A photograph of a staff member entering an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury, after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a toppled bookcase in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering and the University of Canterbury after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
A photograph of a toppled filing cabinet in an office in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury, after the 4 September 2010 earthquake.
New Zealand government website which acts as a gateway to central and local government resources, news and services pertinent to the Canterbury Earthquake.
An interview with Research Fellow in Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Sonia Giovinazzi. This interview was conducted by Emma Kelland as part of Deirdre Hart's Coastal and River Earthquake Research project .
Liquefaction of sandy soil has been observed to cause significant damage to infrastructure during major earthquakes. Historical cases of liquefaction have typically occurred in sands containing some portion of fines particles, which are defined as 75μm or smaller in diameter. The effects of fines on the undrained behaviour of sand are not however fully understood, and this study therefore attempts to quantify these effects through the undrained testing of sand mixed with non-plastic fines sourced from Christchurch, New Zealand. The experimental program carried out during this study consisted of undrained monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests performed on three different mixtures of sand and fines: the Fitzgerald Bridge mixture (FBM), and two Pinnacles Sand mixtures (PSM1 and PSM2). The fines content of each host sand was systematically varied up to a maximum of 30%, with all test specimens being reconstituted using moist tamping deposition. The undrained test results from the FBM soils were interpreted using a range of different measures of initial state. When using void ratio and relative density, the addition of fines to the FBM sand caused more contractive behaviour for both monotonic and cyclic loadings. This resulted in lower strengths at the steady state of deformation, and lower liquefaction resistances. When the intergranular void ratio was used for the interpretation, the effect of additional fines was to cause less contractive response in the sand. The state parameter and state index were also used to interpret the undrained cyclic test results – these measures suggested that additional fines caused less contractive sand behaviour, the opposite to that observed when using the void ratio. This highlighted the dependency on the parameter chosen as a basis for the response comparison when determining the effects of fines, and pointed out a need to identify a measure that normalizes such effects. Based on the FBM undrained test results and interpretations, the equivalent granular void ratio, e*, was identified from the literature as a measure of initial state that normalizes the effects of fines on the undrained behaviour of sand up to a fines content of 30%. This is done through a parameter within the e* definition termed the fines influence factor, b, which quantifies the effects of fines from a value of zero (no effect) to one (same effect as sand particles). The value of b was also determined to be different when interpreting the steady state lines (bSSL) and cyclic resistance curves (bCR) respectively for a given mixture of sand and fines. The steady state lines and cyclic resistance curves of the FBM soils and a number of other sand-fines mixtures sourced from the literature were subsequently interpreted using the equivalent granular void ratio concept, with bSSL and bCR values being back-calculated from the respective test data sets. Based on these interpretations, it was concluded that e* was conceptually a useful parameter for characterizing and quantifying the effects of fines on the undrained behaviour of sand, assuming the fines influence factor value could be derived. To allow prediction of the fines influence factor values, bSSL and bCR were correlated with material and depositional properties of the presented sand-fines mixtures. It was found that as the size of the fines particles relative to the sand particles became smaller, the values of bSSL and bCR reduced, indicating lower effect of fines. The same trend was also observed as the angularity of the sand particles increased. The depositional method was found to influence the value of bCR, due to the sensitivity of cyclic loading to initial soil fabric. This led to bSSL being used as a reference for the effect of fines, with specimens prepared by moist tamping having bCR > bSSL, and specimens prepared by slurry deposition having bCR < bSSL. Finally the correlations of the fines influence factor values with material and depositional properties were used to define the simplified estimation method – a procedure capable of predicting the approximate steady state lines and cyclic resistance curves of a sand as the non-plastic fines content is increased up to 30%. The method was critically reviewed based on the undrained test results of the PSM1 and PSM2 soils. This review suggested the method could accurately predict undrained response curves as the fines content was raised, based on the PSM1 test results. It also however identified some key issues with the method, such as the inability to accurately predict the responses of highly non-uniform soils, a lack of consideration for the entire particle size distribution of a soil, and the fact the errors in the prediction of bSSL carry through into the prediction of bCR. Lastly some areas of further investigation relating to the method were highlighted, including the need to verify the method through testing of sandy soils sourced from outside the Christchurch area, and the need to correlate the value of bCR with additional soil fabrics / depositional methods.
Discusses the history, purpose and the structure of the organisation. Also provides links to regional branches, news, newsletters, rural jobs- a resource for prospective employers and employees and resources such as guides, reports and contract and agreement forms. Earthquake related information can be found in the archived instances from September 2010-
Earthquakes impacting on the built environment can generate significant volumes of waste, often overwhelming existing waste management capacities. Earthquake waste can pose a public and environmental health hazard and can become a road block on the road to recovery. Specific research has been developed at the University of Canterbury to go beyond the current perception of disaster waste as a logistical hurdle, to a realisation that disaster waste management is part of the overall recovery process and can be planned for effectively. Disaster waste decision-makers, often constrained by inappropriate institutional frameworks, are faced with conflicting social, economic and environmental drivers which all impact on the overall recovery. Framed around L’Aquila earthquake, Italy, 2009, this paper discusses the social, economic and environmental effects of earthquake waste management and the impact of existing institutional frameworks (legal, financial and organisational). The paper concludes by discussing how to plan for earthquake waste management.
On 4 September 2010, a magnitude Mw 7.1 earthquake struck the Canterbury region on the South Island of New Zealand. The epicentre of the earthquake was located in the Darfield area about 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. Extensive damage was inflicted to lifelines and residential houses due to widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading in areas close to major streams, rivers and wetlands throughout Christchurch and Kaiapoi. Unreinforced masonry buildings also suffered extensive damage throughout the region. Despite the severe damage to infrastructure and residential houses, fortunately, no deaths occurred and only two injuries were reported in this earthquake. From an engineering viewpoint, one may argue that the most significant aspects of the 2010 Darfield Earthquake were geotechnical in nature, with liquefaction and lateral spreading being the principal culprits for the inflicted damage. Following the earthquake, an intensive geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted to capture evidence and perishable data from this event. This paper summarizes the observations and preliminary findings from this early reconnaissance work.
The Resilient Organisations Research Programme and the University of Canterbury are undertaking a longitudinal study to examine the resilience and recovery of organisations within the Canterbury region following the 4 September Canterbury earthquake. The preliminary data suggest the physical, economic and social effects of the earthquake were varied across industry sectors within Canterbury. These preliminary results catalogue organisations’ perceptions of the: - disruptions to their ability to do business - challenges faced in the aftermath of the earthquake - factors that have helped mitigate the effects of the earthquake - revenue changes and projections for the duration of this change - financing options for recovery
This paper presents site-specific and spatially-distributed ground-motion intensity estimates which have been utilized in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes. The methodology underpinning the ground motion intensity estimation makes use of both prediction models for ground motion intensity and its within-event spatial correlation. A key benefit of the methodology is that the estimated ground motion intensity at a given location is not a single value but a distribution of values. The distribution is comprised of both a mean and standard deviation, with the standard deviation being a function of the distance to nearby observations at strong motion stations. The methodology is illustrated for two applications. Firstly, maps of conditional peak ground acceleration (PGA) have been developed for the major events in the Canterbury earthquake sequence, which among other things, have been utilized for assessing liquefaction triggering susceptibility of land in residential areas. Secondly, the conditional distribution of response spectral ordinates is obtained at the location of the Canterbury Television building (CTV), which catastrophically collapsed in the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The conditional response spectra provide insight for the selection of ground motion records for use in forensic seismic response analyses of important structures at locations where direct recordings are absent.
This paper presents the probabilistic seismic performance and loss assessment of an actual bridge– foundation–soil system, the Fitzgerald Avenue twin bridges in Christchurch, New Zealand. A two-dimensional finite element model of the longitudinal direction of the system is modelled using advanced soil and structural constitutive models. Ground motions at multiple levels of intensity are selected based on the seismic hazard deaggregation at the site. Based on rigorous examination of several deterministic analyses, engineering demand parameters (EDP’s), which capture the global and local demand, and consequent damage to the bridge and foundation are determined. A probabilistic seismic loss assessment of the structure considering both direct repair and loss of functionality consequences was performed to holistically assess the seismi risk of the system. It was found that the non-horizontal stratification of the soils, liquefaction, and soil–structure interaction had pronounced effects on the seismic demand distribution of the bridge components, of which the north abutment piles and central pier were critical in the systems seismic performance. The consequences due to loss of functionality of the bridge during repair were significantly larger than the direct repair costs, with over a 2% in 50 year probability of the total loss exceeding twice the book-value of the structure.
A team of earthquake geologists, seismologists and engineering seismologists from GNS Science, NIWA, University of Canterbury, and Victoria University of Wellington have collectively produced an update of the 2002 national probabilistic seismic hazard (PSH) model for New Zealand. The new model incorporates over 200 new onshore and offshore fault sources, and utilises newly developed New Zealand-based scaling relationships and methods for the parameterisation of the fault and subduction interface sources. The background seismicity model has also been updated to include new seismicity data, a new seismicity regionalisation, and improved methodology for calculation of the seismicity parameters. Background seismicity models allow for the occurrence of earthquakes away from the known fault sources, and are typically modelled as a grid of earthquake sources with rate parameters assigned from the historical seismicity catalogue. The Greendale Fault, which ruptured during the M7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, was unknown prior to the earthquake. However, the earthquake was to some extent accounted for in the PSH model. The maximum magnitude assumed in the background seismicity model for the area of the earthquake is 7.2 (larger than the Darfield event), but the location and geometry of the fault are not represented. Deaggregations of the PSH model for Christchurch at return periods of 500 years and above show that M7-7.5 fault and background source-derived earthquakes at distances less than 40 km are important contributors to the hazard. Therefore, earthquakes similar to the Darfield event feature prominently in the PSH model, even though the Greendale Fault was not an explicit model input.
On 4 September 2010, a magnitude Mw 7.1 earthquake struck the Canterbury region on the South Island of New Zealand. The epicentre of the earthquake was located in the Darfield area about 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. Extensive damage occurred to unreinforced masonry buildings throughout the region during the mainshock and subsequent large aftershocks. Particularly extensive damage was inflicted to lifelines and residential houses due to widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading in areas close to major streams, rivers and wetlands throughout Christchurch and Kaiapoi. Despite the severe damage to infrastructure and residential houses, fortunately, no deaths occurred and only two injuries were reported in this earthquake. From an engineering viewpoint, one may argue that the most significant aspects of the 2010 Darfield Earthquake were geotechnical in nature, with liquefaction and lateral spreading being the principal culprits for the inflicted damage. Following the earthquake, a geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted over a period of six days (10–15 September 2010) by a team of geotechnical/earthquake engineers and geologists from New Zealand and USA (GEER team: Geo-engineering Extreme Event Reconnaissance). JGS (Japanese Geotechnical Society) members from Japan also participated in the reconnaissance team from 13 to 15 September 2010. The NZ, GEER and JGS members worked as one team and shared resources, information and logistics in order to conduct thorough and most efficient reconnaissance covering a large area over a very limited time period. This report summarises the key evidence and findings from the reconnaissance.
Questions to Ministers 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard's assessment that the economic recovery is proving to be "slow and fragile"? 2. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for Economic Development: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister of Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about the stakeholder engagement carried out by the Housing Shareholders' Advisory Group? 5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he support my recommendation to set up an advocacy support service to provide earthquake-affected residents with help in dealing with their private insurers to prevent them being shunted between these insurers and the Earthquake Commission? 6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Conservation: What steps, if any, is she taking to protect the unique, rare and threatened Nevis "Gollum galaxiid", a native fish species found only in the Nevis River in Central Otago? 7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does removing $55 million from industry training help the growth of the productive economy? 8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making in improving New Zealand's freshwater management? 9. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements about subsidies and fee controls in early childhood education? 10. Hon RODNEY HIDE to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give, or deny, a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision, as described in Bell Gully's Newsletter Update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 11. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: Is she satisfied with the process to shortlist Whānau Ora providers? 12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is the Government funding the Energy Spot advertising campaign?
Questions to Ministers 1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Justice: Is it his view that the justice system should provide rehabilitation and give people the chance to change? 2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with progress on the recovery from the Canterbury earthquake so far? 3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements have been made regarding digital switchover? 4. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: What policy initiatives has she developed for early childhood education? 5. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the update on the Canterbury Civil Defence states of emergency? 6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Did the Treasury evaluate the net effect on South Canterbury Finance's position of the February 2010 acquisition of Helicopters (NZ) Ltd and Scales Corporation shares, including the effect of the transaction on the recoverability or impairment of South Canterbury Finance's $75 million loan to its parent company, Southbury Group Ltd? 7. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will Cantabrians whose chimneys have been significantly damaged by the recent earthquake be covered by the Earthquake Commission to replace their old log burners or open fires with new efficient heaters? 8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Education: What support will be available in 2011 to schools that have very poor numeracy national standards results in 2010? 9. SANDRA GOUDIE to the Minister of Corrections: What support is the Corrections Department offering to Canterbury community groups and individuals to help with earthquake recovery? 10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 14 September 2010 that the 90-day trial provisions "do not take away rights"? 11. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to assist people whose homes are not habitable following the Canterbury earthquake? 12. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Local Government: When he said in the House yesterday that the Auckland Transition Agency "ran a tender to deliver an enterprise resource planning system" was he referring to merely the $14.3 million contract for the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning system or was he referring to the full contract of $53.8 million to deliver the Enterprise Resource Planning system? Questions to Members 1. DARIEN FENTON to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)?
Questions to Ministers 1. CRAIG FOSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy moving away from government spending, housing speculation and borrowing, and towards savings and exporting? 2. Hon PETE HODGSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to question No 11 yesterday that Sammy Wong did not accompany Pansy Wong on any ministerial trips to China? 3. HONE HARAWIRA to the Associate Minister of Health: What is the rationale behind the move to prohibit the display of tobacco products for sale in retail outlets? 4. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any feedback or information in support of lowering the adult blood alcohol concentration to 0.05 that has given him any doubt or cause for reflection this year about his decision to retain the level at 0.08? 5. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcement has he made about the direction of social housing in New Zealand? 6. BRENDON BURNS to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is the Government's response package, announced last week to assist Canterbury businesses affected by the 4 September earthquake, universally supported by the Government and its supporters? 7. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Alternative Welfare Working Group that welfare reform should be focused on "the relentless pursuit of well-being"? 8. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will the mining of lignite form part of his New Zealand Energy Strategy? 9. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Education: What were the results of the Programme for International Assessment (PISA), which looked at New Zealand students' achievement in reading, maths and scientific literacy? 10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Transport: How many emails has he received on the decision of the New Zealand Transport Agency to start charging CarJam and similar web-based information services for accessing the Agency's stored basic motor vehicle information? 11. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent steps has the Government taken to control bovine TB? 12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Education: Which Minister is to be responsible for the enforcement of the Education Act 1989 in relation to limited attendance early childhood centres following the passing of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)? Questions to Members 1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Student Loan Scheme Bill? 2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: How many submitters on the Student Loan Scheme Bill have requested to be heard in person? 3. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill? 4. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: How many submitters on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill have requested to be heard in person? 5. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill? 6. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: How many submitters on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill have requested to be heard in person? 7. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill? 8. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee: How many submitters on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill have requested to be heard in person? 9. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA to the Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 10. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA to the Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee: How many submitters on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill have requested to be heard in person? 11. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Has the Finance and Expenditure Committee conducted the 2009/10 financial review of the Office of the Retirement Commissioner? 12. DARIEN FENTON to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill? 13. DARIEN FENTON to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: How many submitters on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill have requested to be heard in person? 14. DARIEN FENTON to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 15. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill? 16. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill have requested to be heard in person? 17. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Legal Services Bill? 18. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the Legal Services Bill have requested to be heard in person? 19. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill? 20. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill have requested to be heard in person? 21. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Food Bill? 22. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee: How many submitters on the Food Bill have requested to be heard in person? 23. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill? 24. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee: How many submitters on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill have requested to be heard in person?