Page 12 of a Land and New Homes advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 1 March 2012.
Page 18 of a Land and New Homes advertising feature in the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 1 March 2012.
Utility managers are always looking for appropriate tools to estimate seismic damage in wastewater networks located in earthquake prone areas. Fragility curves, as an appropriate tool, are recommended for seismic vulnerability analysis of buried pipelines, including pressurised and unpressurised networks. Fragility curves are developed in pressurised networks mainly for water networks. Fragility curves are also recommended for seismic analysis in unpressurised networks. Applying fragility curves in unpressurised networks affects accuracy of seismic damage estimation. This study shows limitations of these curves in unpressurised networks. Multiple case study analysis was applied to demonstrate the limitations of the application of fragility curves in unpressurised networks in New Zealand. Four wastewater networks within New Zealand were selected as case studies and various fragility curves used for seismic damage estimation. Observed damage in unpressurised networks after the 2007 earthquake in Gisborne and the 2010 earthquake in Christchurch demonstrate the appropriateness of the applied fragility curves to New Zealand wastewater networks. This study shows that the application of fragility curves, which are developed from pressurised networks, cannot be accurately used for seismic damage assessment in unpressurised wastewater networks. This study demonstrated the effects of different parameters on seismic damage vulnerability of unpressurised networks.
Page 17 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 17 February 2012.
Page 4 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 28 February 2012.
Page 14 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 3 April 2012.
Page 8 of Section C of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 14 April 2012.
Page 11 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 25 April 2012.
Page 4 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 18 May 2012.
Page 17 of Section G of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 19 May 2012.
Pages 20 and 21 of the Your Weekend section of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 19 May 2012.
Page 23 of the Your Weekend section of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 19 May 2012.
Page 7 of Section F of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 2 June 2012.
Page 8 of the Good Living section of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 28 June 2012.
Page 1 of the Escape section of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 6 August 2012.
Page 2 of the Punt section of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 17 August 2012.
Page 20 of Section C of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 18 August 2012.
Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 11 September 2012.
Page 15 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 12 September 2012.
Page 6 of Section D of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 10 November 2012.
Page 9 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 16 November 2012.
Page 10 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 6 December 2012.
Page 21 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 31 March 2012.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 28 March 2012.
Page 2 of the Punt section of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 11 October 2012.
Page 10 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 22 October 2012.
Page 6 of the Escape section of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 22 October 2012.
Page 16 of Section E of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 10 November 2012.
Page 18 of Section G of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 10 November 2012.
Page 2 of Section B of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 21 November 2012.