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements on economic development? 4. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister for ACC: How many claims has ACC received since the tragic earthquake on 22 February and what steps has the Government taken to facilitate prompt compensation for those seriously injured? 5. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the basis for according priority to entry of the red zone in the Christchurch central business district? 6. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support is the Government giving to non-government organisations in Christchurch affected by the earthquake? 7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: What role did he or his department play in the decision to shift the Rugby World Cup quarter finals, from AMI Stadium to Eden Park? 8. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the Government's commitment to encourage private sector investment in the New Zealand corrections system? 9. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What specific policy changes has the Government made to increase the number of apprenticeships and other building-skills training programmes since the September Canterbury earthquake? 10. SUE KEDGLEY to the Minister of Commerce: Will he use his powers under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986 to call for an investigation into the dairy wholesale and retail milk market, following the release of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's review of the domestic milk market in New Zealand; if not, why not? 11. CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she support the retention of the stand-alone and independent Ministry of Women's Affairs? 12. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently made to progress agricultural greenhouse gas research?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The timeliness and quality of recovery activities are impacted by the organisation and human resourcing of the physical works. This research addresses the suitability of different resourcing strategies on post-disaster demolition and debris management programmes. This qualitative analysis primarily draws on five international case studies including 2010 Canterbury earthquake, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, 2009 Samoan Tsunami, 2009 Victorian Bushfires and 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The implementation strategies are divided into two categories: collectively and individually facilitated works. The impacts of the implementation strategies chosen are assessed for all disaster waste management activities including demolition, waste collection, transportation, treatment and waste disposal. The impacts assessed include: timeliness, completeness of projects; and environmental, economic and social impacts. Generally, the case studies demonstrate that detritus waste removal and debris from major repair work is managed at an individual property level. Debris collection, demolition and disposal are generally and most effectively carried out as a collective activity. However, implementation strategies are affected by contextual factors (such as funding and legal constraints) and the nature of the disaster waste (degree of hazardous waste, geographical spread of waste etc.) and need to be designed accordingly. Community involvement in recovery activities such as demolition and debris removal is shown to contribute positively to psychosocial recovery.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Surface rupture of the previously unrecognised Greendale Fault extended west-east for ~30 km across alluvial plains west of Christchurch, New Zealand, during the Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake of September 2010. Surface rupture displacement was predominantly dextral strike-slip, averaging ~2.5 m, with maxima of ~5 m. Vertical displacement was generally less than 0.75 m. The surface rupture deformation zone ranged in width from ~30 to 300 m, and comprised discrete shears, localised bulges and, primarily, horizontal dextral flexure. About a dozen buildings, mainly single-storey houses and farm sheds, were affected by surface rupture, but none collapsed, largely because most of the buildings were relatively flexible and resilient timber-framed structures and also because deformation was distributed over a relatively wide zone. There were, however, notable differences in the respective performances of the buildings. Houses with only lightly-reinforced concrete slab foundations suffered moderate to severe structural and non-structural damage. Three other buildings performed more favourably: one had a robust concrete slab foundation, another had a shallow-seated pile foundation that isolated ground deformation from the superstructure, and the third had a structural system that enabled the house to tilt and rotate as a rigid body. Roads, power lines, underground pipes, and fences were also deformed by surface fault rupture and suffered damage commensurate with the type of feature, its orientation to the fault, and the amount, sense and width of surface rupture deformation.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that all systems set up pursuant to commitments he has given to assist residents following the Christchurch earthquake are appropriate and working? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What do this morning's Reserve Bank economic forecasts show? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: By what amount has the Reserve Bank lowered the official cash rate today, and what reason has the Bank given for this action? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 4. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Finance: What will be the impact of the recent fuel price rise on the New Zealand economy, including impacts on GDP, consumer spending and the current account? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 5. 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? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 6. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Transport: What action is the Government taking to improve Wellington's train network? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 7. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Prime Minister: Can he assure the families of those killed in the Pike River Mine disaster that Government funding will be available for the recovery of bodies, given the mine is now in receiver's hands. and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 8. COLIN KING to the Minister of Civil Defence: Is the Government satisfied with the provision of replacement toilets for earthquake-affected Christchurch residents? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 9. CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Can she outline a significant improvement for women initiated by the current Government? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 10. ALLAN PEACHEY to the Minister of Education: What provisions have been made to ensure continuity of early childhood education and schooling in the Christchurch region since the 22 February earthquake? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What advice did he receive on any perceived conflict of interest before he took part in the Cabinet decision that led to the deferral of the requirement for MediaWorks to pay its frequency licence to the Crown? and lt;br / and gt; and lt;br / and gt; 12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What reports has he received on the progress of urban search and rescue and firefighter teams working in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What challenges does the Government face in putting together Budget 2011? 2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his pre-Budget statement "The key sector which is not saving right now is the Government"; if so, what steps has he taken to increase government revenue? 3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "…we can use this time to transform the economy to make us stronger…"; if so, does this transformation involve an economy that uses fewer natural resources and produces less pollution? 4. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on KiwiSaver? 5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on progress made to provide winter heating for residents affected by the Canterbury earthquakes? 6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: What advice did he receive from the most recent food bank he visited about the current cost of living? 7. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What practical initiatives is the Government taking in preparation for Rugby World Cup 2011 to protect the environment and New Zealand's important clean green brand? 8. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: What was the annual rate of GDP growth for the year ended December 2010 projected in Budget 2010, and what was the actual rate of growth for that period according to Statistics New Zealand? 9. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Education: What recent decisions have been made regarding schooling in Christchurch? 10. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: When was construction completed on the new early childhood education centre at Weymouth Primary School and why is the centre empty? 11. COLIN KING to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently taken to support innovation in the Manuka honey industry? 12. CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement "This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone…has access to justice"?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Extended Direct Analysis (EDA), developed at the University of Canterbury, is an advance on the AISC Direct Analysis method for the analysis of frames subjected to static forces. EDA provides a faster, simple and more rational way to properly consider the second-order effects, initial residual stresses (IRS) and the initial imperfections or steel structures under one directional loading than conventional analysis methods. This research applied the EDA method to quantify the effect of member overstrength on frame behaviour for a single storey frame. Also, the effects of IRS, which were included in the EDA static analysis, but which are not considered explicitly in non-linear seismic analysis, were evaluated in two ways. Firstly, they were considered for simple structures subject to increasing cyclic displacement in different directions. Secondly, incremental dynamic analysis with realistic ground motion was used to quantify the likely effect of IRS in earthquakes. It was found that, contrary to traditional wisdom and practice, greater member strengths can result in lower frame strengths for frames under monotonic lateral loading. The structural lateral capacity of the overstrength case was reduced by 6% compared to the case using the dependable member strengths. Also, it resulted significantly different in member demands. Therefore, it is recommended that when either plastic analysis or EDA is used, that both upper and lower bounds on the likely member strength should be considered to determine the total frame strength and the member demands. Results of push-pull analysis under displacement control showed that for IRS ratio, gamma < 0.5 and axial compressive force ratio, N*/Ns, up to 0.5, IRS did affect the structural behaviour in the first half cycle. However, the behavior in the later cycles was not significantly affected. It also showed that the effect of initial residual stresses in the frame was less significant than for the column alone when the column was subjected to similar axial compressive force. The incremental dynamic analysis results from both cantilever column and the three-storey steel frame showed that by increasing gamma = 0 to 0.5, the effect of IRS on seismic responses, based on the 50% confidence level, was less than 3% for N*/Ns, up to 0.5.