Search

found 8 results

Images for 2010s; more images...

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

Depicts Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker striking a pose under a spotlight while standing astride broken masonry. He is being interviewed by media. On the right of frame, Progressive Party leader and MP Jim Anderton is under dark clouds and caught under the Beehive. Refers to the 2010 Christchurch mayoral elections in which Parker won over Anderton. Prior to the 2010 Canterbury earthquake, Anderton was ahead in the polls. The quake devastation was said to have given Parker a bigger profile than Anderton and been a factor in his win (TV3 9 October 2010). Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

20130125_1749_1D3-400 Road Closed 1 The Lyttelton side of Evans Pass is closed (since the earthquake 23 months ago - 22/02/11). Prior to the road tunnel (through the Port Hills) opening in the early 1960s this was the main access road to the port of Lyttelton. #3072

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

Commentary from the cartoonist 'The Earthquake Commission's leak of 83,000 files is like a storyline from Alfred Hitchcock: : a loon attempts to shock a nation that has already been rendered braindead from previous shocks.Note: EQC is ued here as an 'echo' of the term ECT [electro convulsive therapy...ie shock treatment].' In March 2013, there was a massive leak of of some 83,000 EQC files relating to individual claims relating to the Christchurch earthquakes. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

A signpost pointing 'West' and 'East'. The sign pointing West is intact; that indicating East is broken and barely hanging on to the post. Refers to the condition of Christchurch City after the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011; the western wealthier suburbs were less damaged than the poorer Eastern suburbs. Also, progress on repair and rehabilitation of eastern housing had been slow. The redesign of the city centre seemed to be a western suburb priority which ignored the poverty and misery of living conditions on the east. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Research papers, Victoria University of Wellington

The Mѡ=7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake struck on 4 September 2010, approximately 45 km west of Christchurch, New Zealand. It revealed a previously unknown fault (the Greendale fault) and caused billions of dollars of damage due to high peak ground velocities and extensive liquefaction. It also triggered the Mw=6.3 Christchurch earthquake on 22 February 2011, which caused further damage and the loss of 185 lives. The objective of this research was to determine the relationship between stress and seismic properties in a seismically active region using manually-picked P and S wave arrival times from the aftershock sequence between 8 September 2010-13 January 2011 to estimate shear-wave splitting (SWS) parameters, VP =VS-ratios, anisotropy (delay-time tomography), focal mechanisms, and tectonic stress on the Canterbury plains. The maximum horizontal stress direction was highly consistent in the plains, with an average value of SHmax=116 18 . However, the estimates showed variation in SHmax near the fault, with one estimate rotating by as much as 30° counter-clockwise. This suggests heterogeneity of stress at the fault, though the cause remains unclear. Orientations of the principal stresses predominantly indicate a strike-slip regime, but there are possible thrust regimes to the west and north/east of the fault. The SWS fast directions (ø) on the plains show alignment with SHmax at the majority of stations, indicating stress controlled anisotropy. However, structural effects appear more dominant in the neighbouring regions of the Southern Alps and Banks Peninsula.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In the period between September 2010 and December 2011, Christchurch was shaken by a series of strong earthquakes including the MW7.1 4 September 2010, Mw 6.2 22 February 2011, MW6.2 13 June 2011 and MW6.0 23 December 2011 earthquakes. These earthquakes produced very strong ground motions throughout the city and surrounding areas that resulted in soil liquefaction and lateral spreading causing substantial damage to buildings, infrastructure and the community. The stopbank network along the Kaiapoi and Avon River suffered extensive damage with repairs projected to take several years to complete. This presented an opportunity to undertake a case-study on a regional scale of the effects of liquefaction on a stopbank system. Ultimately, this information can be used to determine simple performance-based concepts that can be applied in practice to improve the resilience of river protection works. The research presented in this thesis draws from data collected following the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011 earthquakes. The stopbank damage is categorised into seven key deformation modes that were interpreted from aerial photographs, consultant reports, damage photographs and site visits. Each deformation mode provides an assessment of the observed mechanism of failure behind liquefaction-induced stopbank damage and the factors that influence a particular style of deformation. The deformation modes have been used to create a severity classification for the whole stopbank system, being ‘no or low damage’ and ‘major or severe damage’, in order to discriminate the indicators and factors that contribute to ‘major to severe damage’ from the factors that contribute to all levels of damage a number of calculated, land damage, stopbank damage and geomorphological parameters were analysed and compared at 178 locations along the Kaiapoi and Avon River stopbank systems. A critical liquefiable layer was present at every location with relatively consistent geotechnical parameters (cone resistance (qc), soil behaviour type (Ic) and Factor of Safety (FoS)) across the study site. In 95% of the cases the critical layer occurred within two times the Height of the Free Face (HFF,). A statistical analysis of the geotechnical factors relating to the critical layer was undertaken in order to find correlations between specific deformation modes and geotechnical factors. It was found that each individual deformation mode involves a complex interplay of factors that are difficult to represent through correlative analysis. There was, however, sufficient data to derive the key factors that have affected the severity of deformation. It was concluded that stopbank damage is directly related to the presence of liquefaction in the ground materials beneath the stopbanks, but is not critical in determining the type or severity of damage, instead it is merely the triggering mechanism. Once liquefaction is triggered it is the gravity-induced deformation that causes the damage rather than the shaking duration. Lateral spreading and specifically the depositional setting was found to be the key aspect in determining the severity and type of deformation along the stopbank system. The presence or absence of abandoned or old river channels and point bar deposits was found to significantly influence the severity and type of deformation. A review of digital elevation models and old maps along the Kaiapoi River found that all of the ‘major to severe’ damage observed occurred within or directly adjacent to an abandoned river channel. Whilst a review of the geomorphology along the Avon River showed that every location within a point bar deposit suffered some form of damage, due to the depositional environment creating a deposit highly susceptible to liquefaction.