Search

found 19539 results

Images for christchurch; more images...

Images, Canterbury Museum

One landscape colour digital photograph taken on 26 May 2013 of Lyttelton Main School. The photograph is taken from St Davids Street looking northwest. One of the broader consequences of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes has been the Ministry of Education’s Shaping Education – Future Direction Review of Schools in the Greater Christchurch Ar...

Images, Canterbury Museum

One landscape colour digital photograph taken on 26 May 2013 off Godley Head looking north towards Sumner Head. There were several major rock falls along the coastal cliffs near Christchurch and Lyttelton Harbour. In and around the suburb of Sumner some of these falls necessitated the abandonment of houses in areas where cliffs had given way or...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Christchurch and Canterbury suffered significant housing losses due to the earthquakes. Estimates from the Earthquake Commission (EQC) (2011) suggest that over 150,000 homes (around three quarters of Christchurch housing stock) sustained damage from the earthquakes. Some areas of Christchurch have been declared not suitable for rebuilding, affecting more than 7,500 residential properties.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The city of Christchurch and its surrounds experienced widespread damage due to soil liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence that began in September 2010 with the Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake. Prior to the start of this sequence, the city had a large network of strong motion stations (SMSs) installed, which were able to record a vast database of strong ground motions. This paper uses this database of strong ground motion recordings, observations of liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface, and data from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation program at each SMS to assess a range of liquefaction evaluation procedures at the four SMSs in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). In general, the characteristics of the accelerograms recorded at each SMS correlated well with the liquefaction evaluation procedures, with low liquefaction factors of safety predicted at sites with clear liquefaction identifiers in the ground motions. However, at sites that likely liquefied at depth (as indicated by evaluation procedures and/or inferred from the characteristics of the recorded surface accelerograms), the presence of a non-liquefiable crust layer at many of the SMS locations prevented the manifestation of any surface effects. Because of this, there was not a good correlation between surface manifestation and two surface manifestation indices, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN).